Mediaboss Marketing

An impeached president who is up for re-election will this week deliver a State of the Union address to the most divided union in living memory.

But why are we so divided? Were not fighting a hugely unpopular war on the scale of Vietnam. Were not in a deep economic crisis like the Great Depression. Yes, we disagree about guns, gays, abortion and immigration, but weve disagreed about them for decades. Why are we so divided now?

Part of the answer is Trump himself. The Great Divider knows how to pit native-born Americans against immigrants, the working class against the poor, whites against blacks and Latinos, evangelicals against secularists, keeping almost everyone stirred up by vilifying, disparaging, denouncing, defaming and accusing others of the worst. Trump thrives off disruption and division.

But that begs the question of why we have been so ready to be divided by Trump. The answer derives in large part from what has happened to wealth and power.

In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri and North Carolina, for a research project on the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the people I had met 20 years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as with some of their grown children.

What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, many said theyd been working hard and were frustrated they werent doing better. Now they were angry angry at their employers, the government, Wall Street.

Something very big happened, and it wasnt due to Sanders magnetism or Trumps likeability

Many had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession following the financial crisis of 2008, or knew others who had. Most were back in jobs but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before, in terms of purchasing power.

I heard the term rigged system so often I began asking people what they meant. They spoke about flat wages, shrinking benefits, growing job insecurity. They talked about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, soaring CEO pay, and crony capitalism.

These complaints came from people who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats and independents. A few had joined the Tea Party. A few had briefly been involved in the Occupy movement.

With the 2016 political primaries looming, I asked which candidates they found most attractive. At the time, the leaders of the Democratic party favored Hillary Clinton and Republican leaders favored Jeb Bush. Yet no one I spoke with mentioned Clinton or Bush.

They talked instead about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. When I asked why, they said Sanders or Trump would shake things up or make the system work again or stop the corruption or end the rigging.

In the following year, Sanders a 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasnt even a Democrat until the primaries came within a whisker of beating Clinton in Iowa, routed her in New Hampshire, and ended up with 46% of the pledged delegates from Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Trump a 69-year-old egomaniacal billionaire reality-TV star who had never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party and who lied compulsively about everything won the primaries and went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America (although he didnt win the popular vote, and had some help from the Kremlin).

Something very big had happened, and it wasnt due to Sanders magnetism or Trumps likeability. It was a rebellion against the establishment. That rebellion is still going on, although much of the establishment still denies it. They prefer to attribute Trumps rise solely to racism.

Racism did play a part. But to understand why racism had such a strong impact in 2016, especially on the voting of whites without college degrees, its important to see what drove it. After all, racism in America dates back long before the founding of the Republic, and even modern American politicians have had few compunctions about using racism to boost their standing.

What gave Trumps racism as well as his hateful xenophobia, misogyny and jingoism particular virulence was his capacity to channel the intensifying anger of the white working class into it. It is hardly the first time in history that a demagogue has used scapegoats to deflect public attention from the real causes of distress.

Aided by Fox News and an army of rightwing outlets, Trump convinced many blue-collar workers feeling ignored by Washington that he was their champion. Clinton did not convince them that she was. Her decades of public service ended up being a negative, not a positive. She was indubitably part of the establishment, the epitome of decades of policies that left these blue-collar workers in the dust. (Its notable that during the primaries, Sanders did far better than Clinton with blue-collar voters.)

Trump galvanized millions of blue-collar voters in communities that faced a tidal wave of factory closings

Trump galvanized millions of blue-collar voters living in communities that never recovered from the tidal wave of factory closings. He promised to bring back jobs, revive manufacturing and get tough on trade and immigration.

We cant continue to allow China to rape our country, and thats what theyre doing, he said at one rally. In five, 10 years from now, youre going to have a workers party. A party of people that havent had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.

Speaking at a factory in Pennsylvania in June 2016, he decried politicians and financiers who had betrayed Americans by taking away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.

Democrats had occupied the White House for 16 of the 24 years before Trumps election, and in that time scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. I take pride in being part of a Democratic administration during that time.

But Democrats did nothing to change the vicious cycle of wealth and power that had rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top and undermined the working class. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election, Democrats dont have a white working-class problem. They have a working class problem which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly.

