Mediaboss Marketing

Prime minister Boris Johnson stirs culture war over Churchill statue. So ran a recent New York Times headline. The Washington Post agreed. As counter protesters took to the streets to protect statues and as controversy erupted over foreign secretary Dominic Raabs comments on taking the knee, many British commentators, too, saw a nation divided and a prime minister stoking the flames of a culture war.

Yet an Ipsos Mori poll, published last week, paints a different picture. Nine out of 10 Britons, it showed, would be happy for their child to marry someone of another ethnic group. Just 3% thought someone had to be white to be truly British. The British public, the pollsters observed, have become avowedly more open minded in their attitudes towards race.

There is a similar puzzle in America. Two months ago, had you asked academics or commentators about the consequences of American cities burning in the wake of protests over the killing of a black man by a white policeman, most would probably have agreed that polarisation would be exacerbated and Donald Trump strengthened. The opposite has happened. The president seems more politically isolated and even demographic groups seen as significant to the Trump base, those without higher education, for instance, show sympathy towards Black Lives Matter.

How do we explain this paradox? Why are societies both fractured by culture wars and yet, Britain certainly more than America, united, and unitedly liberal, over some of the most fractious aspects of those wars?

From one perspective, liberals have already won the culture wars. Attitudes on race, gender and sexuality have changed so much over the past 40 years that weve almost become blind to that transformation. Between 1989 and 2019, the proportion of the population that thought that gay relationships were wrong fell from 40% to 13%; the numbers opposed to abortions halved, as did those who thought it wrong to have a child outside of marriage. When the first British Social Attitudes Survey was published in 1983, more than 50% of whites would not countenance a spouse of a difference race, a figure that barely declined throughout that decade.

Britain in the 1980s was another country. Racism was vicious and visceral and woven into the fabric of British society in a way difficult to imagine now.

Racism has not disappeared, but the context is very different. Racist attacks or workplace discrimination today take place in a society in which virtually no one, unlike 40 years ago, views them as acceptable. (The major caveat is that attitudes to Muslims remain illiberal.)

At the same time, though, the traditional left/right divide has eroded, so the ways in which we view ourselves and our social affiliations has changed and not necessarily for the better. Culture and identity play a bigger role in how we define ourselves politically. The frameworks through which we make sense of the world are as often white or Muslim or European as they are liberal or conservative or socialist. And when people talk of liberal or conservative or Remain or Leave these are seen as cultural identities as much as political viewpoints.

The coincidence of these two trends has created societies more liberal and yet more fractious. Consider attitudes towards immigration. Most polls show that Britain has become more relaxed about the issue, leading some commentators to suggest that Brexit has made people less worried about immigration. The reality is more complicated. The shift in attitudes began well before the Brexit debate. And polls show that almost half of Leave voters think immigration has a negative impact compared with 12% of Remain voters; fewer than a third of Leave voters think immigration has a positive impact. A majority of the public still wants numbers reduced.

The complexity of the response is not surprising. The public has become more liberal and less racist. Immigration has, however, also become symbolic of unacceptable change. Working-class lives have in recent decades been made more precarious through the stagnation of wages, the rise of the gig economy and the imposition of austerity. The power of labour movement organisations has eroded, the Labour party has drifted away from its traditional constituencies.

Immigrants are not responsible for these changes. But the very decline of the economic and political power of the working class has helped obscure the economic and political roots of social problems. As the language of culture has become an important means through which to understand ones place in society, so many in the working class have come to see their marginalisation as a cultural loss. Immigration, viewed as a key reason for cultural change, has come to bear responsibility for that loss.

Those challenging racism similarly often view their problems through the lens of identity politics and their targets, too, are frequently symbolic. Debates about racism in recent years have often revolved around issues such as language and cultural appropriation. What began as protests about police brutality has, for some, morphed into a campaign against racist statues and controversy over an English rugby anthem.

The cultural turn of recent years has encouraged people to repose political problems as issues of culture or identity. Rather than ask What are the policy reasons for the lack of housing and stagnating wages? or What are the social roots of racism and what structural changes are required to combat it?, we look to blame the Other, demand recognition for our particular identity and tussle over symbols.

Many white working-class people accuse immigrants of stealing jobs and scamming the benefits system, while anti-racists often deride Karens and gammons and finger working-class people as bigots. The growth of liberal social attitudes, far from being a base from which to build a movement to tackle both racism and the marginalisation of the working class, itself becomes lost in the social fractures. We should beware that we dont get trapped in our own blindness.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Continue reading here:
Culture wars risk blinding us to just how liberal we've ...

