Mediaboss Marketing

The era of big government is over, President Bill Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union address.

There was no question about that at the time. Clinton was banking on triangulation co-opting the GOPs policy ideas to win over its voters to win re-election that fall. After years of hearing about Reagan Republicans grip on the suburbs and the GOP takeover of the House in 1994, Democrats had decided if you cant beat em, join em. The result was two parties both in favor of shrinking the federal government and leaning into a more laissez-faire neoliberalism.

Twenty-five years later, that time is over. Shrinking the size and scope of government is no longer a driving force in either party. What we see instead are two very different visions of the role of government but no real desire from either side to curtail its influence. Republicans are increasingly embracing authoritarianism over libertarianism, even as they frame it as freedom; Democrats have stopped running away from the tax and spend criticism that Clinton embraced.

Its not that big a surprise to see this shift on the Republican side of the aisle. The GOP has had a loose commitment to limited government over the years, in terms of both raw power and areas of influence. On an ideological level, the anti-regulatory spirit embedded in the party has always clashed with the social conservative branchs need to control certain peoples bodies and behavior through anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ policies.

And while President Ronald Reagan campaigned on slashing spending through cutting the governments allowance, the resulting tax cuts didnt slow a massive increase in federal spending. We saw the same under Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Ballooning deficits undercut promises of reduced government.

The GOP has had a loose commitment to limited government over the years.

Trump didnt even pay lip service to limiting the federal governments power and scope. But the party went along with him, even though his flashes of authoritarianism are diametrically opposed to the libertarian impulse once prevalent in the more serious wing of the GOP.

Today, the governors vying for Trumps supporters have been fine with using whatever means possible to assert similar auras of authority. Gov. Greg Abbott has consolidated power in Texas by riding roughshod over city and county elected officials and countering what had once been party dogma: Local governments produce better outcomes. Abbotts latest executive order, issued Thursday, bars any level of government in the state from mandating Covid vaccinations, despite the Pfizer vaccines recent FDA approval.

Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has spent weeks ordering school districts not to mandate masks for students. (That effort appears to be backfiring as school boards, cities and counties call his bluff.)

What really makes this latest shift from small government so striking is the GOPs newfound desire to regulate the behavior of private businesses. After decades of devotion to the free market, Republicans recently began targeting what they consider symbolically woke actions by major corporations. Attempts by Abbott and DeSantis to ban cruise lines from requiring vaccinations for their passengers show that this interventionism extends to dictating corporations more substantive actions.

Across the aisle, Democrats are finally aggressively touting major projects and investments after years of running scared from Republican attacks on their tax and spend policies and alleged socialism. President Joe Biden surprised most of the Washington establishment when he championed nearly $4 trillion in proposed new spending. By backing that vision, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have grounded it firmly in the mainstream of Democratic politics.

Democrats are finally aggressively touting major projects and investments after years of running scared from Republican attacks on their tax and spend policies and alleged socialism.

But give credit to the rising clout of progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders once considered a gadfly, now the chair of the Senate Budget Committee plans to spend the next weeks barnstorming GOP territory to gin up support for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that Democrats are preparing for next month.

This dedication to big government isnt a fait accompli in either party. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem came out in an Instagram post Tuesday against a bill that would ban employers from mandating shots for their employees, calling it not conservative and a wolf in sheeps clothing. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine opposes a similar bill in his state but the idea is still popular among the anti-vaccine crowd that DeSantis and Abbott are trying to capture.

And as I wrote Tuesday, some moderate Democrats in the House and the Senate are balking at the price tag of the reconciliation bill, despite the popularity of the proposed spending among voters. Theyre likely to win some concessions which will dull the impact of some of the affected programs but the vast majority of projects will be at least partly funded.

