Mediaboss Marketing

Never meet your enemies you might like them, and that ruins stuff. I had dinner with the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, about a year ago. During his time in office, Rowan came out with what I considered to be some of the most cringing, effete, left-liberal, self-abnegating rot I have ever heard. But then, at this dinner, I met the most kindly, charming, humble and witty human being. If a man could be said to actually radiate goodness, that was Rowan. I left the dinner utterly dismayed. Never meet your enemies.

So it is with Matthew Parris. I bump into Matthew every so often and am always reminded what a delightful chap he is: drily humorous, ineffably good-natured and a pleasure to talk to. Luckily, most of his fellow travellers are not similarly equipped his friend David Aaaaaaronovitch, for example, is in person a smug dirigible inflated by gusts of self-delusion and self-righteousness. But theres something even worse with Parris he writes beautifully, too. It is an awful thing to see your opponents case put forward with elegance and erudition. Luckily again, most of his fellow travellers are not similarly equipped. Read a sentence by Polly Toynbee and fairly quickly a thin wisp of smoke will exit your temples, wraith-like that is the will to live escaping your cranium. And yet it is still the case that I disagree with almost everything Matthew writes, on almost every issue. Sometimes, when I finish reading one of his articles, I am so irked at its sumptuous, chiming wrongness that, irrationally, I take a visceral dislike to his bloody llamas as well as his viewpoint. I dont think I hope your llamas all die or anything like that. I just think if one hove into view, spitting like a transgressed Remainer, I might kick it, spitefully, on the fetlocks.

Last week Parris regurgitated, entertainingly, a familiar bellyful of bile in the direction of those of us, the more than 17million of us, who voted in favour of leaving the European Union. And won the referendum by more than a million votes, remember, Matthew. It was predicated on a comment made by the aforementioned friend Aaaaaaronovitch, who told him, with some glee, that Brexit was dying. A thinnish source, Matthew. This is a man who insisted that the Iraq War was a noble enterprise, that Saddam definitely had weapons of mass destruction and that the Tories would win the last general election with a landslide. I have tried to remember anything Davids ever been right about, but Ill have to get back to you on that. But if Brexit really is dying, then isnt that a worry for anyone who believes in democracy?

No, not at all. Not if you subscribe to the view that the Brexiteers are all thick as mince, pig-ignorant or deranged, and not deserving of the vote, as Matthew still does. These morons cleave to a spiritual vision of what it would mean for the UK to be liberated from the European Union, he asserts, and are unbothered by the promise made exclusively by Remainers and so far decisively unproven, if something can be decisively unproven that we will be much worse off as a consequence. I dont know any Leave voters who fit this convenient stereotype; maybe I should get out more. Almost all of the Leave voters I know voted thus on the issue of sovereignty and the suspicion that we might do OK in a world beyond Jean-Claude Juncker. Nobody I know voted Leave because of that promise to repatriate an enormous sum to the NHS. It was a dismal campaign on both sides, hyperbolic figures bandied about, grave threats sprayed over the populace. I, as a fairly reluctant Leaver, was almost almost swayed by Project Fear. No investment, high unemployment, British industry wrecked, house prices collapsing. None of that has happened; quite the reverse. Investment is up, employment is higher than it has ever been, inflation has just come down. Oh, there are still plenty of people, like Matthew, saying this economic shit will soon hit the fan. Always soon. Much as George Osborne said it would hit by October last year. I prefer to put my trust in what is happening, rather than what some embittered people tell me will happen, one day, not far down the road, mark my words.

And now, according to Parris, we Leavers are corralled into supporting a soft Brexit because it may be the only one left available to us. Ah, yes here he has a point. But not because the will for Brexit is weakening, but because his own reliably stupid party made a decision, based upon hubris and arrogance, to hold an election that nobody wanted. And an election in which the Brexit dog simply did not bark, despite the electorate being told that it was a Brexit election. Far from it. In the end it was a return to two-party politics: both the Conservatives and Labour, of course, supported the will of the people and were pledged to honour Brexit. The pro-Remain parties the SNP and the Liberal Democrats performed abysmally.

