Mediaboss Marketing

Add democratic to socialism and presto a tidy rallying cry emerges for Sen. Bernard Sanders, now leading the Democratic field in the presidential race. In his world, socialism is transformed into a family-style activity with free stuff for all and good feelings all around. The candidate, in fact, has called his democratic socialism a vibrant democracy in several interviews.

You are the reason why we stand an excellent chance to win. Thank you for everything. Let us go forward together, Mr. Sanders advises fans in a new campaign message for Our Revolution, his campaign entity which bears the motto organize to win.

This is quite a leap from the socialism of yore. The transformation of this belief system is evident elsewhere. A recent Axios analysis of public opinion declared that the Soviet stigma associated with socialism has disappeared. Meanwhile, a cute new socialism chic is popular among the young and restless of Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs according to New York Magazine complete with a socialist dating service. This cultural metamorphosis is underway despite a high-profile denial of socialism from one nation familiar with this form of government.

I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told a surprised audience at Harvard University and that was five years ago.

Now comes a new question: Is there a difference between socialism and democratic socialism? A new Yahoo/YouGov poll finds that 38% of registered U.S. voters say the two terms are the same. The survey found that 62% of Republicans, 41% of independents and 16% of Democrats agree.

But wait. Another 38% said the two terms are different; 18% of Republicans, 34% of independents and 58% of Democrats agree. About a quarter 24% were not sure about the matter; 20% of Republicans, 25% of independents and 26% of Democrats agree.

The greatest divide, however, is found among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, and those who chose Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The poll revealed that 69% of Trump voters said socialism and democratic socialism were the same, compared to 13% of Clinton voters. Meanwhile, 15% of the Trump fans said the terms were different, compared to 60% of Clinton voters, with the rest undecided.

SO HOW IS BERNIE DOING?

Sen. Bernie Sanders, on the strength of his performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, has surged nationally and now holds a sizable lead over all of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, states a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday.

If he were to become the nominee, about half of all Americans say it makes no difference in their vote that Sanders is a socialist, including about 7 in 10 Democrats. But nearly 4 in 10 adults say that fact makes them more likely to oppose him, including 37% of independents and 79% of Republicans. Just under 1 in 10 adults say it makes them more likely to support him, the analysis noted.

In terms of electability, Democrats believe Bernie is their man.

In a measure of how Democrats see Sanders as a candidate against President Trump, 72% say they believe he would defeat the president. Among Democrats, 69% think Michael Bloomberg would win against Trump, and 68% say that of Joe Biden, the research said.

A PAUL RYAN SIGHTING

Former House Speaker Paul D. Ryan dishes on his time in Congress and the current state of American politics at the University of Virginia on Friday certainly of interest to news organizations who hope hell weigh in on President Trump in one form or another.

University of Virginia Center for Politics director Larry J. Sabato will interview Mr. Ryan, who was first elected to the House in 1998. He became the running mate to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during his quest for the White House in 2012, which seems like an incredibly long time ago. Mr. Ryan became speaker of the House in 2015 and retired four years later. He then founded the nonprofit American Idea Foundation and currently serves on the board of directors of Fox Corp., parent company for Fox News. But wait, theres more.

Ryan clashed with President Trump recently after publication of the book American Carnage, by Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for Politico. Im telling you, he didnt know anything about government, Ryan said in the book. Trump lashed out in a series of tweets, calling Ryan the failed V.P. candidate and a lame duck failure, Politico reported six months ago.

Of note: Fridays forum is part of Democracy in Perilous Times: Unprecedented Challenges and Controversies, an ongoing program on the campus.

A GENUINE BLITZ

A federal agency may set the record for an astonishing public outreach. The U.S. Census Bureau has expanded its already massive multimedia advertising campaign for the upcoming census count and now says the push is designed to reach over 99% of the nations households.

Almost every person living in the United States will be reached an average of 40 times during the lifetime of the campaign, which will take place on TV, radio, newspapers, online and at outdoor locations such as billboards and bus stops, the agency notes.

The messages will run in English and a dozen other languages including Arabic, Haitian Creole and Russian all part of a $500 million public education campaign devised to assure people that the census is easy, safe and important.

POLL DU JOUR

51% of U.S. voters have a favorable view of capitalism; 72% of Republicans, 54% of independents and 32% of Democrats agree; 43% of women and 61% of men also agree.

21% of voters overall have an unfavorable view of capitalism; 12% of Republicans, 22% of independents and 30% of Democrats agree; 21% of women and 22% of men also agree.

