Mediaboss Marketing

Recently, Nate Silver found himself in the unenviable role of main character of the day on Twitter because he proposed that school closures were a disastrous, invasion-of-Iraq magnitude (or perhaps greater) policy decision. The comparison generated overwhelming anger and mockery, and it is not an easy one to defend: A fiasco that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and rearranged the regional power structure is a very high bar to clear. Weighing policy failures in such utterly different realms to each other is so inherently difficult that any discussion quickly devolves into Could Superman beat up Mighty Mouse? territory.

But these complications do not fully explain the sheer rage generated by Silver. The furnace-hot backlash seemed to be triggered by Silvers assumption that school closings were not only a mistake a possibility many progressives have quietly begun to accept but an error of judgment that was sufficiently consequential and foreseeable that we cant just shrug it off as a bad dice roll. It was a historic blunder that reveals some deeper flaw in the methods that produced it and which demands corrective action.

That unnerving implication has a mounting pile of evidence to support it. It is now indisputable, and almost undisputed, that the year and a quarter of virtual school imposed devastating consequences on the students who endured it. Studies have found that virtual school left students nearly half a year behind pace, on average, with the learning loss falling disproportionately on low-income, Latino, and Black students. Perhaps a million students functionally dropped out of school altogether. The social isolation imposed on kids caused a mental health state of emergency, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The damage to a generation of childrens social development and educational attainment, and particularly to the social mobility prospects of its most marginalized members, will be irrecoverable.

It is nearly as clear that these measures did little to contain the pandemic. Children face little risk of adverse health effects from contracting COVID, and theres almost no evidence that towns that kept schools open had more community spread.

In the panicked early week of the pandemic, the initial decision to close schools seemed like a sensible precaution. Authorities drew on the closest example at hand, the 1918 Spanish flu, which was contained by closing schools.

But in relatively short order, growing evidence showed that the century-old precedent did not offer much useful guidance. While the Spanish flu was especially deadly for children, COVID-19 is just the opposite. By the tail end of spring 2020, it was becoming reasonably clear both that remote education was failing badly and that schools could be reopened safely.

What happened next was truly disturbing: The left by and large rejected this evidence. Progressives were instead carried along by two predominant impulses. One was a zero-COVID policy that refused to weigh the trade-off of any measure that could even plausibly claim to suppress the pandemic. The other was deference to teachers unions, who were organizing to keep schools closed. Those strands combined into a refusal to acknowledge the scale or importance of losing in-person learning with a moralistic insistence that anybody who disagreed was callous about death or motivated by greed.

Social scientists have measured the factors that drove schools to stay closed last year. One study found schools with unionized teachers, more of which were located in more Democratic-voting districts, were more likely to remain all virtual. Another likewise found local political partisanship and union strength, rather than the local severity of COVID, predicted school closing.

It is always easier to diagnose these pathologies when they are taking place on the other side. Youve probably seen the raft of papers showing how vaccine uptake correlates with Democratic voting and COVID deaths correlate with Republican voting. Perhaps you have marveled at the spectacle of Republican elites actively harming their own audience. But the same thing Fox News hosts were doing to their elderly supporters, progressive activists were doing to their sides young ones.

In a big country, there are always going to be crazy people at the margins. You can measure the health of the parties by the degree to which crazy ideas are taken up by powerful people. (This, of course, is why the Republican Party handing the most powerful job in the world to a conspiracy theorist is the grimmest possible sign.) But the Democratic Partys internal debate on school closings was making room at the table for some truly unhinged ideas. The head of the largest states most powerful teachers union insisted on the record there is no such thing as learning loss and described plans to reopen schools as a recipe for propagating structural racism.

Within blue America, transparently irrational ideas like this were able to carry the day for a disturbingly long period of time. In recent days, Angie Schmitt and Rebecca Bodenheimer have both written essays recounting the disorienting and lonely experience they had watching their friends and putative political allies denounce them for supporting a return to in-person learning. Bodenheimers account is especially vivid:

Parents who advocated for school reopening were repeatedly demonized on social media as racist and mischaracterized as Trump supporters. Members of the parent group I helped lead were consistently attacked on Twitter and Facebook by two Oakland moms with ties to the teachers union. They labeled advocates calls for schools reopening white supremacy, called us Karens, and even bizarrely claimed we had allied ourselves with Marjorie Taylor Greenes transphobic agenda.

The fevered climate of opinion ruled out cost-benefit thinking and instead framed the question as a simple moral binary, with the well-being of public schoolchildren somehow excluded from the calculus. Social scientists like Emily Oster who spoke out about the evidence on schools and COVID became hate targets on the left, an intimidating spectacle for other social scientists who might have thought about speaking up.