If we are being shepherded towards an ineffectual and unsatisfactory soft Brexit, it is not because the realities of the Brexit debate have changed; they palpably have not. It is because Matthews party is riven with loathing and dispute and clinging on to power by its fingertips, desperate to clutch at any straw that wafts its way.

There is not the slightest evidence that the mood of the country has changed regarding our leaving the EU. Only that internecine squabbling and the lack of a majority in parliament has meant that the clear mandate of last summer might be assuaged, watered down, ameliorated by a political opportunism that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue itself. I think even llamas would be able to grasp that point.

See original here:
If Brexit is dying, what about democracy? - Spectator.co.uk

Western democratic values are under attack in many places in Russia, China, Turkey and even in Europe. So when the authoritarian-leaning government in Poland retreated from a planned assault on the judiciary, there was cause for celebration. The Post reported:

The president of Poland wielded his veto power on Monday to pull the nation back from further undermining the independence of its judiciary, rejecting two measures that European officials and tens of thousands of protesters have condemned as a danger to democracy and the rule of law.

The decision of the president,Andrzej Duda, opened an unexpected new chapter in adebatethat has riven Poland, once a model of post-communist democracy in Eastern Europe.

His morning announcement came as a surprise, and a setback, for the ruling right-wing Law and Justice party, which came to power in 2015.

President Trump hadnt helped the cause of democracy, when in a speech in Warsaw early in the month he lavished praise on the ethno-nationalist government and sought to cast Western values in religious, nativist terms, not as a reflection of liberal democracy. Whereas past presidents have focused on democracy in speeches delivered in the former Communist country, Trump is not one to extol the rule of law, minority rights or civil liberties. And thatsuited the Law and Justice Party just fine:

When George W. Bush visited Poland for his first presidential visit, in 2001, he referred to democracy 13 times. When Barack Obama spoke in Warsaw in 2014, he mentioned democracy nine times. For Mr Trump, once sufficed.

[The Law and Justice Partys] undermining of democratic institutions to entrench its own power. The party has stuffed the civil service and the diplomatic corps with loyalists and has weakened the independence of the judiciary. It has transformed the national broadcaster into a mouthpiece of the state. Independent journalists face new restrictions. The European Commission has warned the government that its reforms pose a systemic risk to the rule of law.

Yet Mr Trump, who seems to see . . . nostalgic nationalists as kindred spirits, has offered the government his unrestricted support.

The Polish government surely got the message that internal crackdowns would not affect its relations with the United States. As the assault on Polands independent courts gained momentum, the State Department tried a mild course correction.

Last week, the department put out a statement, which read in part, The Polish government has continued to pursue legislation that appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland. We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Polands constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers. State Department officials tried to walk a very fine line: Poland is a close ally of the United States, and a strong and healthy democracy in Poland is vital to relations between our two countries.

In sum, Trumps rhetoric encourages ethno-nationalism, leaving the State Department to meekly offer reminders that we care about democracy as well. In this case, the heavy lifting was left to the European Union, which issued strong admonitions to the Polish government (even threatening to move to take away Polands voting power in the E.U.).

Michael Abramowitz of Freedom House told me, Parliaments attacks on independent institutions, whether it was the judiciary or the media, were rooted in the government partys rejection of liberal democracy. He continued, A substantial, vocal part of the population rejected the idea that democratic institutions were tools to be used by whoever was able to take control. He added: The E.U. recognized and understood that too, and spoke out. The presidents decision stopped populist authoritarianism from taking hold.

Other human rights advocates agree that it was a combination of internal demonstrations and external pressure that pushed Polish President Andrzej Duda to act. I think the popular protests made the difference, along with growing strains with the E.U. and Brussels, former State Department official and human rights expert David Kramer said. But I think it was Poles out in the streets that really got Dudas attention.