19% of voters overall have a neutralview of capitalism; 10% of Republicans, 17% of independents and 28% of Democrats agree; 23% of women and 14% of men also agree.

8% overall are unsure on the issue; 6% of Republicans, 7% of independents and 10% of Democrats agree; 11% of women and 4% of men also agree.

Source: A Yahoo News/YouGov survey of 1,530 registered U.S. voters conducted Feb. 12-13.

Helpful information to [emailprotected]

Visit link:
Inside the Beltway: Voters mystified by the meaning of "Democratic socialism" - Washington Times

Last weeks Democratic debate was more of a brawl than a discourse. Seeing anti-billionaire candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pitted against billionaire Michael Bloomberg made me consider the wealth disparity in America. The question that came out of the debate was: how ready is America ready for socialism?

I would not call either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren socialists, even if conservative Republicans are eager to paint them with that brush.

Ms Warren is more a pro-market leftist than a socialist. Born into poverty, she has fought hard all her life to reach the position she is in now. She calls herself a capitalist to the bones.

Brooklyn-born Mr Sanders on the other hand is a self-declared socialist who in 1985 travelled to Nicaragua to celebrate the Soviet-backed Sandinista government and four years later, to communist Cuba to laud the countrys free healthcare, education and housing.

He has recently toned down his rhetoric. He no longer idolises communist regimes but looks to progressive countries like Denmark and Sweden as examples of workable socialism in particular their health and education policies. Both he and Ms Warren intend to fix Americas broken education system.

I have lived in socialist countries (France and the UK) most of my adult life. I have used state healthcare, given birth in a public hospital and my son went to a sous-contrat school in Paris that was subsidised by the French government.

A 1983 graduate recently told me, In my day, peoples parents were teachers or journalists or maybe lawyers the average middle class. Now most parents are bankers

While there are problems with the French system including often enforcing memorisation rather than creative thinking it largely works. Most people in France use the state system rather than private schools, and universities are accessible to most if you get the grades.

No massive economic hurdles or crippling student loans prevent youngsters from attending or staying in tertiary education.

In comparison, Mr Sanders and Ms Warren have forced me to think about how radically unfair the US educational system is. In New York City, where I now live, private schools offering elite education cost about $50,000 (Dh183,660) a year. Students are rigorously prepared to enter the elite Ivy League universities which then cost around $80,000. Nowhere is economic injustice more apparent than within the educational model.

To be fair, the wealthier the university the more financial aid it is able to give. Others can attend public universities which have fewer resources. Ms Warren got financial aid and worked her way through law school. Mr Sanders went to the public Brooklyn College before transferring to the University of Chicago.

The New York City private school system has exploded since the financial boom of the 1980s, with competitive parents plotting their childs high school from their day of birth. This is a new phenomenon. Prior to the money boom most people just went to school.

One 1983 graduate of Dalton, one of the best elite schools in New York, recently told me that it was very different three decades ago: In my day, peoples parents were teachers or journalists or maybe lawyers the average middle class. Now most parents are bankers.

It is frustrating to think that a level of superior education is only available to elite students either because they have money or are groomed to attend such schools. They are selected on account of their potential to be leaders.

In recent years, more students that fill the diversity quota are admitted. But even so, if you do not have a family that sets you on the Ivy track early on, you do not stand much of a chance. If your family struggled to pay rent, it is unlikely they are thinking of enrolling you in extra-curricular activities or pricey university preparation classes. It is precisely these students, who do not stand much of a chance, that we need to reach most. They are the ones left behind.

Earlier this week, I had a meeting with a dean from a large north-eastern American public university (a state school that offers lower tuition to local students). Her dilemma was how to keep low-income students enrolled for the full four years and help them pay off small debts. Some of them have to drop out because they owe $200 in parking tickets or library fees, she said. Some of them have to support families or work in order to pay for food or housing.

Everyone knows the value of education, whether it is educating girls in Afghanistan or countering violent extremism. But I often wonder guiltily because even though he is on a full scholarship, my son goes to a private school and I teach at Yale University, an Ivy League school how different American society would be if young low-income students were set on leadership paths early on. What if we could reach the kind of students that Elizabeth Warren grew up with in Oklahoma? What if they had the opportunities to take unpaid internships, overseas fellowships or get help securing their first job. It is not a secret that the Ivy League brand is pretty much an assurance that you graduate with a job offer in hand, and probably a high-paying one. Recruiters dont visit the state universities; they want the best and the brightest.