The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.

In the first two years of the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Yet both Clinton and Obama advocated free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs any means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. Clinton pushed for Nafta and for China joining the World Trade Organization, and Obama sought to restore the confidence of Wall Street instead of completely overhauling the banking system.

Both stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections. Clinton deregulated Wall Street before the crash; Obama allowed the Street to water down attempts to re-regulate it after the crash. Obama protected Wall Street from the consequences of its gambling addiction through a giant taxpayer-funded bailout, but allowed millions of underwater homeowners to drown.

Both Clinton and Obama turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion opening wider the floodgates to big money in politics.

Although Clinton and Obama faced increasingly hostile Republican congresses, they could have rallied the working class and built a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy. Yet they chose not to. Why?

My answer is not just hypothetical, because I directly witnessed much of it: it was because Clinton, Obama and many congressional Democrats sought the votes of the suburban swing voter so-called soccer moms in the 1990s and affluent politically independent professionals in the 2000s who supposedly determine electoral outcomes, and turned their backs on the working class. They also drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

A direct line connects the four-decade stagnation of wages with the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party (and, briefly, Occupy), and the successes of Sanders and Trump in 2016. As Eduardo Porter of the New York Times notes, since 2000 Republican presidential candidates have steadily gained strength in Americas poorer counties while Democrats have lost ground. In 2016, Trump won 58% of the vote in the counties with the poorest 10% of the population. His share was 31% in the richest.

By 2016, Americans understood full well that wealth and power had moved to the top. Big money had rigged our politics. This was the premise of Sanderss 2016 campaign. It was also central to Trumps appeal Im so rich I cant be bought off although once elected he delivered everything big money wanted.

The most powerful force in American politics today continues to be anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. Theres no longer a moderate center. Theres either Trumps authoritarian populism or democratic small d populism.

Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement. Trump has harnessed the frustrations of at least 40% of America. Although hes been a Trojan Horse for big corporations and the rich, giving them all theyve wanted in tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks, the working class continues to believe hes on their side.

Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, sexualities and classes, and band together to unrig the system.

Trump is not the cause of our divided nation. He is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us. Its not enough to defeat him. We must reform the system that got us here in the first place, to ensure that no future politician will ever again imitate Trumps authoritarian demagoguery.

Read more here:
Why Democrats share the blame for the rise of Donald Trump - The Guardian

Join us for tea," reads a placard held by a woman at Delhis Shaheen Bagh. Its an invitation to the prime minister to come and talk to the protesting women, to hear their concerns. Tea here connotes dialogue, not accusation, conversation, not a fight. Tea and food have always been womens allies, in good times and bad. Teas power lies in its ordinariness, and if nothing else, tea offers sustenance to those fighting the good fight.

Tea has often figured in political history. Theres the Boston Tea Party of 1773, that pivotal event leading to the American war of independence. The Sons of Liberty, fighting against the British, chose to have their say by boarding the ships docked in Bostons harbour and dumping the entire load of tea into the sea. The economic loss was severethree shiploads of teabut nobody was hurt, no damage done to the ships, and nothing else was taken or stolen. In fact, after dumping the tea, the rebels swept the decks, made sure everything was in order, and left.

But the fight in which tea took centre stage was the feminist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Women had few liberties but the one they were fighting for was equal voting rights. How would they fight, however, if they were not even allowed to go out for a meal, unchaperoned by a man?!

Enterprising women opened spare rooms in their houses as tea rooms, serving tea and food. These spaces were inherently feminine and therefore considered safe for women. Women came in droves, and tearooms became the centre of the womens suffragette movement. The Historic England website says, In early 20th century Britain, tearooms were a magnet for women seeking emancipation, and tea was a class leveller uniting women across the social spectrum."

The same fight was taking place in the US. Pink teas" may sound frivolous but were serious political gatherings. In Boston, prominent socialite and suffragist Alva Vanderbilt Belmont built a Chinese tea house on her lawns, where she would organize suffrage teas". In California, Equality Tea was the suffragettes brand, available in English Breakfast, Ceylon, Gunpowder Green, Hyson and Oolong. In Los Angeles, Mrs R.L. Craig marketed the Votes-for-Women tea to raise money for the cause. The fight was won for unconditional voting rights, in 1920 in the US and 1928 in the UK.

