CNSNews.com | Alt-Left Insanity: Can We Have a Day Without Whiny, Male Liberals ... CNSNews.com Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends Apologies for our fun hiatus from altlefty insanity but I credit the annual MRC Cruise for throwing an ... |
Read more from the original source:
Alt-Left Insanity: Can We Have a Day Without Whiny, Male Liberals ... - CNSNews.com
CJ Letters Published 3:09 p.m. ET March 9, 2017 | Updated 15 hours ago
Yes, we provoke, poke, prod, and challenge our students.(Photo: Illustration - ALLVISIONN, Getty Images/iStockphoto)
Regarding liberal bias in academia, Dr. Jones says, Admittedly, there are probably more liberal and progressive thinkers in the professorate than not. He then tells us that the more educated you are, the more liberal you are, on average. Then he says that he is in the less than 1.7 percent of the population that has a Ph.D., that he is educated, smart and a thinker. The only thing missing is but best of all, Im not conceited!
So, education yields progressives, which yields thinkers. Ergo, conservatives are not thinkers. Since he thinks his job is to teach his students to think, the only way they can demonstrate proficiency is to become more liberal. Therefore, professors arent biased; theyre just trying to get those dumb conservatives to think.
Paul Stine
Louisville 40204
It is coincidental that on the sameday I read Professor Ricky Jones' columntouting the intellectual superiority of liberal college professors I also read an article in the conservative magazineThe Weekly Standardon the death of conservative intellectual Michael Novak by Joseph Bottum, who writes, "If you can't picturea worldwithout widely read outlets for intellectual conservatism --a worldin which socialism and secularization were the unquestioned air thatallAmerican thinkers were assumed to breathe -- you should offer a prayer for the life of a man named Michael Novak."
Personally, I suspect thatJones has spent much of his life and time hobnobbing with professors of like-minded ideology and that his question of "why do well-educated people tend not to self-identify as conservative" suggests he is likely oblivious to the intellectual conservatism that abounds outside the confines of college campuses. Most liberals believe they should be in control of our culture, our society, and our nation for the simple reason they believe themselves smarter than the rest of us. Professor Jones need not worry about being considered "dangerous." He is so only to those who are actually convinced of his superior ability tothink.
James A. Ritz
Salem, Indiana 47167
Read:Yes,professors are dangerous | Ricky Jones
Read:Trump,Bevin are both bullies | Ricky Jones
Read:Trump,'true' Americans triumph | Ricky Jones
Read:RickyJones on bullies in leadership | Letters
Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mqqzkA
Read more here:
Liberals in the classroom | Letters - The Courier-Journal
Since the election of Donald Trump, liberals and leftists have been discussing how to best respond to American conservatisms transformation from a shopworn, Cold War, anti-government philosophy into something else.
To the anarchists and socialists who consider themselves part of the global antifa movement (an abbreviation for anti-fascist), the transition currently taking place on the right is all too familiar. The rise of the alt-right and white nationalism within the U.S. is something the mainstream left doesnt take seriously enough, they say, even as many Democrats compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.
If it is actually true that the civic nationalism of Trump and his top strategist Steve Bannon are helping to lay the groundwork for a more radical right intentionally or otherwise then their self-described opponents on the left need to do more than wear safety pins and post Facebook denunciations of the president they didnt vote for.
As Natasha Lennard wrote earlier this year at the Nation, coming to such a realization is difficult for many on the left. (Lennard is a former staff writer for Salon.) Despite their posture of desiring radical change, most are actually conservative in a certain sense:
Liberals cling to institutions: They begged to no avail for faithless electors, they see evisceration in a friendly late-night talk-show debate, they put faith in investigations and justice with regards to Russian interference and business conflicts of interest. They grasp at hypotheticals about who could have won, were things not as they in fact are. For political subjects so tied to the mythos of Reason, it is liberals who now seem deranged.
Instead of merely talking among themselves about opposing racism, say the antifa activists, leftists need to take direct action to make being a white nationalist as difficult as possible. Thats why many antifas have concentrated their efforts on such tactics as doing targeting the financial means of support of websites they see as enabling or promoting fascist views, and even engaging in physical acts of assault against members of the far right.
Only by fighting and destroying fascism can we actually defeat it, an anonymous members of the website Its Going Down told Salon via email.
The antifas anonymity is one of several superficial characteristics they share with their bitter rivals on the alt-right. Another is that they take politics much more soberly than their less extreme counterparts. For the antifas, understanding that white nationalists are deadly serious about instigating a racial holy war is the key to countering them.
During the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany, while anarchists and communists were literally fighting the fascists in the streets, the liberals and social democrats attempted to debate the Nazis point for point in the halls of power, the anonymous activist continued. This did nothing, and also normalized the positions of the Nazis and also made them into legitimate positions.
The center-leftsdesire for an open society is itscritical weakness, a Nebraska-based antifa collective told Salon via email.