This takes me back to Ms Warren and Mr Sanders. Ms Warren believes that every kid in America should have the same access to a high-quality public education no matter where they live, the colour of their skin or how much money their parents make.

Mr Sanders believes we should re-invest in education, and use the first African-American Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall as an icon his plan largely focuses on combating racism, free universal school meals and rebuilding schools.

So while I dont think of either one of them as true, blue socialists, I do think what they are proposing in terms of education is radical and very much needed. They want to tear down the system and rebuild it. This may spell anarchy but without it, the elite who run America will continue to do so.

Janine di Giovanni is a Senior Fellow at Yale Universitys Jackson Institute for Global Affairs

Updated: February 24, 2020 05:14 PM

Read the original:
Socialism and education in the US: what it will take for everyone to be able to afford school - The National

February 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) With the rise of Bernie Sanders, many Americans are asking themselves a simple question. What is the difference between a democracy and a socialist democracy? For anyone who has gone through the experience of living under a socialist regime, the difference between the two is like the difference between a chair and an electric chair. You don't believe me? Read on.

As I understand it, it is not that young Americans love socialism but that they think that capitalism and liberal democracy are guilty of much of the evil in the world: inequality, poverty, global crisis and even climate change.

As a survivor of socialism, I can tell from my own experience, that socialism is in fact the worst political system ever invented and yet, somehow, it still has the support of much of the mainstream culture. Socialism desires to be loved by everyone and that is why it proposes free healthcare, free education, equality, the elimination of corrupt extreme wealth. It is also why socialism sees the family and religion as rivals for the love of the people.

Socialism, regardless of whether it is imposed by brute force in the 20th century, as it was in Poland from 1945 to 1989, or as it is still practiced in Venezuela, has some striking similarities with the medieval medical practice of phlebotomy or bloodletting. That pseudo-science prescribed a treatment that consisted of extracting the blood from the patient for the supposed treatment of almost all ailments. Both in medieval medicine and under socialism, the loss of blood is supposed to heal everything. Unfortunately, in both cases, the unsuspecting patient usually ends up dead.

Socialism asserts that its ultimate goal is to transform human relations under a spirit of equality and justice, and that it is the natural enemy of exploitation. These are beautiful and far-sighted goals. The problem is that socialism not only does not solve any of the problems it sets out to address, but worsens them with an unrivaled effectiveness.

Socialism has a feature that it can never get rid of: that is, when it ascends to power, it acquires the characteristics of a state religion. The secretary general or head of the party becomes a deity who will never give up his throne. Those who do not profess the official state religion immediately become pariahs in their own country. Whether political opponents can be condemned to mere civic or actual physical death depends only on the stage that has been reached on the unavoidable devolution of socialism. Under socialism you can forget about God & Country, under socialism there is no god but the state and the secretary general is its prophet.

Universal history has proven this same pattern in every corner of the world where socialism has risen to power. And that is why the socialist state needs more and more police force, officials, guards and above all a secret army of volunteers: some of them mere gossipers and others willing snitches eager to betray their own friends or even their brother.

If no one trusts anyone, how can the welfare state be built? Socialism knows very well that it needs to protect the illusion of a benevolent state at all costs and more often than not it will do so with police force, because sooner or later the illusion is always challenged by free-thinking citizens who do not believe the falsehood presented by the reality of a socialist state.

Another thing that characterizes the socialist state is a permanent economic crisis, because a centralized, government-controlled economy always fails. History has taught us that it is the free market, with its immutable law of supply and demand that can adequately regulate the economy. The permanent economic crisis of a socialist democracy does consistently deliver one thing that it promises - that is, an unnatural form of equality, one in which everyone is average, and nobody envies anyone else because everyone lives under the yoke of poverty.

Have you ever wondered why the "socialist utopias" of the world always cause a mass exodus of the best workers and the most enterprising of men? Have you ever heard of a similar mass exodus from capitalist countries? Would anyone wish to live in a country that promises an island of full happiness but always ends up as a prison where there is neither bread nor toilet paper, and instead puts up a fence with barbed wire so you don't even think of choosing another "paradise"?

It is no joke, toilet paper was a thing of dreams for the Poles of my youth, not to mention ham or chocolate! Of course, such poverty requires free and frequent access to the doctor and the dentist. But how is this to be done? The doctors in socialist utopias inevitably flee to the capitalist countries where their work is compensated. And as for hospitals, in the socialist utopia of Poland, as must be the case in Venezuela, Cuba and most others, there are always a limited number of hospitals, to match the few qualified doctors; and so, being patient number 340 in the queue, most people in these utopias prefer to take care of themselves.

