Mediaboss Marketing

By Andrew Hartman By Andrew Hartman July 20 at 6:00 AM

Andrew Hartman is professor of history at Illinois State University and author of two books: "A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars" and "Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School."

The left is back and millennials are leading the way. Socialism was the most searched word on the Merriam-Webster website in 2015, and a 2016 poll showed that 43 percent of Iowa Democrats described themselves as socialists. Despite the setback of President Trumps electoral victory, the left continues to grow. Publications like the magazine Jacobin, launched by millennial Bhaskar Sunkara, now reach more than 1 million website visitors each month.

But the millennial left is not a return to the New Left of the 1960s the student radicals, hippies and Yippies who raised hell in their efforts to end the Vietnam War and change American culture to make it less racist and sexist and more authentic. Rather it invokes the ideas of the Old Left of the 1930s the militant labor unions, socialists and even communists who, in the context of the worst economic depression in American history, sought a genuine alternative to capitalism.

The Old Left of the 1930s grew out of a 19th-century socialist movement and focused its political energy on the problems of capitalism. It was also deeply critical of Franklin D. Roosevelts brand of liberalism. Although Roosevelt championed the common man and pushed through New Deal reforms that became the bedrock of 20th-century American social democracy, the 1930s left criticized FDR and liberals for the compromises they made with capitalism.

The gulf between liberalism and Old Left ideas socialist ideas has only grown since the 1930s. Unlike liberals, who emerged from the 1960s prioritizing the political freedoms associated with individual rights, the socialist left has posited that most people the working class remain effectively powerless if capitalists control work, wages and welfare. In their view, the lefts mission the reason for its existence ought to be expanding the idea of political freedom to include economic freedom. This historical distinction between liberalism and socialism has resurfaced with the millennial left.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made waves as a democratic socialist presidential candidate. Here's what you need to know about being a democratic socialist and how it's different from socialism. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

One of the better representations of the millennial left is Chapo Trap House, a wildly popular podcast that boasts the most paid subscribers on Patreon. Around 15,000 people pay $5 per month for weekly subscriber-only episodes, in addition to the tens of thousands of listeners who tune in to the episodes Chapo makes public. Founded in March 2016, the podcast is a sometimes hilarious, often angry, mostly smart and always irreverent conversation about politics and culture.

Sincere in its democratic socialist leanings, Chapo is best known for its mocking and sarcastic tone, made clear by its very title, which combines a reference to Mexican drug lord Joaqun El Chapo Guzmn with the hip-hop slang term for a drug house (trap house). While it often takes on Trump and the alt-right with a sense of comedic genius, Chapo saves its most derisive material for the libs.

At first blush, the most obvious model for this iteration of the millennial left is the New Left of the 1960s young activists who attacked the hypocrisy of liberals with similar tactics. And indeed, Chapo could easily be mistaken for the Internet Age version of the Yippies the Youth International Party, led by 1960s left-wingers Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, famous for theatrical political high-jinks. In 1968, the Yippies playfully advanced a pig for president, Pigasus the Immortal, and advocated group joint-rolling and nude grope-ins for peace.

But actually, the Chapo left advocates for Old Left socialism.

In the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of workers joined the mass labor unions of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Even the Communist Party, always suspect in American political life, enjoyed a surge in its American ranks thanks to the relatively common view that the Great Depression sounded the death knell of capitalism.

The 1930s left critiqued the limits of New Deal reforms. Some Old Leftists wanted workers to have complete autonomy in their workplaces. Still others, inspired by Soviet Russia, wanted the working class to control the state and command the economy. Many leftists did not go that far, yet at the very least wanted what they called industrial democracy a political and economic system accountable to the needs and desires of the industrial working class. New Deal liberals, who seemed to prefer technocratic tinkering, were considered barriers to such a left-wing vision of America.

Chapos commentary during the 2016 presidential campaign exposed just how much millennial left ideology resembles 1930s left ideology. Chapo attacked Hillary Clinton and the centrists who have dominated the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992. To the Chapo left, Clinton represents the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, from their perspective, is a term of derision for a political philosophy that combines support for things leftists like, such as racial diversity, alongside ideas that run counter to everything they believe, such as the notion that the market is the best mechanism for sorting social goods like education.

In this view, the role of Clinton Democrats is to administer the decline of the New Deal, not fight for its expansion through different means. For example, instead of advocating for single-payer health care, Democrats passed Obamacare, a largely ineffective market-based solution. Instead of helping unions build a mass movement that might reshape American society to the benefit of millions, they see the Democratic ethos as technocratic and meritocratic.

Which is why Chapo has dedicated entire episodes to lambasting The West Wing, Aaron Sorkins popular television show that fetishizes the liberal view that a smart, dedicated, well-meaning elite will save us from right-wing Neanderthals. As Chapo often makes clear, this is a naive understanding of politics that ignores power, thus helping facilitate Republican domination.