Liberalism [has] proven itself unable to prevent the rise of fascism over and over again, the activists said. By the time liberals are comfortable with cracking down on fascism, its almost always too late. Antifa wants to make sure that no roots can take hold; that every attempt to organize and recruit for the fascist agenda is physically confronted and shut down.
Beyond targeting far-right activists financial means and showing up to physically confront them at their events, many antifas have made it their mission to expose the true identities ofpopular alt-right figures so they cannot hide their views behind pseudonyms. The Nebraska activists provided an example of theis tactic last December when they exposed the identity of Cooper Ward, a University of Nebraska student who was outed as the co-host of a popular neo-Nazi podcast. He quit the program after being identified and has not returned.
Building a fanbase as an overt racist has become much easier in the eyes of some antifa thanks in part to the mainstream media, several antifa activists told Salon.
There is nothing objective about writing [an] article about alt-right neo-nazis without including perspectives of their ideological opposites, argued the Nebraska activists. We have noticed a marked lack of Antifa views in the mainstream media; we are denied a voice while they are elevated and made to seem mainstream.
That alleged refusal to allow the antifa voice to be heard within mainstream journalism pieces about the alt-right is indicative of a systemic bias on the part of the press, Its Going Down wrote:
The world the Alt-Right wants is not that much different from the one we live in now, just one where the class, gender, and racial divisions are more crystallized.
Anarchists, who fight for a world where power is horizontally organized and political power is taken out of the hands of a centralized State and decentralized into human communities, where people dont work for wages but instead human labor is put towards needs and job, and where industrial production is destroyed in favor of sustainability is such a radical vision, and one that truly seeks to liberate all poor and working-people from the sinking Titanic that we now currently inhabit, most journalists dont want to touch it.
Antifa activists also take issue with liberals who think that letting people with racist or anti-Semitic views state them publicly somehow serves as a method of relieving societal pressures. Instead, as an anonymous essayist on the anarchist website CrimeThinc expressed it, such expressions merely increase the reach and influence of the far right:
Fascists are only attempting to express their views peacefully in order to lay the groundwork for violent activity. Because fascists require a veneer of social legitimacy to be able to carry out their program, giving them a platform to speak opens the door to their being able to do physical harm to people. Public speech promoting ideologies of hate, whether or not you consider it violent on its own, always complements and correlates with violent actions. By affiliating themselves with movements and ideologies based on oppression and genocide, fascists show their intention to carry on these legacies of violence but only if they can develop a base of support.
The antifas brutal approach to politics has earned them no love from many liberal and leftist quarters. Even Occupy.com has featured a highly critical essay of the anonymous activists for being a a devolution in the philosophy of the left.
Radical and even violent action against the far-right probably does alienate some people, antifas are quick to admit, but it is also clear that direct street action also attracts support in ways that political speechifying or angry letters to the editor simply cannot. It is certainly true that more extreme supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement have made many right-wingers more antagonistic toward advocates of police reform. Its also true that both the mainstream Democratic and Republican hierarchies were completely ignoring the issue before fires began burning in Ferguson and Baltimore.
An anonymous essayist writing at IGD late last year explored this point in detail:
Liberals and much of the Left claim that confrontational tactics hurt us more than they help, from breaking windows to blocking streets. But in reality, each and every time this plays out in our communities, it is simply not the case. In fact, confrontation and disruption, in other words: physically fighting, brings more people in than sign holding or writing letters to the editor ever did. If anything, the wet blanket and attempts to control things by protest managers and liberals kills social movements, not combative actions which can be disruptive and at times violent.
We see this playing out in every social struggle and movement. The riots, blockades, and clashes with the police in Occupy Oakland grew the size and scale of the movement, and were themselves informed by the Oscar Grant riots and student occupations of several years prior.
The Ferguson Insurrection inspired youth across the country and led to other uprisings and rebellions which pulled in tens of thousands. Despite leaders within the Black Lives Matter movement attempting to endorse the Democrats, channel the movement back into politics, and reduce it to simple reforms, the movement continues to evolve and remain combative and disruptive over a period of several years.
Liberals and Leftists claim that confrontational actions scare away people from getting involved. But we find the opposite to be true. When people see a struggle is real; when there is skin in the game, something to fight for, and people are putting their bodies on the line, they often come out in droves. It is symbolic and legalistic protest which is pointless and doesnt work and ends up turning many people away.
By definition, the antifa arguments are both radical and controversial. The unanswered question is whether liberals, moderates and others who oppose the radical right can learn something from the antifas confrontational stance. Or will the violent tactics advocated by the antifas only worsen tensions in a divided society and beget more violence?
Read the original:
Anti-fascist radicals: Liberals don't realize the serious danger of the alt-right - Salon
Demonstrators gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court after President Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court on Jan. 31. | Getty
By Elana Schor
03/09/17 01:10 PM EST
Updated 03/09/17 04:10 PM EST
Liberal groups on Thursday launched a coordinated campaign to stoke Senate Democratic opposition to President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, including planning a nationwide "day of action" on April 1.