From those Democrats, one hears echoes of the political consultants who convinced Clinton that stealing Republican voters was more important than actual liberal achievements. But were a long way from 1996 the momentum has swung toward active governance, not elected officials who sit on the sidelines. And with one party eager to expand government assistance and the other filled with leaders eager to assert their dominance, dont expect to hear either speak sincerely about small government any time soon.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

Continue reading here:
Ron DeSantis and Bernie Sanders agree on one thing - MSNBC

Martin Fey| For The Bulletin

Republicans often grouse about Hollywood and news media hostility toward conservative views, and the penchant of both institutions for caricaturing conservatives as racists. But the phenomenon is nothing new.

From 1971 to 1979, Norman Lears popular sitcom All in the Family revolved around the small-mindedness, ethnocentrism, jingoism, homophobia and racism of family patriarch Archie Bunker, who in almost every episode was given a liberal lesson. It was a great creation, but Archies offensive language and addiction to stereotypes would never get past Hollywoods woke censors today, nor would Lears choice to make him a sometimes-likeable character despite his copious flaws. It has been said that preaching is fatal to art, but Lear preached liberalism without browbeating his audience. Conservatives and liberals both tuned in for nearly a decade, and then to many years of reruns.

Today there is no subtle preaching in Hollywood, no effort at understanding opposing points of view. A similar sitcom today would portray Archie as pure evil, a scheming white supremacist rather than an unthreatening ignoramus. Hollywood 2021 is close to the reverse of it in the 1950s, when communists, former communists and socialists were blacklisted. Now its conservatives and Republicans in Hollywood who work in fear, muzzled by the threat of an informal blacklisting that harms careers and breaks long relationships.

A few occasionally speak out, though usually gently. Tim Allen, star of the sitcom Last Man Standing, is one of them. In one frank moment he told comedian Jimmy Kimmel on air that being a non-liberal in Hollywood is risky. You get beat up if I dont believe what everybody believes, he said. This is like 30s Germany. Although Last Man Standing was the second highest rated sitcom in 2017, ABC decided to cancel it. Many fans angrily attributed that decision to Allens political views, although the anger subsided when the Fox network picked up the show the next season.

Stacey Dash, an African American/Latina actress best known for her leading role in Clueless, put it this way:

Because Im black Im supposed to therefor be a Democrat, which is absurd, she said. They (Democrats) are supposed to be the party of tolerance, but I dont see any tolerance.

Stars who are aging out of the industry, like Clint Eastwood, Kelsey Grammer and John Voight, are more likely to speak honestly about their political views, but they never show any intolerance toward their liberal counterparts. Instead, they usually invoke libertarian ideas and the desire that people be willing to hear both sides. Occasionally they go out on a limb. Voight called Donald Trump the greatest president since Lincoln, a statement that no doubt took him completely off the cocktail circuit.

The Trump presidency brought the Hollywood leftists to new heights of viscousness, even threats of violence. The same people who in 2020 condemned Trump for refusing to accept his election loss and accused him of fomenting insurrection were apoplectic after his 2016 win. They led the so-called Resistance movement, which rejected Trumps legitimacy and began the anti-Trump hysteria that marred his entire presidency.

It is expected that actors and musicians will be openly liberal and anti-conservative, but the Trump era dragged many of them to slathering lows. Wrestler actor Mickey Rourke and Orange is the New Black actress Lea Delaria chose baseball bats as their preferred weapon for a Trump beat-down. Musician Marilyn Manson and comedian Kathy Griffin created Trump decapitation images. Madonna told thousands at a DC womens march that she had thought a lot about blowing up the White House, and actor Robert DeNiro, still a tough guy in his aging decrepitude, was joined by rapper Everlast in preferring to simply punch Trump in the face.

