Mediaboss Marketing

No one is trying to cancel Green Eggs & Ham. No one is trying to cancel Dr. Seuss. If either of those things were happening, that would certainly be a big story, bolstering the narrative being pushed by those obsessed with illiberalism on the left. Instead, Dr. Seuss Enterprises is updating its standards in a way that has long precedent. The estate of the Belgian cartoonist Herg, for example, did the same thing with some of his works, most notably the infamous Tintin in the Congo. (And if thats your thing, you can still buy it online!)

What principle is at stake here? It is still not clear. Yascha Mounk conjured a good-faith argument out of thin air, claiming that there was an actual furordriven by people upset that some books of one of Americas most beloved authors will no longer be published and that these fans were genuinely upset by this news. But again, these are books selling in the hundreds of copies, competing with other, more popular Dr. Seuss titles that litter every childs bedroom in this country. If people were outraged, it was based on the suggestion that all of Dr. Seusss works were being pulled from circulation.

People like Mounk want to elevate this controversy to Fahrenheit 451 levels, making it a question of intellectual freedom and censorship. But the actual argument, as far as I can tell, boils down to this: that racist caricatures of nonwhite people are not a sufficient justification for ceasing to produce new copies of a book.

This is all reminiscent of another very dumb recent controversy. Last week, the right erupted over news that Mr. Potato Head would now be simply a gender-neutral Potato Headyet another example, the usual suspects shouted, of the left imposing its values on everyone else. Never mind that Mr. Potato Head is gender neutral by designyou can make it look however you want! Never mind that the allegation also wasnt trueHasbro was still making Mr. and Mrs. Potato Heads, it had just changed the name of the umbrella brand. And never mind that, in the end, its a toy potato.

Originally posted here:
Dr. Seuss! Mr. Potato Head! Why the Culture Wars Have Never Been Dumber - The New Republic

Whatever we once were, then senator Barack Obama declared in 2006, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. The statement was both descriptive and aspirational. Because the United States has many varieties of Christianity and many religious minorities, Obama argued, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. Democracy itself unites Americans of all faiths and those of no faith.

Obamas invocation of both religious diversity and democracy resonated with many Americans, but it also met with pushback. During the 2008 campaign, John McCain gingerly but repeatedly described the United States as a Christian nation. In the years that followed, conservative Christians sought a political savior who would preserve freedoms they insisted were under assault.

What were we? What are we? How do we dream the landscape of American religion? asks K. Healan Gaston. Terms such as Christian, multireligious, and secular are at once descriptive, aspirational, and even coercive. Gaston excavates the history of one such dream, that of a Judeo-Christian America.

The term Judeo-Christian first gained broad currency in the 1930s, when educators, theologians, and scholars used it to differentiate the democratic West from both the Nazi and Soviet forms of totalitarianism. Today, Americans who have any knowledge of the construct tend to associate it with a midcentury movement of inclusion, with a tri-faith America in which Protestants finally extended toleration to Catholics and Jews.

The story is not nearly so simple and sunny, Gaston argues. The loose consensus that began to form around the idea of a Judeo-Christian tradition . . . masked profound and deeply political divisions. Gaston divides Americans who embraced the label into two rough camps, pluralists and exceptionalists.

When pluralists spoke of Judeo-Christian America, they leaned on civic definitions of American identity, definitions that stressed a commitment to a shared set of democratic assumptions and values. Pluralists used the term not to suggest that only Christians and Jews could be good Americans but as a shorthand way of inviting religious minorities and even nonbelievers into the public sphere.

The exceptionalists, by contrast, argued that American democracy would perish unless its citizens hewed to certain modes of Christian and Jewish faith. Few Jews found any version of Judeo-Christian rhetoric attractive, but they especially recoiled at exceptionalist critiques of secularism and attempts to undermine the separation of church and state. Jews knew that many Americans lauded Judeo-Christian values while working to make the public sphere more explicitly Christian and Protestant, not more inclusive. Indeed, many Protestant defenders of the Judeo-Christian civilization spoke disparagingly about Judaism and expressed hopes that Jews would come to their senses and convert to Christianity.

Still, the idea of Judeo-Christian America flowered during and after the Second World War. Reinhold Niebuhr and Will Herberg rarely used the exact term, but they popularized the idea that only explicit and vigorous formulations of Christianity and Judaism could underpin democracy against godless communism. As the Vatican made peace with religious diversity and the separation of church and state, increasing numbers of Catholic leaders found the idea of tri-faith America useful, especially when Protestants joined them in denouncing Supreme Court decisions that held school-led prayer and Bible reading unconstitutional.

By the mid-1960s, the fragile consensus about Judeo-Christian America broke down. Pluralists now found the constraints of Judeo-Christianity far too narrow, and they defended the place of other religious minorities and nonbelievers in American civic life. As pluralists abandoned the phrase, exceptionalists waved the Judeo-Christian banner all the more fervently.