The failed experiment finally came to an end in the fall of 2021. (A handful of districts have shut down during the Omicron wave, but this is mainly a temporary response to staff shortages rather than another effort to stop community spread.) The Chicago Teachers Union, one of the more radical unions, did stage a strike, but it was met with firm opposition from Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot and ended quickly.

But the source of the sentiment has not disappeared. The Democratic Partys left-wing vanguard is continuing to flay critics of school closings as neoliberal ghouls carrying out the bidding of the billionaire class. Bernie Sanders aide Elizabeth Pancotti claims that the loudest and most ardent supporters of keeping schools oepn [sic] (& those who dismiss legit concerns about teacher/child health risks) are largely those with remote work options/resources for alternative child care arrangements, as if only some selfish motive could explain the desire of an American liberal to maintain public education. A story in Vice praises a student walkout in New York as a national model.

The ideas that produced the catastrophic school-closing era may have suffered a setback, but its strongest advocates hardly feel chastened. Whether educational achievement can or should be measured at all remains a very live debate within the left.

Most progressives arent insisting on refighting the school closing wars. They just want to quietly move on without anybody admitting anybody did anything wrong.

One of the grievances that critics of the Iraq War nursed after the debacle became clear was the failure of the political Establishment to draw any lessons broader than dont invade Iraq without an occupation plan. Their anger was not unfounded. The catastrophe happened in part because the structure of the debate allowed too many uninformed hawkish voices and ignored too many informed dovish ones. (As a chastened Iraq War supporter myself, Ive grown far more cautious about wading into foreign-policy debates for which I lack adequate understanding.)

Many liberals are complaining that the recent debates over short-term closings are creating a hysterical overreaction from people still angry about the 2020-21 school shutdown. Perhaps a first step to building trust that we are not planning to repeat a catastrophic mistake is to admit the mistake in the first place.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

See more here:
School Closures Were a Catastrophic Error. Progressives Still Havent Reckoned With It. - New York Magazine

By Ronald J. Rosenberg

When U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi announced his Democratic primary run against Gov. Kathy Hochul, it may have seemed like a DAmato moment.Alfonse DAmato, then the Town of Hempstead supervisor, saw a glimmer of political daylight in 1980, when he decided to reach for the political gold ring of U.S. senator from New York. Defeating the legendary three-term incumbent Jacob Javits was deemed impossible by every political pundit and commentator, and you wouldve assumed that not even the bookies would take your bet. Yet DAmato successfully navigated every political rapid to secure victory, a win that stands to this day as testimony to astute political analysis, hard work and an indomitable belief in oneself. When Suozzi first announced his intention to run against Hochul, he rightly assumed that state Attorney General Letitia James would remain a Democratic primary candidate for governor. Given her left-wing credentials, combined with the progressive candidate for that office, Jumaane Williams, Suozzi reasoned that moderate Democrats would look for a safe house from which to escape the Democrats lurch to the left. He certainly has the credentials to be that moderate. But with James backing out of the race, the political threat from the left that Suozzi had expected to help rally centrist Democrats evaporated. Williams doesnt have the recognition, sufficient base or fundraising capabilities for a credible statewide race. That leaves Hochul in a powerful place, because she has the means to outflank Suozzi on any number of fronts.

Ronald J. Rosenberg has been an attorney for 42 years, concentrating in commercial litigation and transactions, and real estate, municipal, zoning and land use law. He founded the Garden City law firm Rosenberg Calica & Birney in 1999.

See original here:
How progressives might be left in the lurch - liherald.com

Inflation has become a big issue for the U.S. economy and, of course, a big political headache for the Biden administration. But while many people have been urging President Joe Biden to focus on inflation, there have been many fewer suggestions about what he might actually do. (Wander around the White House muttering, Im focused, Im focused?) For the most part, controlling inflation is now a matter for monetary policy, and the main thing that Biden can do is let the technocrats who control money do their job which means not engaging in Trump-style haranguing of the Federal Reserve.

One thing the Biden administration has been doing, however, is trying to toughen up antitrust policy, arguing that highly concentrated ownership in many industries largely a result of decades of lax regulation is helping keep prices high and possibly contributing to recent inflation.

Id describe this initiative as controversial, except that theres hardly any controversy, at least in the media: Bidens linkage of monopoly power to inflation is facing vehement, almost hysterical, criticism from all sides, including many progressive commentators. And I find that vehemence puzzling; I think it says more about the commentators than it does about the administration.