Tea has since entered art galleries as a symbol of dissent, as seen in the work of Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. His A Ton Of Tea is a ton of puer (Chinese fermented tea) compressed into a large cube, while Teahouse is made of compressed puer set on a lawn of loose tea. By taking something so ubiquitous as tea, and inherently Chinese, he has set out to make a political statement. It has been part of advertising campaigns, as seen in India in 2008, when a popular brand of Indian tea ran a campaign calling on people to cast their vote responsibly.

When called upon, tea has often played the catalystthat everyday drink that has wielded the power of a wake-up call.

TEA READS

The Trouble With Tea by Jane T. Merritt and Heroines Of Tea by Peter G.W. Keen

Tea Nanny is a weekly series steeped in the world of tea. Aravinda Anantharaman is a Bengaluru-based tea blogger and writer who reports on the tea industry.

Read the original here:
Brewing mutiny in a cup of tea - Livemint

A TEA-GUZZLING tiger whose hilarious antics have been delighting youngsters for decades will be causing chaos in County Durham this spring.

Direct from the West End, the Olivier Award nominated smash hit show The Tiger Who Came to Tea is touring the UK once again in 2020 following more than ten years on stage.

It is set to entertain children and adults alike at the Gala Theatre in Durham City on Saturday, February 29, at 1.30pm and 3.30pm and on Sunday, March 1, at 10.30am and 1.30pm.

The play is based on Judith Kerrs much-loved childrens book of the same name, which was first published in 1968 and has sold more than five million copies.

The book, which started out as a bedtime story Kerr made up for her own children, tells the tale of Sophie and her mum, who are just settling down for their tea when the doorbell rings. Much to their surprise the unexpected visitor is a big stripy tiger who proceeds to eat and drink everything in the house.

A TV adaptation was broadcast on Channel 4 at Christmas and those keen for more teatime mayhem will not want to miss the stage show.

Packed full of magic, sing-a-long songs and clumsy chaos, it promises to surprise and delight children and the young at heart.

But the fun does not stop there. Sophie and her stripy friend will be back in Durham in the summer as the subject of an exhibition at the Gala Gallery. From Wednesday, July 1 to Saturday, August 29, the gallery will host Judith Kerr: The Tiger Who Came to Tea a Seven Stories, The National Centre for Childrens Books touring exhibition.

Featuring the authors facsimile artwork, notes and sketches, visitors will be transported into Sophies kitchen where all the magic takes place.

Robin Byers, the Gala Theatres manager, said: The Tiger Who Came to Tea has been a bedtime story staple for countless children and their parents over the years.

Its a wonderful story and the stage adaptation retains all the magic and mischief, plus plenty of surprises too.

Tickets are available now priced at 12.50. Family tickets for two adults and two children cost 46.

See more here:
Theatre hosts tea party with a much-loved tiger - The Northern Echo

REVIEWTheatre Royal Stratford East, London. Then touring

JUST as Brexiteers are revelling in all things British, this subversive reality check about the countrys attitudes towards race hits the stage.

Among gifts Queen Victoria received from her empire was a young Nigerian girl who, renamed Sarah Forbes Bonetta, was raised as an adopted princess.

From this fact, Janice Okoh has written a play that connects 19th century and present day Britain like a hotline.

It also features two excruciatingly funny tea parties. The first in 1862 sees Shannon Hayes, as a serenely regal Sarah, prepare to decamp from her Brighton home with husband James (Dave Fishley) to travel to Africa.

Their white tea guests include social-climbing heiress Harriet Walker (Joanna Brookes, who also plays the monarch).

Its a meeting in which Walkers blunt comments about her royal hosts background strain tea party etiquette like a fist shoved into a lace glove.

Then Dawn Waltons well-acted production vaults into the 21st century where modern, black British Sarah (Donna Berlin, who earlier plays the princesss awkward servant), and husband James (Fishley again) are visited by white neighbours Ben and Harriet. Again, the guests well-meaning small-talk is loaded with toe-curling, unintentional racism.