Chapo reflects the broader generational divide on the left side of the American political spectrum between millennials and their neoliberal predecessors. Like their Depression-era forerunners, Chapo-listening millennials have moved closer to socialism in response to an economic crisis. Millennials are likely to be worse off economically than their parents or grandparents, especially those who have become job-seeking adults in the years since the Great Recession of 2008. A left-wing political response to such conditions makes sense.

A podcast does not make the left, any more than little magazines made the Old Left. But in the same way that historians now think about The Masses, Max Eastmans experimental little magazine that gave voice to the hopes and dreams of the socialist left in the years proceeding World War I, we might come to think about Chapo as the voice of a new left, the millennial left, coming into being.

See more here:
The millennial left's war against liberalism - Washington Post

However disappointed Full Frontal With Samantha Bee was with Donald Trumps presidential victory, the show has remained skeptical of just how much the #Resistance thats sprung up since his inauguration will accomplish. And in its July 19 episode, the show took aim at one Resistance goal in particular: impeachment.

In a segment taped at a recent march for impeachment in Los Angeles, Full Frontal correspondents Mike Rubens and Ashley Nicole Black talked to some of the outraged liberals protesting the Trump administration by advocating for their wildest dream of getting the president kicked out of office.

What was the day you decided that Trump should be impeached? Black asked one woman, who immediately insisted that she was certain on day one that it needed to happen. So its not so much that you wish for impeachment, Black responded, as it is that you wish for a different outcome to the election.

Outlining exactly how hard the road to impeachment is especially given that the process relies on broad bipartisan support Rubens then provided a handy reality check by pointing out that more presidents have been removed from office by cholera than impeachment.

You do realize that being a dick is not an impeachable offense? Black asked a different protester, who countered, It should be.

Its not exactly that Full Frontal disagrees that Trump is unfit for office; its more that the show doesnt believe marching in support of impeachment is actually going to solve anything. Maybe the allure of an impossible dream was much easier to get behind than the reality of fighting for incremental change, Rubens mused in his voiceover, his tone joking even as his words were grounded in palpable frustration.

Rubens and Black therefore attempted to guide protesters efforts toward a more practical approach with signs like Go Vote! and Pay attention to local elections! a strategy that falls right in line with Full Frontals demonstrated insistence of pointing out the power of local politics to shape Americas policies.

Original post:
Full Frontal With Samantha Bee confronts liberals who #resist by fantasizing about impeachment - Vox

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren wants to know why Hollywood hates Trump.

I find most liberalsespecially in Hollywood, they dont know why they hate President Trump so muchthey just do. I want to know why, she told Stuart Varney on FOX Business.

Lahren will face off with comedienne Chelsea Handler later this month, during a live debate at the Politicon politics convention in Pasadena, California.

Its like the Comic-Con for political nerdsIm excited about debating Chelsea Handler, she said.

Lahren said her heated exchange with The Daily Shows Trevor Noah has taught her how to deal with comedic demagogue.

Chelsea obviously is an opponent of this president and his agenda and America first agenda so for me its going to be probing her as to why she has such a disdain for the president, she said. Comedians are tricky. Ive dealt with a couple of them at this point and what they do is that when they are not solid on the issues of the policy then they revert to the humor and then they make a mockery of you, she added.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

Handler, a vocal critic of Trump, led the Womens March at Sundance, in conjunction with the Womens March on Washington, protesting his inauguration. Lahren said if Handler asked why Trump hated women she would respond: If Trump hated women so much, why did he have the first successful campaign manager in Kellyanne Conway, who is a female. He entrusted her to run his campaign and lead him to victory but he hates women? Find that hard to believe.

While there may be no winner or loser of the debate, Lahren plans to hold her ground and defend Trump and his America first agenda.

Originally posted here:
Tomi Lahren: Hollywood liberals don't know why they hate Trump - Fox Business

Paul Blousteins July 15 letter (Which party has the power to bend minds?) contains so many tired myths of the right, its hard to know where to begin. So Ill try to meet myth with fact:

Liberals prize independence, fending for ourselves, and self-respect every bit as much as conservatives. We do disagree, however, with the contention that the federal governments efforts to help and protect the people are oppressive.

Advertisement

Every single inhabitant of this country accepts help from the federal government that is, from his or her fellow citizens every single day. Ten minutes spent reviewing what federal money is spent on utterly explodes the idea that some are more independent or self-reliant than others. We are all in this together.

When liberals describe the current economy as unfair, they are not demonizing; they are saying the economy is unfair. Nor do academics like Jeffrey D. Sachs think they are better than Bloustein or that he is evil for liking Ronald Reagan.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

There are millions of well-meaning Americans who think the Reagan administration was a disaster for America for very sound reasons. I honor Blousteins right to disagree, but I deeply resent his insinuation that our opinions are based not on facts but on animosity.