Most Americans, fortunately, can separate Hollywood fantasy from reality. But there is another class of script readers who have been far more damaging the icons of the mainstream news media. Except for Fox News on cable and the airwaves of talk radio, the media spoke in lockstep and with the same vocabulary through every one of the false narratives brought to bear on Trump. It started with the falsehood that he extolled Nazis and white supremacists after the Charlottesville VA tragedy, a vicious lie that the unreported full text of his remarks should have long ago put to rest. Then there was the Russia collusion lie, based on documents the FBI knew to be fraudulent and discredited by the nearly three-year Mueller probe that Democrats simply rejected. The supposedly reliable intelligence sources that said Russia had offered terrorists bounties for Americans killed in Afghanistan, and that Trump had done nothing to stop them, turned out to be mendacious. Then there was the false story that Trump had peaceful protestors gassed in Lafayette Park near the White House so he could stage a photo op. The inspector general found that the Park Service gave the order because a fence contractor had a job to do. While the lies were circulating Trump was vilified as a dictator, a racist and a traitor. By the time the truth was out, few were paying attention.

Hollywood, music and the media have done more damage in the past five years to American institutions than any presidency in history. Unfortunately for those industries, trust in them was one of the casualties.

Martin Fey is a member of the Quiet Corner Tea Party Patriots.

See the original post here:
View from the Right: Hollywood, music and the media have damaged American institutions - Norwich Bulletin

Most Virginia voters go for candidates with a D or R next to their name, but who should have dibs on the L?

This year, election officials preparing Novembers ballots were faced with the dilemma of how to differentiate the Libertarian Party from the Liberation Party, the newly formed initiative from gubernatorial candidate and social justice activist Princess Blanding.

We didnt want to list them both as L. Because thats a really bad idea, Dave Nichols, elections services manager for the Virginia Department of Elections, said at a state Board of Elections meeting Tuesday.

To resolve the issue, the state reached out to both parties for ideas.

We believe the identification of L for Libertarian has long been used in Virginia and voters understand that L officially represents a vote for the Libertarian Party, Joe Paschal, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, wrote in response. We believe it would be unfair to ask our party to change the ballot identification of L after spending years establishing this familiarity with voters. As such, we request L for the Libertarian Party on all ballots in Virginia.

The Liberation Party, which Blanding chairs, seemed to concur. In her own letter, Blanding suggested LP, LTP, or LBP as possible abbreviations for her party.

The state board voted to go with LP as the default abbreviation for the Liberation Party, keeping the other two suggestions on file for backup use.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis was on the ballot for governor in 2013 and the U.S. Senate in 2014. The party does not have any statewide candidates this year. However, there are a few Libertarians running for seats in the House of Delegates, meaning some voters will see both Libertarian Party and Liberation Party options on their ballots.

Read the original here:
Libertarian vs. Liberation creates third-party conundrum on Virginia ballots - Virginia Mercury

Many scientific findings continue to be disputed by politicians and parts of the public long after a scholarly consensus has been established. For example, nearly a third of Americans still do not accept that fossil fuel emissions cause climate change, even though the scientific community settled on a consensus that they do decades ago.

Research into why people reject scientific facts has identified peoples political worldviews as the principal predictor variable. People with a libertarian or conservative worldview are more likely to reject climate change and evolution and are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

What explains this propensity for rejection of science by some of the political right? Are there intrinsic attributes of the scientific enterprise that are uniquely challenging to people with conservative or libertarian worldviews? Or is the association merely the result of conflicting imperatives between scientific findings and their economic implications? In the case of climate change, for example, any mitigation necessarily entails interference with current economic practice.

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the first possibility that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking. We focused on two aspects of science: the often tacit norms and principles that guide the scientific enterprise, and the history of how scientific progress has led us to understand that human beings are not the centre of the universe.

Sociologist Robert Merton famously proposed norms for the conduct of science in 1942. The norm of communism (different from the political philosophy of communism) holds that the results of scientific research should be the common property of the scientific community. Universalism postulates that knowledge should transcend racial, class, national or political barriers. Disinteredness mandates that scientists should conduct research for the benefit of the scientific enterprise rather than for personal gain.

These norms sit uneasily with strands of standard contemporary conservative thought. Conservatism is typically associated with nationalism and patriotism, at the expense of embracing cooperative internationalism. And the notion of disinterestedness may not mesh well with conservative emphasis on property rights.