Lets stipulate that monopolies arent the reason inflation shot up in 2021 because there was already plenty of monopoly power in America back in 2020.

True, profit margins, as measured by the share of profits in gross domestic product, have increased quite a lot recently. Most of that rise, however, probably reflects big returns to companies, like shippers, that happen to own crucial assets at a time of supply chain bottlenecks. Its possible, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has suggested, that some companies are using general inflation as an excuse to jack up prices, abusing their monopoly power in ways that might have provoked a backlash in normal times; thats certainly not a crazy argument, and making it doesnt make Warren the second coming of Hugo Chavez. Still, such behavior cant explain more than a small fraction of current inflation.

But as far as I can see, the Biden administration and its allies arent claiming otherwise. Theyre simply emphasizing monopoly power because its one thing they might be able to do something about.

And where is the policy harm? On one side, toughening up antitrust enforcement in sectors like meatpacking is something the U.S. government should be doing in any case. On the other side, theres no hint that the administrations anti-monopoly rhetoric will lead to irresponsible policies elsewhere.

As I said, all indications are that Biden and company will leave the Fed alone as it raises interest rates in an effort to cool demand. And I havent seen any important Democratic figure, inside or outside the administration, calling for Richard Nixon-style price controls. The most interventionist policy that seems remotely possible would be something like John F. Kennedys jawboning of the steel industry after an obviously coordinated jump in steel prices and its hard to imagine Biden sounding nearly as hard-line and critical of big business as Kennedy did.

So why the barrage of criticism, not just from the right which was to be expected but from the center and even the center-left?

I dont really know the answer, but I have a few suspicions.

Part of the problem, I think, is an obsession with intellectual purity. Some policy wonks outside the administration apparently expect the policy wonks inside the administration many of them friends and former colleagues to keep sounding exactly the way they did when they werent political appointees. But look, thats not the way the world works. Political appointees are supposed to serve the politicians who appointed them. Dishonesty or gross misrepresentation of reality isnt OK, but emphasizing the good things ones employers are trying to do is OK and part of the job.

Beyond that, it sure looks as if many people who consider themselves progressive are made deeply uncomfortable by anything that sounds populist even when a bit of populist outrage is entirely justified by the facts. Imagine the reaction if Biden gave a speech sounding anything like Kennedy on the steel companies. How many Democratic-leaning economists would have fainting spells?

So heres my suggestion: Give Biden and his people a break on their antitrust crusade. It wont do any harm. It wont get in the way of the big stuff, which is mostly outside Bidens control in any case.

At worst, administration officials will be using inflation as an excuse to do things they should be doing. And they might even have a marginal impact on inflation itself.

Paul Krugman is an economist and a New York Times columnist.

Read the original post:
Paul Krugman: Why are progressives hating on antitrust? - Berkshire Eagle

Every year for the past 48 years, anti-abortion activists have gathered in our nation's capital to protest the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states.

This year, faced with the realistic prospect of that decision being overturned, hopes are at an all-time high. This is one important change that will make the annual March for Life feel different.

A less striking change will be the large contingent of progressives and liberals who are turning up in greater numbers each year. Yes, the event is often championed by right-wing politicians and organizations. At the same time, progressives like us are marching too: even progressive atheists, such as myself (Terrisa).

When we first marched in the March for Life, it was a challenge to find others who shared our worldview. Today, signs by liberal or secular groups are among the most visible at the March: Rehumanize International, Secular Pro-Life, Feminists for Life, PLAGAL+ (The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) and more.

This change at the March reflects the growing number of non-religious and progressive Americans who oppose abortion. In 2012, the Pew Research Center found that 24 percent of non-religious Americans believe abortion should be mostly or always illegal. In 2018, Gallup found that figure was up to 30 percent.

But it's also driven by the pro-life movement's improved outreach to secular and liberal Americans. The movement has increasingly relied on messages that resonate with the core beliefs of millennials and Gen Z. We don't consider these arguments dishonest or backhanded: on the contrary, we believe they capture the heart of the pro-life movement.

First, the pro-life movement gives increasing weight to science. In 1973, the Supreme Court told us that there has "always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth." Today, 95 percent of biologists affirm the view that human life begins at fertilization. Modern advances in ultrasound technology and discoveries in prenatal development have laid the Roe Court's view to rest, rendering the decision obsolete.