Bob Binstock

Cambridge

See original here:
In views of liberals and conservatives, can we steer clear of the animosity vortex? - The Boston Globe

Condescension being a hallmark of liberalism is an age-old discussion. Yet, after Hillary Clintons stinging 2016 defeat to Donald Trump, some are wondering if their attitude to people who dont think, act, or live like them might be an issue in terms of bridging the cultural divide we have (i.e. urban vs. rural). Business Insiders Josh Barro, who also hosts Left, Right, and Center on KCRW, commented on this issue and offered ways in which his fellow Democrats can stop being so annoying. There are parts with which I disagree - namely that were a socially liberal country. I still think were right-of-center, but Barro is blunt and straightforward in his assessment that liberals have just become insufferable in their intolerance towards people who dont live in the urban bastions of progressivism. As a result, they have become the moral busybodies that was often a criticism of conservatism. Barro calls this particularly problem within liberalism the hamburger problem. And by cultural disconnect, hes not talking about policy stances either, which is often an excuse for liberals to think that theyre not out of touch.

Suppose you're a middle-income man with a full-time job, a wife who also works outside the home, and some children. Suppose it's a Sunday in the early fall, and your plan for today is to relax, have a burger, and watch a football game.

Conservatives will say, "Go ahead, that sounds like a nice Sunday." (In the Trump era, they're not going to bother you about not going to church.) But you may find that liberals have a few points of concern they want to raise about what you mistakenly thought was your fundamentally nonpolitical plan for the day.

Liberals want you to know that you should eat less meat so as to contribute less to global warming. They're concerned that your diet is too high in sodium and saturated fat. They're upset that the beef in your hamburger was factory-farmed.

They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.

Beyond what you're doing this weekend, this movement has a long list of moral judgments about your ongoing personal behavior.

The SUV you bought because it was easier to install car seats in doesn't get good enough gas mileage. Why don't you have an electric car?

The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. ("Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough but honestly, it's not," Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)

You don't ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist.

No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy. On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children.

[]

Liberals like to complain that working-class voters who back Republicans have voted "against their own self-interest," by which they implicitly mean economic self-interest. This idea could benefit from a little introspection.

Do liberals go into the voting booth and choose a candidate based on a narrow conception of economic self-interest? Of course not.

[]

Objectively, you would think the groups most substantively exposed to risk from the Trump presidency are low-income people who face benefit cuts and members of minority groups against whom he whips up and indulges negative sentiment.

Yet, as the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed out in his analyses of turnout in House special elections, the "resistance" surge in Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout is occurring almost entirely among college-educated whites. That is, the people most alarmed by Trump seem to be the ones who stand to lose the most cultural power, not those who stand to lose the most materially.

Barro later goes into how liberals can fix this perception that could hurt outreach initiatives since whether they like to admit it or not, Democrats need to win back white working class voters (i.e. Trump voters). One is working to diffuse the high tension on cultural issues and recognizing that this is not a sign of defeat or compromise. Actually, this can be applied to a whole host of issues that liberals will fight to the death on, like immigration. Here's the rest of his advice on what liberals should do to temper their cultural intolerance:

Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.

Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are not politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.

Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see as mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it's not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this though of course, you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.

Don't get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can't do anything about the problem you're discussing if it's purely a matter of the cultural discourse should you spend your time on it and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.

You can debate among yourselves if this will actually take hold with Democratic Party leaders and the elite that keep the war chests funded. Right now, lets say its very possible that these could take hold. Democrats have no economic message for the 2018 midterms at present. Theyre divided, leaderless, and searching for a route to political revival. You never know what could be added into the mix, if they ever get to itfor a winning political message. At the same time, theres plenty to suggest this wont happen. The number of rural Democrats on the Hill is slim. Overall, theyre pretty much a species on the verge of extinction. They were all but wiped out in 2010. In Appalachia, a once robust bastion of Democratic support among working class whites, Hillary Clinton only won 21 out of its 490 counties. Thats a total collapse and Democratic elites may not want to even bother with rebuilding the party apparatus out there, though its necessary if they want to expand the map, especially for state and local races which are key to keeping a talent pool well maintained for future national races. Also, these people dont think white voters matter, which was crystal clear with the Clinton campaign.

Condescension seems to have its roots in American liberalism. Whenever its mentioned I always think back to the story between an aide and Adlai Stevenson, who, like Clinton, is also a two-time presidential loser; Stevenson ran and lost twice in 1952 and 1956. The tale goes that the aide was confident of a Stevenson win, saying to the Democratic candidate something along the lines of Mr. Stevenson, you have the thinking people on your side to which Stevenson replies, ah, but I need a majority. Snobbery and condescension may have always been ingrained in liberal politics, but social media made this virus airborne.

Even The New York Times Noticed the Dems' Obstructionism

Read the original post:
Business Insider: Liberals Can Win Again If They Stop Being Moral Condescending Busybodies - Townhall