Speaker safety is something that we've had to worry about for a lot, a lot longer than just Covid times where people have, you know, tried to assault our speakers and throw things at them and everything else, said YAFs Brown. So thankfully, we have a pretty good plan for that.

Groups are also considering gathering an audience to a speaker beamed in over Zoom, the default pandemic conferencing app.

The students on that campus can still experience [an] in-person event, but the guests might be remote just via Zoom and take questions that way, Bryan Bernys, the Leadership Institute's vice president of campus programs.

The Leadership Institute has similarly transitioned its activist lecture events to Zoom conferencing. In addition to the normal slate of seminars, the group has also integrated programs and events teaching how to hold socially-distanced events during the pandemic.

The biggest obstacle, however, might not have anything to do with social distancing but how to keep students engaged in activism, or even in the local chapters, when theyre studying from home. Across the country, many students are opting to take time off school to wait out the pandemic, and conservative students arent immune.

That does have an impact on your activist base and cultivating relationships, said Bowyer, of Students for Trump. If the bodies that were there one semester aren't the same ones that come back the next semester, it's like kind of retraining and reorganizing.

The situation for every conservative activist group, from local chapter to nationwide organization based out of Northern Virginia, remains fluid. But Brown argued that such a situation appeals to conservative ideology.

I think it's one of those things that actually kind of fits into what we would be [doing when] advancing ideas on campus, which is this idea that a universal plan is not going to work well for everybody, said Brown. We obviously as conservatives prefer smaller units of decision making and more localized control.

More:
The pandemic hasnt ended the campus culture wars - POLITICO

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTwo 'The Apprentice' producers helping with Republican National Convention About 70,000 lives could be saved in near future if people wear masks: researchers Trump issues disaster declaration for California as wildfires rage MORE on Saturday hit Democrats over the Pledge of Allegiance, leaning deeper into the culture wars he hopes will elevate his reelection bid.

Trump took to Twitter to accuse Democrats of not uttering the word God in the pledge at this weeks Democratic National Convention. While the word was featured in the pledge at the convention every night for each of the four days, some of the speakers did not say it duringtheMuslim Delegates and Allies Assemblyand theLGBTQ Caucus meeting, which were not part of the main programming,according to The Associated Press.

The Democrats took the word GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democrat National Convention. At first I thought they made a mistake, but it wasnt. It was done on purpose. Remember Evangelical Christians, and ALL, this is where they are coming from-its done. Vote Nov 3! Trump tweeted.

The Democrats took the word GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democrat National Convention. At first I thought they made a mistake, but it wasnt. It was done on purpose. Remember Evangelical Christians, and ALL, this is where they are coming from-its done. Vote Nov 3!

The Trump campaign doubled down, tweeting out a video compiling comments from meeting speakerswho were critical of the government.

Watch: pic.twitter.com/2sSrtbhdgt

The controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance was sparked by a story on the Trump-friendly Christian Broadcasting Networkthatwas then picked up by Fox News.

The tweet led to a flood of posts fact-checking the president, with users posting videos compiling all the times under God was said during the convention.

We need not agree with the @TheDemocrats platform to speak simple truth when @realDonaldTrump lies. Heres the pledge from all four nights of the DNC. https://t.co/sHes8QEp2Y

The Saturday morning tweet represents just the latest attempt by Trump to tap into hot-button issues he hopes will rile up his base and propel his reelection campaign as polls show him trailing former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHouse passes B bill to boost Postal Service Trump seeks to overcome eroding support among women Here are the states where Kanye West is on the ballot MORE, the Democratic Partys 2020 nominee, both nationally and in key swing states.

The president in speeches and online has highlighted various fronts of the culture wars to boost support among critical demographicssuch as evangelicals and suburbanites.

We moved the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. That's for the evangelicals, he said this week.

Trump has also warned that Democratic policies will lead to a spike in crime in suburbs, citing ongoing protests in some cities over systemic racism, amid signals the GOP is shedding support in such areas after the president won the vote in suburbs in 2016.

Why would Suburban Women vote for Biden and the Democrats when Democrat run cities are now rampant with crime (and they arent asking the Federal Government for help) which could easily spread to the suburbs, and they will reconstitute, on steroids, their low income suburbs plan! Trump tweeted Saturday.