Second, the pro-life movement is increasingly calling out the anti-feminist assumptions of the abortion-industrial complex. It is anti-feminist to suggest that women need abortions to succeed in a world that still hasn't upended patriarchal assumptions in families and the workplace. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the non-violent instincts of feminism to tie the liberation of women to the elimination of any group of human beings. Girls, furthermore, are disproportionately the targets of abortionespecially in places like China, India and parts of Eastern Europe.

Third, the pro-life movement increasingly points out the economic interests of the abortion-rights movement. We respect the personal sincerity of abortion rights proponents. Sadly, however, this social movement is inextricably tied to the interests of Big Abortion, a $3 billion industry. This industry stands to lose a lot if the demands of progressive pro-liferspaid parental leave, free health care, an increased focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy and, critically, ending legal elective abortion by targeting abortionistsare met. As younger Americans grow skeptical of the excesses of capitalism, they increasingly understand the conflicted motives behind the movement to expand access to abortion.

Finally, progressive Americans are finding it more difficult to square their commitment to non-discrimination with advocacy for abortion. Sophie Trist, a blind progressive advocate against abortion, speaks movingly about the ableist implications of abortion for people living with a disability. Some countries, like Iceland, claim to have "eliminated" Down Syndromea feat accomplished not by some miracle cure but by systematic elimination of human beings likely to have Down Syndrome in the uterus. This month, The New York Times ran an investigation revealing that many, if not most, prenatal tests used to diagnose Down Syndrome are not even accurate.

Fundamentally, we believe there will never be equity in our nation as long as we try to achieve it by ending the lives of the tiniest human beings among us.

Because we cannot outspend the industry, our quest for justice as a movement relies on our ability to mobilize enough people power for non-violent resistance. That is what the March for Life is all about.

This year, we hope, Roe v. Wade will fall under the weight of a pro-life revolution. We look forward to the day abortion is a distant memory of a late-capitalist past when profit mattered more than human lives.

Terrisa Bukovinac is founder and President of PAAU (Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising). Xavier Bisits is Secretary of PAAU and former Vice President of Democrats for Life of America.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

The rest is here:
The Progressive Case Against Abortion | Opinion - Newsweek

In better times, the French left used to draw inspiration from the old Popular Front phrase, les lendemains qui chantent (the tomorrows that sing). These days that kind of optimism along with any sense of unity among progressives is just a poignant memory.

With less than 100 days to go before the first round of the French presidential election, the jockeying for position among the flatlining candidates of the left has become a fractious sideshow, as the campaign continues to be dominated by the right. At the weekend, the Socialist former justice minister, Christiane Taubira, became the latest hopeful to formally throw her hat into the ring. She joins the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo also a Socialist France Unboweds veteran hard-left leader Jean-Luc Mlenchon, the Green candidate, Yannick Jadot, and an assortment of fringe figures. None of the candidates has managed to break through the 10% barrier in polls and none has a chance of making it through to the second round of voting; yet all remain in the race, vying to take votes from each other. Singing tomorrows have given way to a cacophonous clashing of stubborn egos. The result is that the 30% or so of voters who identify as being on the broad left are being effectively disfranchised.

Ms Taubira is associated with one of the most notable progressive victories in recent times, having pushed through same-sex marriage in 2013. Charismatic and popular with grassroots activists, she will hope that her radical pedigree can transcend the factional warfare. But there is also a risk that she simply divides this divided field still further. Ms Hidalgo recently warned that the choice for the left was to either unite or risk eventual extinction as a political force in France. But Mr Jadot and Mr Mlenchon, whose poll ratings have more than halved since the election of 2017, have both refused to recognise the validity of an unofficial peoples primary at the end of the month.

It is a sorry spectacle. In 2012, following the election of Franois Hollande as president, the Parti Socialiste controlled the lyse, both houses of parliament and most regional administrations. It then paid a heavy price for enacting post-crash austerity measures and haemorrhaged working-class support during the growing backlash against globalisation. In 2017, the party was out-manoeuvred by Emmanuel Macron, who left it to set up the centrist En Marche movement and successfully brought about a realignment in which he became the presidential bulwark against the threat of the far right.

Faced with these formidable structural challenges, the French left cannot afford the luxury of endless infighting and self-indulgent campaigns leading to mutually assured destruction at the polls. The peoples primary was set up by progressive activists in a last-ditch attempt to achieve a united front. It seems destined to fail in that aim though it may serve as a kind of launchpad for Ms Taubira, who has said she will not run unless she wins. The near-certain humiliation that awaits the left in April should be the catalyst for a radical reboot of how progressive politics is done in France.

Read the original here:
The Guardian view on French progressives: divided they fall - The Guardian