When Harriet assumes their hosts prefer the term BAME, rather than black, the clumsy virtue signalling is fantastically countered by Berlins deadpan Sarah who says she prefers the term white. Culturally, she adds, with a pause, to let them stew.

There are shades here of such racially charged modern American classics as Clybourne Park and The Octoroon. Its a shame that Okoh cant resist ramming home her message about colonial legacy.

But at its best, this is a bold exploration of black Britishness that is as agonising as it is funny.

View post:
Theatre review: The Gift - Metro Newspaper UK

Economic growth, documentation and accountability dont have a recently formed connection. The process of international trade and the period of coming of the corporations such as Dutch VOC, and British EIC, had begotten the cash-catching middlemen. They ride the waves of protectionism and globalization alike, with equal equanimity and ease; mastering the art of profiteering.

The famous Boston Tea party mistakenly associated with increases in taxes by the British and resulting anger in the Americas wasnt about that. Rather the Townshend Act, implemented in 1767, had already placed a 10 percent import duty on tea coming in what is now U. S. However, it did hurt the middlemen there as the tea from Britain wasnt sent directly to the Americas. Rather it was sold to men there who then sell it to men at the other continent which was then distributed to retailers, finally making its way to consumers. What the 1773 Act did was to slash off the profits of these middlemen. The people disguised as EIC men, casting the tea off the ships docked at America, werent the consumers but those middlemen incensed at this bill.

This entire historical context is highly relevant to what is going on in Pakistan lately. We hear the ideological descendants of these middlemen grumbling about the recent efforts by the PTI government to increase accountability and ensure documentation of the economy. We now know that the reaction isnt new. And that it wouldnt change too.

What we do know is that the efforts and reforms at this end should not wane. These so called unpopular decisions go beyond a partys repute and should be viewed in regards to our countrys future.

NABs work is commendable and its contributions significant in setting the stage and helping government in its accountability agenda.

Cases related to profiles of influential people have been not only opened but also followed up and have been brought to trial/NAB courts.

What we do know is that the efforts and reforms at this end should not wane. These so called unpopular decisions go beyond a partys repute and should be viewed in regards to our countrys future

NABs Lahore branch added Rs. 4 billion recently, quite a jump from Rs. 270 million in 2016. The best recovery on record. According to Mian Mannan Javaid, an Advocate High Court with more than a decade of experience, NABs work is commendable, he said that ever since Justice Javaid Iqbal has come to the helm, he started what is called internal accountability in NAB and then set in course a wave of accountability which has so far been unprecedented. Further commenting on legal aspects he added:

While there are multiple advantages to this exercise and practice which I hope will continue, this will directly relate to and have an effect on our FATF status highly important for the country at this moment. According to statistics, the recovery for both private and public sector from NAB has been the most during this tenure. While investigation vis-a-viz white-collar crimes have improved but the prosecution remains a weak link and we need improvement on this front. A continuation of this reform is dire for the country to have well-functioning and efficient institutions.

Here we may also mention what is called the institutional theory and its link to a countrys diplomatic and economic development. A country without strong institutions can never progress. We might tweak and manage all the symptoms (BoP, inflation, slow growth etcetera) but until or less the core problem (lack of active and effective institutions) is resolved.

Our undocumented or shadow economy amounts to almost 35 to 40 percent of our GDP. If our GDP is around $315 bn (figures from 2018) then this makes the undocumented sector at $126 bn! We can therefore realize how significant it is for our country to set in place a system where everything is documented in what would be self-reinforcing system.

While we talk about accountability and the resulting backlash it is also relevant to mention areas of improvement. Take for instance the recent wheat crisis. Prices have soared too high and now we have an unofficial trading system in place. Such incidents may sabotage the overall performance of the government and the institutions therein (more on this in another article). Therefore, while NAB has given a laudable performance it is also incumbent on other institutions to continue to work in liaison with each other and put in place what is called an inclusive system of institutions.

Oh and the backlashwell, it has always been there and will be.

The writer is an economic and geopolitical analyst

Go here to see the original:
Accountability and backlash - Daily Times