But don't worry! Socialism, as the extraordinarily corrupt system that it is, will offer you a fast and high quality alternative, but only in exchange for a handsome bribe. This is the point when you find out that free health care can actually be very expensive.

In socialist utopias, the bribe is the unfailing key to success. Wherever you go with a bribe, you will receive what you expect; you just have to learn how to bribe discreetly. In a socialist utopia, the bribe is king, if you learn to discretely bribe the doctor, the public official, the store manager, the police officer and all of those on whom your life depends, you might even live a comfortable life in your socialist utopia. Of course, it will not be easy to give away a bundle of money for these bribes, not only because you will not have it, but also because of the omnipresence of an amateur but efficient network of sneaks and snitches.

This is socialism in all of its glory: corruption and fear with a pinch of hate.

You hate people because, in this permanent crisis of poverty, the law of the jungle is applied, and everyone around you represents a threat. You also learn to hate your own country, because it constantly humiliates you and condemns you to an unbearable life (that is precisely why free education in socialist utopias is so useful for everyone.) The sooner you learn to become a proficient liar the better off you will be. Of course, at every level of your "free" education, right up to the university, the state will expect you to be a humble cog in the system, but the most important thing is that education is free, right?

In the end, the real goal of the socialist utopia is to destroy all competition for the love of the people; imagine no religion, no family, and no inequality. To get there socialism will destroy churches, family values, and take all the wealth from the last few remaining rich who are able to survive the glorious socialist revolution.

Of course, none of these dystopic dreams ever become a reality. People are made to love God. People are made to be raised by families. And yes, some people will accumulate more wealth than others. At least on this last point, socialism seems to work quite well, not openly, but efficiently nonetheless. Socialism and great personal accumulation of wealth coexists perfectly with the socialist apparatus of power, with the leadership of the party and with the forces of repression. All of them will accumulate obscene wealth and power, while everyone else will live in poverty and repression.

This is the socialism that I know. It is the real face of socialism. Perfect for the international socialist elite and a nightmare for everyone else.

Go here to read the rest:
Dear Bernie Sanders: I survived socialism. Its the worst political system ever invented - Lifesite

Again, they insisted that austerity was essential because government debt was an enormous threat to America. But they lost all interest in deficits as soon as one of their own occupied the White House. Trump inherited a $600 billion deficit; hes blown that up to $1 trillion and hardly a single Republican in Congress has expressed dismay.

How much have Trumps deficits boosted the economy? Well, theyre poorly designed stimulus; the biggest item was tax cuts for corporations, which corporations used to buy back stock rather than to expand their businesses or raise wages. But while the Trump stimulus probably didnt deliver much bang per buck, it involved a heck of a lot of bucks.

And Trumps economy also gets a lift from the fact that Republicans have ended the de facto economic sabotage that prevailed throughout the Obama years.

Incidentally, the experience of the past three years also refutes two of the main arguments used to justify the disastrous turn to austerity after the financial crisis claims that deficits would hurt confidence and lead to a sharp rise in interest rates. None of this has happened.

So how can Democrats run against Republican fiscal hypocrisy? Not by warning about the dangers of deficits thats both wrong on the substance and politically ineffective, because nobody cares.

They might do better by pointing out that while Trump has rushed to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, he has been shortchanging the future. Ignoring his campaign promises, he has done nothing to raise much-needed spending on infrastructure. And despite its obvious indifference to budget deficits, his administration seems determined to deprive children of the adequate health care and nutrition they will need to become productive adults.

And theres an important lesson for Democrats going beyond this election namely, how to deal with what Ive called the Very Serious People, centrists who spent years insisting that government debt was the most important issue of our time (and also believing, or pretending to believe, that Republicans were sincere in their supposed concern about debt).

The V.S.P.s have gone oddly silent under Trump funny how that works but theyll surely be back if Democrats retake the White House. But they have no idea what theyre talking about, and never did. If and when they re-emerge, Democrats should ignore them.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

More:
Republican Cynicism May Win Trump Re-election - The New York Times

The number of Republican women in the U.S. House declined in the past decade and many statehouses dont fare much better. Standing in contrast is the rising number of Democratic women elected to office.

It is a sentiment that doesnt sit well with some Utah women.

Thats ridiculous, said Enid Mickelsen, the first female Republican from the Beehive State elected to the U.S. House.