The battle is not over, however. While Duda vetoed two bills, he signed another that allows the party to hire and fire lower-level judges. The E.U. is having none of it:

An EU official said the bloc would push ahead with legal action against Poland if the reforms led to politicians dismissing judges.

If mass firing of judges starts, then a red line is crossed where all dialogue will need to be declared as failed,said the official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, ahead of a European Commission meeting on Wednesday. For us the ultimate aim is to stop the firing of judges.

So far no word from the Trump administration. The president, you see, doesnt recognize that the impartial administration of justice is essential to free peoples. His contempt for institutions that curtail his power is a defining feature of this presidency. He insults the judiciary at home (so-called judge) and threatens his own Justice Departments attorney general and special counsel. If he wont stick up for the rule of law at home, he sure isnt going to defend it elsewhere.

For now, Trump stands with authoritarians; it will be up to the E.U. and the Polish people to stick up for the rule of law. What a sad decline in the influence and prestige of the United States.

See the rest here:
Trump is AWOL in the fight for democracy in Europe - Washington Post

The revelation of the June 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russian nationals has spurred more than a few former intelligence officials to label it an apparent Russian intelligence operation masquerading as an opposition research meeting.

To be sure, however, Russias covert operations during the 2016 cycle didnt start or end there. Political operatives of both parties fell for Russian spearfishing attempts, and the intelligence community concluded with high confidence that the Kremlin was responsible for a covert influence campaign that saw the release of pilfered emails.

But Moscow had another target in its multi-pronged campaign to influence the vote: American reporters, who, in some cases, were equally credulous andin extremisenablers of the Russian assault on our democracy. Just as the Trump administration must be unequivocal in holding Moscow accountable, so, too, do some corners of the Fourth Estate need to soul search in advance of what surely will be subsequent foreign intelligence operations targeting our democracy.

As a former CIA officer and the National Security Council spokesperson during the election, I took particular notice as the media provided a megaphone to a Russian intelligence operation. A single date, Oct. 7, 2016, put much of this on full display. It was that afternoon that the Obama administration formally attributed the hack-and-release effort to the highest levels of the Russian government. Moscows culpability had been speculated on for months following a private security companys assessment to that effect in June, but the statement from the director of National Intelligence and the secretary of Homeland Security that day was the first official confirmation.

Those of us in the White House expected that determination to receive significant media attention. And it did for about 30 minutes. Shortly following the issuance of the statement, The Washington Post had its own scoop in the form of the Access Hollywood tape. Interest in the attribution came to a halt. A colleague later relayed that a reporterwho was peppering him with questions about the statementstopped mid-sentence, muttering something to the effect of: Oh my God, Ill have to call you back. He never did.

ButOct. 7had more surprises in store. That evening, WikiLeakswhich the intelligence community just a few hours earlier had publicly characterized as an instrument of Moscows operationbegan trickling out the hacked emails of John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman. Just as soon as interest in the Access Hollywood tape waned somewhat, media interest in the cache waxed. But, notably, reporters covered the leaked correspondence for its substance, not its origins. Intrigue in perceived campaign infighting, inside baseball decision-making, and even Podestas risotto recipe took hold, as the media largely glossed over the fact that they were peddling emails pilfered by an American adversary. This was lamentable, but given where we are these days, it was perhaps understandable.

But there was another element to Moscows enlistment of the American mediaand one that was far less excusable. Starting in mid-2016, Russian intelligence fronts, namely a website known as DCLeaks and an online persona calling himself Guccifer2.0, began peddling exclusive scoops to hand-picked reporters, both niche and mainstream. These exclusivespointing reporters to a particularly juicy email, for examplebegan after it had been widely reported that the Kremlin was behind the hacks and, most disturbingly, continued even after the administration labeled Guccifer and DCLeaks elements of the Russian operation. To be fair, some reporters took a principled stand, refusing to publish spoon-fed scoops. The Associated Press, for instance, declined to publish the exclusive and, instead, subsequently published a news story on its teams interactions with the hackers. Nevertheless, others felt no such compunction, occasionally publishing gossipy content without noting the provenance.