Why would Suburban Women vote for Biden and the Democrats when Democrat run cities are now rampant with crime (and they arent asking the Federal Government for help) which could easily spread to the suburbs, and they will reconstitute, on steroids, their low income suburbs plan!

The remarks as of yet have failed to make a sizable dent in Bidens polling lead.

Updated: 12:37 p.m.

See the original post:
Trump targets Democrats over Pledge of Allegiance | TheHill - The Hill

At the first virtual Democratic National Convention, three former presidents, social justice activists, farmers, small business owners, survivors of violence, teachers, immigrants, and a whole lot of disgruntled Republicans declared that this nation cant afford four more years of President Trump in the White House.

When the first virtual Republican National Convention begins Monday, no one will punctuate that point more emphatically than the president himself.

Expect a GOP horror show with Trump as the ringleader of what will likely be an ugly spectacle of white grievance and culture wars. That Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the white St. Louis couple who brandished guns at Black Lives Matter protesters, have been invited to speak at the RNC lays bare the path Trump has chosen for the bell lap of his reelection campaign.

It is, of course, what Trump has done every second of his presidency, the most corrupt and ruinous in modern American history. He has rolled away every rock and allowed this nations worst impulses to crawl into the light, as he dismantles democracy faster than Postmaster General Louis DeJoy can destroy the United States Postal Service.

During a recent CNN appearance, Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official in the Trump administration, said: If weve learned one lesson about Donald Trump, its that if he thinks something aligns with his personal interests, it is good; if it doesnt align with his personal interests, it is bad. In the case of things like QAnon and conspiracy theories, as long as they support and reinforce the presidents world view, he will embrace them with a full hug.

QAnon, a loosely affiliated far-right conspiracy group deemed a terrorist threat by the FBI, claims that anyone opposed to Trump is a cannibal, pedophile, or Satanist fomenting a deep-state overthrow of his administration. Or something.

This president isnt interested in truth, Taylor said. Hes interested in his truth.

That truth chooses authoritarianism over democracy, baseless conspiracy theories over verifiable facts, and the will of Russian President Vladimir Putin, even when his actions reportedly endanger American troops.

As former President Barack Obama said in his DNC speech, This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if thats what it takes to win. That includes the ongoing sabotage of the November election, less than 75 days away.

Trump will do nothing at the RNC to address the concerns of his critics, from former First Lady Michelle Obamas vivisection of his failures to Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harriss pointed I know a predator when I see one. Hell look only to his base, speaking to those who like him, no matter how dangerous or deluded they may be.

Racism, of course, will play no small part here. Its Trumps Free Bird, with tiki torches instead of lighters. Because racism deliberately benefits some while methodically working against others, it will always be this nations biggest threat to a true democracy. Count on Trump to use it as he presents himself as the last best hope for the uninterrupted centuries-long reign of white supremacy.

Trumps playbook of prejudice is well-worn and thin, but since it helped get him to the White House in 2016, he will again make it the centerpiece of his argument for a second term. Thats what drives his pitch to suburban housewives read white women about his elimination of an Obama-era anti-discrimination housing rule. Low income housing in the suburbs, as Trump calls it, is his new migrant caravan, which he evoked in the months leading up to the 2018 midterms.

With the RNC limited by the COVID-19 pandemic that Trump has lethally mishandled, he wont have the adoring audience his ego so desperately craves. (Although I wouldnt put it past him to find enough sycophants willing to shun masks and social distancing protocols to cram into some space when he makes his acceptance speech.)

In his anti-immigration rhetoric, Trump has often said, Without borders, we dont have a country. With a second Trump presidency, we wont have a democracy. In this troubled national moment, a president should allay his countrys fears. Instead, peddling disunity and despair, Trump will magnify his possible reelection as a clear and present threat.

Rene Graham can be reached at renee.graham@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @reneeygraham.

More here:
At the RNC, Trump will offer the strongest case against his reelection - The Boston Globe

The culture wars show no sign of abating. The latest to be condemned by hardline progressive youth is Adolph Reed, a black, Marxist professor who was due to give a speech to the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, but was disinvited because he believes that left-wingers currently concentrate too much on race at the expense of class.

This prompted outrage from a group within the chapter, who said that to give Mr Reed a platform would be reactionary, class reductionist and at best tone deaf. And that was that, for a man whom the Harvard academic Cornel West who is also black describes as the greatest democratic theorist of his generation.