The liberals' campaign, dubbed "The People's Defense," comes as activists prepare to make resistance to Judge Neil Gorsuch one of the top issues propelling millions of protesters into the streets since Inauguration Day. Senate Democrats have already responded to the growing energy of their base by mounting a historic blockade of Trump's most contentious Cabinet nominees, and liberal groups aim to add Gorsuch to the list.
Story Continued Below
"What we're experiencing is a genuine gathering of massive energy across the country to say, we cannot allow someone handpicked by Donald Trump" to win a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, whose pro-abortion-rights group is leading the anti-Gorsuch effort.
Hogue told reporters that she's "hearing a lot of 'He's a really nice guy'" responses to Gorsuch, who has benefited from positive meetings with several Democratic senators whose votes would be necessary to mount a successful filibuster of his nomination.
"That's way too low a bar for a jurist of the highest court of the land," Hogue added. "What we need to be focused on is his record."
The liberal groups hinted at their forthcoming efforts in a Monday letter, first reported by POLITICO, which urged Senate Democrats to "do better" in opposing Gorsuch.
Advocates described the anti-Gorsuch effort in a news release as "a hub of action to leverage the unprecedented grassroots activism that has been created by the Trump Administrations agenda and direct it towards defeating the Gorsuch nomination."
Among other left-leaning groups involved in the new campaign are the Center for American Progress Action Fund, CREDO Action, MoveOn.org Civic Action, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, End Citizens United, EveryVoice, and Stand Up America.
Also helping roll out the anti-Gorsuch campaign on Thursday was Indivisible, the group founded by former Democratic congressional aides that has fast become a key player in teeing up tense town-hall confrontations between Republican lawmakers and their constituents. In a note to its supporters, Indivisible advised them to prepare for "a national day of action" against the nomination on April 1.
Conservative groups have already kicked off a multi-million-dollar TV ad campaign promoting Gorsuch and dismissed Thursday's announcement.
"These liberal activist groups have been totally ineffective in tarring Judge Gorsuch, and this desperate Hail Mary of a campaign won't change a thing," said Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative advocacy group America Rising Squared. "Every day that goes by sees new and strengthening support for Judge Gorsuch from across the political spectrum because his credentials and record as a fair, thoughtful jurist are unimpeachable."
Hogue said that liberal groups are not planning TV ads but are instead aiming to match right-leaning groups' financial muscle with grassroots firepower.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he expects the chamber to approve Gorsuch early next month, before senators leave Washington for a planned two-week recess on April 8.
Read the rest here:
Liberals launch new anti-Gorsuch campaign - Politico
The Trump era has produced a surplus of provocative and irresistible questions about American life for the chattering class to clamor over. The latest came in the form of an NYU experiment that used actors to recreate presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exactly as they happened, with one adjustment - their genders were swapped.
The intention, as explained by one NYU professor, was to confirm the "liberal assumption" that "no one would have accepted Trump's behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate."
For most of the presidential campaign, liberals, including Barack Obama, tossed around that assumption as though it were an unimpeachable fact. When the Left-leaning experimenters at NYU put it to the test, however, their results contradicted it completely.
According to NYU professor Joe Salvatore, "People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended." A New York Times reporter explained, "Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn't lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won."
To many performance-goers, the female Trump was likable, while the male Clinton was not.
For spectators of American politics, these results provide much material for digestion. At first blush, disentangling reactions to the experiment feels almost overwhelmingly complicated. But does it have to be that way?
Maybe it's simple. When you analyze everything through the prism of identity politics, your vision is clouded.
Because of the dominant perception that Clinton was unlikable, liberal supporters saw her as a victim of persistent sexism. When they experienced a man using her same words and embodying her same mannerisms, they saw the unlikability. If you remove the lens of presumed sexism, you see what everyone else sees.
Similarly, the Left complained that Trump's masculinity allowed him to get away with bluster and pomposity. But the female Trump in NYU's experiment got away with that same behavior just fine.
Also from the Washington Examiner
Three years later, the 2014 bill is a proven failure when it comes to disciplining VA employees.
03/10/17 12:01 AM
Because liberals' standard package of presumptions about gender colored their perceptions of both candidates, they were left incapable of making accurate evaluations.
Truthfully, this experiment seems more like a lesson in how assumptions about gender impede our ability to understand reality, rather than inform it.
In an email to the Washington Examiner, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers mused, "I'm not so sure this NYU play is a lesson about gender but about authenticity."
Sommers, an expert in gender and feminism who did not support Trump, assessed the results by explaining, "Mr. Trump whatever his failings spoke his mind. He was spontaneous, uncensored and funny. Tom Wolfe called him a 'lovable megalomaniac.' Ms. Clinton came off as scripted, focus-grouped, and supercilious."
"That's hard to love in either sex," Sommers concluded.
Also from the Washington Examiner
The Office of Government Ethics reached out within hours of statements by Trump and Conway.
03/09/17 11:37 PM
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
Original post:
Liberals discover the limits of Clinton's likability - Washington Examiner