Reporters could be forgiven for taking this approach early in the summer before Moscows meddling was widely understood. But that excuse eroded over time and should have been eviscerated with the administrations October attribution statement. Nevertheless, they persisted even after the Russiansapparently having a little fun with their eroded coverbegan disseminating scoops through the Fancy Bear Hack Team, a reference to a codename applied to Russias military intelligence service. And Moscow surely had even more fun upon realizing that some reporters continued to be willing mouthpieces.

To be clear, I dont mean to partake in todays baseless media bashing, and this criticism of some corners of the Fourth Estate comes from a recognition of the critical role the media canand mustplay in national politics. Indeed, the press is arguably the only functional check in our democracy today, holding to account those who see themselves as unaccountable. In light of the medias indispensable role, however, those in the industry must never again advance our adversaries assault on our most sacred democratic exercise.

There are initial reasons to be optimistic that the lessons of 2016 are taking hold. Just as soon as the election concluded last November, reporters seemed to become more interested in Moscows meddlingso much so that the topic dominated President Obamas end-of-year news conference that December. Perhaps with Clinton relegated to the woods of Chappaqua, the origins, rather than substance, of Podestas emails came into focus.

Whats more, the Kremlins efforts were foiled when Moscow attempted to run the same play in the French elections. While Frances media blackout laws proved beneficial, the American experience may have served as a cautionary tale, leaving journalists more attuned to what was unfolding. Just this month, moreover, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow did her colleagues a service by reporting on what may well have been a Russian forgery purporting to be a U.S. intelligence report. Rather than rush to publish a scoop, Maddow and her teams deliberate approach helped inoculate against future such attempts. (Full disclosure: Im an NBC analyst and contributor).

Efforts such as these are so important because the next assault on our democracy is not a question of if; its a matter of time. And when it arrives upon our shores, Americans must be united in recognizing it for what it is and working togethergovernment, private citizens, and, yes, the mediato stop it in its tracks.

More here:
Memo to the Media: Don't Abet the Next Assault on Our Democracy - Daily Beast

Even when Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, liberalism remains the default ideology of the federal government.

A Republican Senate could not muster even 50 votes for the full repeal of Obamacare's taxes and spending. Six Republican senators who had voted for repeal in 2015, when the party was merely pretending it was possible, flipped on Wednesday rather than deliver.

Five of the six represent states President Trump won in November. The sixth hails from a state Trump lost by less than 3 points.

An argument can be made that repealing these parts of Obamacare while leaving its regulatory structure largely in place is a bad idea. But we are discussing a law that Republicans spent seven years campaigning against. Every GOP senator except one either voted for repeal in the past or campaigned on it in a recent election cycle. Their leader was said to have a "secret plan" to repeal Obamacare "root and branch."

There was ample time for a contingency plan or even a better approach to replacing the healthcare law.

No amount of time ever seems to be enough. Not 1 inch of ground gained by liberalism is ever ceded without a fight. Republicans can campaign against those gains. They can now tweet about them. But when it comes to action, Republicans can seldom do more than nibble around the edges. The slightest retrenchment of a healthcare law that did not even exist a decade ago is portrayed as a mass casualty event.

Perhaps the most enduring conservative domestic policy gain is keeping marginal tax rates below 40 percent for the past 30 years. (Oops!)

After Mitt Romney, Republicans were supposed to have learned how to do healthcare policy. After the Tea Party, they were supposed to have become more serious about contesting big-government liberalism. After Trump, they were supposed to have learned how to fight Democrats and the media.

The score as of Thursday morning: 0 for 3.

Little of this is surprising. Republicans had 23 years since the failure of Bill and Hillary Clinton's healthcare power grab to come up with their own alternative. Romneycare, the precursor to Obamacare, and the deficit-financed Medicare Part D was about the best they could do.