We have to do better than this. We have to continue to be able to speak to each other. It is surely not beyond us to agree with the prominent black British educator Katharine Birbalsingh, who insists that there is a middle way.

Strive to have a complex understanding of race, the state, education etc. Think outside the box! she tweeted recently. That would be both possible and positive.

For older liberals who value free speech more than the right to be safe from offensive or hurtful ideas can acknowledge that it is useful to talk much more about institutional racism and unconscious bias, the long-term effects of the Atlantic slave trade, and police actions that disproportionately affect black people. And the woke side could think a bit more about the gains we all make by being confronted with opinions we disagree with and possibly find objectionable or even distressing; not least in challenging, and in the process maybe strengthening, our convictions.

But for any progress to be made I believe we need the return of two concepts that have gone curiously missing in the increasingly divisive arguments: forgiveness and redemption.

Here it is instructive to look at the case of Dr David Starkey. An eminent scholar of English Tudor history, Dr Starkey also long had a lucrative sideline as a professional provocateur on TV and radio that led him to be known as the rudest man in Britain. Both careers came to an abrupt halt, however, after he gave an online interview last month. While discussing the Black Lives Matter movement with his host, Dr Starkey, who is white, said: Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldnt be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?

Dr Starkey was arguably correct that, however abominable it was, the slave trade did not meet traditional definitions of genocide. The damn blacks, though, well and truly sunk him. Almost immediately he was dropped by both his past and present publishers, and he resigned or was sacked from positions at Cambridge and Canterbury Christ Church universities, from fellowships and board positions, had an honorary degree revoked and had a medal from a historical society withdrawn.

Since then he has been almost literally cancelled. He has, as he said, lost every distinction and honour acquired in a long career". I have not read one word of sympathy not defence for a man who was a household name for at least 20 years. He has apologised abjectly, of course, but it appears that no one wants to hear from him ever again. Dr David Starkey has become a non-person.

I find this deeply troubling for a number of reasons. Firstly, if he is a racist and Ms Birbalsingh, who knows him, thinks he is (she still likes him) we ought to ask why. Dr Starkey is not some asinine thug. He is highly intelligent. On purely rational grounds, how could he hold such a prejudice? He could not possibly defend it intellectually if debated by his peers. Wouldnt exposing racism for the groundless bigotry that it is be a worthwhile exercise?

In the Stalinist era, Dmitri Shostakovich at least had a concert. There will be no lecture or TV programme from David Starkey

Secondly, and more importantly, how have we reached a point at which a sitting US President has boasted of committing crimes sexually harassing women and suffer no consequences from his own party, yet an admired historian and famous pundit can destroy his whole role in public life with two words? They were extremely abhorrent, yes: but is there no possibility for Dr Starkey to be forgiven? I have met and interviewed him, and do not think he is evil. Have we become so cruel that there can be no path to repentance and redemption for him?

The white British thinker Douglas Murray wrote about this issue in his 2019 book The Madness of Crowds : What is a decent interval of time between an error and forgiveness? Does anybody know? Is anybody interested in working it out?

There are as yet no answers, and if we have discarded these concepts entirely, that does not strike me as either a Christian or a Muslim response to sin: for both are religions of mercy. This is the judgement of the communist commissar; or actually even worse. It reminds me of the ostracism experienced by one Russian composer during the Stalinist terror in the 1930s, during which the following notice appeared in a newspaper: Today there will be a concert by enemy of the people Dmitri Shostakovich." The musician was near suicidal with fear at the time; but at least he had a concert. There will be no lecture or TV programme from enemy of the people David Starkey.

This cannot be right. There has to be a road back. We have to allow people to change, and we must be able to disagree in a more civil manner. There is a way, which was expressed movingly by the white conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, after the death of the great black American civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis last month.

Mr Lewis received heartfelt tributes from both left and right, wrote Mr Stephens, because he operated from convictions of radical love. He saw humanity even in those who refused to see humanity in him".

Radical love: we could do with some of that. And if that is too much to ask, we must at least try to see the humanity in one another, our ideological foes as well as our friends. If we cannot do that, then I'm afraid all hope is lost.

Sholto Byrnes is a commentator and consultant in Kuala Lumpur and a corresponding fellow of the Erasmus Forum

Updated: August 19, 2020 03:55 PM

Read more:
Know your culture war enemy, but try not to hate them - The National