Science has enabled us to explain the world around us but that may create further tensions especially with religious conservatism. The idea that humans are exceptional is at the core of traditional Judeo-Christian thought, which sees the human as an imago Dei, an image of God, that is clearly separate from other beings and nature itself.

Against this human exceptionalism, the over-arching outcome of centuries of research since the scientific revolution has been a diminution of the status of human beings. We now recognise our planet to be a rather small and insignificant object in a universe full of an untold number of galaxies, rather than the centre of all creation.

We tested how those two over-arching attributes of science its intrinsic norms and its historical effect on how humans see themselves might relate to conservative thought and acceptance of scientific facts in two large-scale studies. Each involved a representative sample of around 1,000 US residents.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism. Conservatism, on the other hand, is skeptical of that possibility and leans more towards the idea that improvement comes from the individual implying a lesser role for the malleability of intelligence.

The fact that individual differences in intelligence are related to genetic differences, with current estimates of heritability hovering around 50%, is therefore potentially challenging to liberals but might be endorsed by conservatives.

The two studies differed slightly in how we measured political views and peoples endorsement of the norms of science, but the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change. This suggests that people who embrace the scientific enterprise as a whole are also more likely to accept specific scientific findings.

We found limited support for the possibility that belief in human exceptionalism would predispose people to be more sceptical in their acceptance of scientific propositions. Exceptionalism had little direct effect on scientific attitudes. Therefore, our study provided no evidence for the conjecture that the long history of science in displacing humans from the centre of the world contributes to conversatives uneasiness with science.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought in this case the belief that people can be improved are in potential conflict with the evidence.

The two studies help explain why conservatives are more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals. This rejection is not only dictated by political interests clashing with a specific body of scientific knowledge (such as human-caused climate change), but it appears to represent a deeper tension between conservatism and the spirit in which science is commonly conducted.

Read more:
Many conservatives have a difficult relationship with science we wanted to find out why - The Conversation UK

This article was written exclusively for Investing.com.

, , and other cryptocurrencies made a substantial comeback from their lows following the steep correction that occurred after the April and May peaks. Bitcoin dropped from $65,520 on Apr. 14 to a low of $28,800 in late June or over 56%. Ethereum reached its peak at $4,406.50 in mid-May and fell to a low of $1697.75 in late June, a decline of nearly 61.5%.

The market cap of the entire asset class of over 11,180 digital tokens more than halved from around the $2.5 trillion level.

While prices plunged, the speculative frenzy in the cryptocurrency asset class continues to attract new participants each day. On Sunday, Aug. 8, Bitcoin was back above the $43,800 level, with Ethereum at just over $3000 per token. The market cap for the entire class was nearly $1.775 trillion.

Stories of incredible wealth creation from those with the foresight to turn a $1 investment in Bitcoin at five cents in 2010 into over $2 million is a powerful catalyst. Moreover, technology companies continue to embrace the libertarian form of money, with Squares (NYSE:) Jack Dorsey leading the way.

At the , the CEO of both SQ and Twitter (NYSE:) called cryptocurrency the internets form of money. As more businesses begin accepting tokens for payment, governments are not likely to stand by idly.

Governments have repeatedly challenged cryptos because of their nefarious uses. However, it is control of the money supply that is at the root of their concerns.

Control of the purse strings is the most significant factor in retaining power. Surrendering the money supply to any libertarian currency diminishes control.

The status quo means governments can expand or contract the money supply with the push of a button. The ideological divide between governments and a form of money that transcends borders creates a vast gulf.

Governments embrace Blockchain as it represents the technological evolution of finance. The speed and efficiency of fintech have broad appeal. However, the digital currencies themselves pose a massive threat to power.

China appears to be the first government to issue a digital form of its currency, the yuan. In preparation, the Chinese have cracked down on Bitcoin and other cryptos. It will not be long before the US and Europe roll out digital dollars and euro. Washington DC and the EU are more than likely to follow Chinas lead to retain control of the money supply and hold onto financial power.