Republicans have long paid lip service to opposing big government when the Democrats are in charge, only to keep the trillions flowing once they take charge.

Yet the Tea Party was the triumph of hope over experience. Substantially a protest against former President Barack Obama, it was also believed that it could lead to a revival of constitutional conservatism.

For the first time since the ascendance of New Deal liberalism, constitutionally limited government Washington confined to its enumerated powers was a mainstream part of the political discourse.

Just not mainstream enough, as it turned out.

That's not entirely the Republicans' fault. In practice, the American people want a much bigger federal government than the Constitution currently authorizes.

Not long ago, a conservative wag quipped that if a president actually tried to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power, he or she would be impeached.

But even if Republicans find a way to give Obamacare a haircut, part of a new "skinny" welfare state, it will more closely resemble past free-market corrections of liberalism's excesses than a serious constitutional conservative challenge to liberalism.

That doesn't bode well for the Tea Party project of rolling back major liberal initiatives. The point of voting Republican will remain to make the inexorable growth of the welfare state as slow and painful as possible, a political posture that may be attractive to neither libertarian-leaning conservatives nor the populists drawn to Trump in the last presidential election.

The Tea Party came to repeal and replace Obamacare. They ended up getting repealed and replaced themselves.

See more here:
Republicans repeal and replace the Tea Party - Washington Examiner - Washington Examiner

Good news from Houston last week: The Tea Party chapter there received its tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. Never mind that it applied for that status in 2014 thank you Lois Lerner and the rest of the crowd in the IRS which stifled the Tea Partys free speech. But I am sure the tax problems associated with the Tea Party have been ironed out and the newest political activist group, the Indivisibles, will find the road much smoother now.

On July 15, the local Indivisibles group held a rally in Smithville, which by all accounts was very successful. There was good attendance, notable Democrat speakers and lots of red meat thrown around. You know, things like gun control, health care, and making the rich pay for it. They were pumped and looking forward to taking on Republicans in future Texas elections.

But there are several important differences between the previous success of the Tea Party and what the Indivisibles are now doing.

The Tea Party bucked the establishment. It did not just need to help beat Democrats, it also had to fight establishment Republicans, many of whom were challenged during Primary elections by Tea Party-supported candidates. Republican establishment people absolutely hate conservatives pushing the party to the right and away from the soft, slushy left-center where living is easy.

Another problem for the Tea Party is the negative press that President Donald Trump is receiving. With some news outlets aggressive negative coverage toward the president, there just isnt any room for Tea Party voices to be heard. At the same time the press coverage of anarchist-like riots has not been condemnation like it should be. Really, burning cars and destroying shops are supposed to be legitimate statements? Do you ever wonder why that sort of civil disorder seldom happens in Second Amendment-supporting states like Texas? Draw a logical conclusion.

Finally, the third obstacle is what we are now calling the Deep State. The bureaucrats in federal government are indeed deeply entrenched and are becoming more brazen in their own fight to maintain control. The most obvious manifestation of this are the almost-daily leaks of sometimes classified information to the press. The information is always meant to put the Trump administration in a bad light. Remember the IRS tax-exempt issue in the first paragraph? Its that, too.

We do not see the Tea Party receiving establishment money. Certainly, there are big name conservative donors who have contributed to the Tea Party, but the funding pales in comparison to the shadow groups helping the Indivisibles run their machine. George Soros, noted financier and convicted felon is known to do his part to cause left-wing mischief.

Locally, look at the difference in party activities. The Democrats are making things happen while the Republican Party Executive Committee is making endless changes to its bylaws and wasting precious time. There will be much more on that in future columns.

The push is to make Texas blue within three election cycles at a minimum. Demographically, the inertia is with the Democrats, but it is not a sure thing. If Republicans dont get their act together and see the big picture, things will not go well for them, even here in Bastrop County. Time to wake up.

Continue reading here:
Commentary: The betrayal of the Tea Party and rise of the Indivisibles - Austin American-Statesman