She served one term starting in 1995. No women from Utah, Republican or Democratic, are serving in Congress now. In Utah, one of the most conservative states in the nation, the Legislature includes 16 Democratic women and 10 Republican women.

Those stats cloud reality, argues Kari Malkovich, a Woodland Hills city councilwoman and first vice president of the Utah Federation of Republican Women. She said a more accurate snapshot would include the GOP women involved at all levels of government.

Malkovich pointed to Republican women serving in city councils and campaigns and executive offices, such as Kirsten Rappleye, chief of staff to the lieutenant governor, and Kristen Cox, executive director of the Governors Office of Management and Budget.

Republican women are not an endangered species, said Kendra Seeley, Utah Republican Party secretary.

About 30 women joined Seeley and the Utah Federation of Republican Women on Monday in the Capitol Rotunda for an event held in reaction to the December opinion piece in The New York Times that described the future of Republican women as bleak. That column, written by Nancy L. Cohen, blames the presidency of Donald Trump for blunting any momentum GOP women had. She warned that his reelection would make things even worse.

The Republican women who gathered in Utah on Monday say thats not the case.

We are refuting that there is a weakness in Republican women, Malkovich said.

If youre just looking at the numbers, Malliga Och, an Idaho State University assistant professor whos researched women in conservative parties, said calling it a crisis is a fair characterization.

But Och said she doesnt think theres an ideological crisis because there are plenty of conservative women who would make brilliant and great legislators, but the problem is that they are not running."

The main hurdle for Republican women is in the primary process, according to Och. The Republican Party doesnt have the same level of proactive recruiting and fundraising efforts directed toward women as the Democratic Party, she said.

Republican Rep. Candice Pierucci said shed like to examine places such as Alaska and Arizona, which have a higher number of Republican women serving in the state Legislature than the national average, to see what can we do better. To get more Utah women in positions, Republicans have to build up our bench like you would with any sport."

Conservative women can and should run," Pierucci said.

If you dont see women in these positions, though, it can be hard to picture yourself in them, Pierucci said. Only two women have been elected to Utahs five statewide executive offices, and just four women have served in Congress, according to the Utah Women and Leadership Project. The last being GOP Rep. Mia Love, who was edged out by Democrat Ben McAdams in 2018.

If youre going to change what comes out of D.C., youve got to change who goes into D.C.," Witt said. And the quickest way to change that is get more Republican women in Congress.

The more women that we can get involved in executive level and legislative level positions to help make those decisions, the better, said Aimee Winder Newton, who is one of two Republican women running for Utah governor, along with businesswoman Jan Garbett.

Jennifer Hogge, Lisa Bagley and Lorraine Brown were a few of the Republican women at the Capitol who said they are seeking seats in the state Legislature. Hogge said shes never run for office before but felt she could use her experience as a teacher to work on education issues.

To get more women on the ballot, Seeley, the secretary of Utahs Republican Party, suggested people must encourage more women to step forward.

Support good women who do run," she said, not just because theyre females, but because you believe in them.

Generally, Republicans try to be careful to avoid identity politics, said Pierucci, who claimed her House seat after the incumbent resigned. Salt Lake County Republican delegates selected her and Gov. Gary Herbert formally appointed her to the post. Shes serving in her first session.

Pierucci wanted people to vote for her based on her credentials, not because shes female, she said.

Thats a point that Mickelsen makes about her race in 1994.

I didnt set out to become the first woman Republican elected to Congress from the state of Utah, she said. I presented myself because I thought I was a good, qualified candidate.

My attitude was always if I do the best job that I can and show people that I am qualified, that helps the next woman coming up behind me."

While theres still more work to do, Mickelsen sees more women in office today than when she ran 25 years ago. And, in the future, more will come," she said.

For Och, the Idaho State professor, part of why Republicans should elect more women is simply fairness, to better represent the population. But another reason is that to have gender equity in government, we cannot just elect one specific kind of woman," she said.

Women are not a homogenous bloc. They have different opinions," Och said. And if we truly believe in this diversity that women bring, we need to elect a diverse body of women to the party, to both parties, and not just pro-life Democratic women, but also more conservative women.

Becky Jacobs is a Report for America corps member and writes about the status of women in Utah for The Salt Lake Tribune. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one; please consider making a tax-deductible gift of any amount today by clicking here.

View original post here:
Utah Republican women say they need to recruit candidates, but they're not in 'crisis' - Salt Lake Tribune