Post-2008, in the aftermath of the financial markets crash, the stage was set for cross-border regulatory cooperation. Given the move towards globalism under the Biden administration, we are likely to see regulators in the US, UK, and EU work together to establish a framework for cryptocurrency regulation.

While they will present this as a regulatory environment to protect investors, traders, and the sanctity of money, the underlying factor will be control and maintenance of the monetary status quo.

I expect that fintech will bifurcate into two regulatory protocols. One will cover government-issued digital currencies and could include so-called stablecoins that reflect hard asset values.

These are likely to be the blue chips that will face a more lenient regulatory landscape as control will continue to come from governments, treasuries, central banks, and monetary authorities.

Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, could face far more regulatory hurdles to mitigate their threat to established power bases.

One of the most potent tools governments have at their disposal is taxation. A sign that cryptocurrencies are already in the US governments crosshairs are two competing crypto tax amendments in the Senates infrastructure legislation. The taxation comes down to defining the role of a broker in cryptocurrencies.

Ironically, Senators initially looked to impose stricter rules on taxing cryptocurrencies to help fund the infrastructure bill. The Wyden-Toomey-Lummis amendment would narrow the broker definition to exclude miners and validators, hardware and software makers, and protocol developers from the designation. The amendment would seek to keep the crypto business and market from moving overseas to less restrictive jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the Portman-Warner-Sinema amendment would only protect proof of work (PoW) miners from the newly proposed reporting requirement. The amendment would not make proof of stake (PoS) developers, operators, validators, or liquidity providers from the reporting requirements.

The bottom line: strict taxation is on the horizon in some form. Taxation is the most significant device governments can use to maintain a grip on the asset class and exert control.

Under the umbrella of paying for infrastructure, the IRS and other government agencies would have the power to control money flows with complete transparency. Moreover, cross-border cooperation could be a silver bullet that drives the market away from cryptos toward government-issued digital currencies and stable coins that reflect the value of regulated assets.

Libertarian ideology shifts power from the state to individuals. Libertarians believe in free markets where prices come from transparent transactions without government interference. Ironically, many believe that libertarianism is a right-wing doctrine.

When it comes to money, it decreases the governments role. However, socially, libertarianism can also appeal to the political left. Right and left political ideologies embrace different forms of libertarianism.

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, neither the government nor proponents of the burgeoning asset class will be pleased with the outcome. In the US and Europe, the growth of technology companies that have created oligarchies sets the stage for an epic battle over the future of the money supply.

Government officials are on one side, with Jack Dorsey, Tesla's (NASDAQ:) Elon Musk, Amazon's (NASDAQ:) Jeff Bezos, and other titans embracing a fintech world that transcends government control on the other.

Both sides have vested interests. The governments will do anything to preserve their hold on power. The crypto market and technology companies seek to return power to individuals, but they stand to be financial benefactors.

The bottom line: regulations are on the horizon, and they are likely to create a class system where digital currencies and stablecoins are not subject to the same treatment as cryptos.

Two competing payment systems could become mutually exclusive, creating lots of volatility and an epic financial battle for control. Governments may have the right to taxation, regulations, and armies of agents at their disposal. However, the technology sector has know-how and skills that dwarf the capabilities of those looking to maintain the status quo.

Speculative interest is currently fueling the libertarian asset class, which is why Chinese regulators have put their foot down. China is an authoritarian system, making it easy to suppress anything that is not in the governments interest.

Expect the US and Europe to try to do the same. However, in social democracies, that task is far from easy.

Source: CQG

The monthly chart of , above, shows that the speculative frenzy is likely to continue. Nearly 11,200 cryptocurrencieswith more coming to the market each dayis another sign that the asset class has rising appeal. Moreover, the existence of Bitcoin and means the cat is already out of the bag, and the US and Europe will now seek to tax and regulate from a weakened position.

Many agree that Blockchain is the future of the payments system. However, the form of money is an issue that will continue to stoke controversy for years to come.

Continued here:
Cryptocurrency Regulations On The Horizon; Expect 2 Sets Of Protocols - Investing.com