The term was especially useful to Republican politicians courting the votes of evangelicals. In August 1980, Ronald Reagan made a campaign stop at the National Affairs Briefing, addressing an audience of 15,000 conservative Protestants. Traditional Judeo-Christian values based on the moral teaching of religion, Reagan warned, are undergoing what is perhaps their most serious challenge in our nations history. As Gaston notes, no president employed the rhetoric of Judeo-Christianity more frequently than Reagan. It lent a veneer of inclusivity to his courtship of evangelical voters. I know that you cant endorse me, he quipped at the National Affairs Briefing, but . . . I want you to know that I endorse you. (Gaston might have included the irony that Southern Baptist leader Bailey Smith told the same gathering that God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.)

By the 21st century, the idea of Judeo-Christian America was confined to one part of the American political spectrum. Less artfully than Reagan, but no less effectively, Donald Trump blended Judeo-Christian rhetoric with pandering to evangelicals. We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values, President Trump told the Values Voter Summit in 2017. Were saying Merry Christmas again. Forget Hanukkah.

Gaston presses us to contemplate fundamental questions about American identity and democracy. Can Americans know who they are . . . without delineating who they are not? She doesnt provide definitive answers to such thorny questions, but she rightly warns us to ask how our fears and hatreds shape the way we describe the United States. In the future, as in the past, Gaston concludes, our dreams of America will powerfully shape our language and our actions alike.

Dreams or nightmares? January 2021 provided a window into some of those fears and hatreds, a toxic mixture of misogyny and White supremacy rooted in the culture wars of the past several decades. With right-wing insurrectionists pledging their allegiance to both Donald Trump and Jesus Christ while engaging in mass violence, the Cold Warera idea that secular Americans threatened American democracy seems laughable today.

Gastons book serves as both a patient prehistory of this moment and a necessary caution. Unity is elusive. All labels divide. Inevitably, some groupsfairly or unfairlyfeel unwelcome in the public sphere. While Christian nationalists represent a clear threat to democracy, the overwhelming majority of conservative Protestants do not. All Americans are prone to project their fears and hatreds onto others.

We sorely need religious and political leaders to seek common ground with all Americansregardless of beliefs and practices, regardless of party and policieswho are committed to democracy and our constitutional order. That process isnt sacred, but it is still our best civic hope, something to keep dreaming for.

A version of this article appears in the print edition under the title A Judeo-Christian nation?

Go here to read the rest:
How the dream of a Judeo-Christian America shaped the culture wars - The Christian Century

Republicans are going to have to explain to their constituents who have bills to pay and children to feed why they voted against helping them out, Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison told reporters this week. Voters will never forget who stood up for them during this unprecedented time and who stood in the way.

But Republicans, who traditionally would be expected to gain seats in the midterms as the opposition party, insist they are not sweating it. They are mounting their own campaign to brand the bill as a partisan giveaway laden with Democratic priorities that are unrelated to the pandemic, and are using their own unanimous opposition to the bill as proof that COVID aid, which was supported by both parties under Donald Trump, is partisan.

Spending $2 trillion on a party line vote is not going to be popular, predicted Republican strategist Michael Steel, who was a top aide to former House speaker John Boehner.

But if that prediction is going to come to pass, Republicans have a lot of work to do. A recent Pew poll found that 70 percent of Americans favor the bill, including 41 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. Just 42 percent of Americans said they believe Republicans are making a good faith effort to work with Biden on the bill. One poll from the left-leaning firm Public Policy Polling found that more Americans wanted the relief bill than a new puppy.

That popularity opens up an opportunity for Democrats to paint Republicans as uncaring about the needs of everyday Americans during a pandemic.

The rescue plan is literally more popular than puppies, Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson said. People want this plan more than they want a puppy and Republicans just voted against it.

Democrats also note that their party picked up two Senate seats in traditionally red Georgia in January after the GOP-controlled Senate scaled down the size of relief checks in the last COVID aid bill painting a potentially ominous picture for Republicans after this move.

What are they going to say? The $1,400 check is too big? said Mark Longabaugh, a former top aide to Senator Bernie Sanders, about the Republicans midterm message. That aint going anywhere.

In Congress, Democrats have warned Republicans not to try to take credit for the latest rescue bill in the future.

I hope that we dont see some of my Republican friends show up at announcements announcing money and resources for schools and cities . . . trying to take credit for something theyve voted against, Representative Jim McGovern of Worcester said during House debate on the bill Tuesday.

If Republicans dont seem nervous, its because they say theyve heard this song before in 2009, when the GOP largely stood together to vote against a $787 billion stimulus bill negotiated by Biden, then the vice president, at the nadir of the Great Recession. Democrats predicted Republicans would suffer for their obstruction, but instead, the party made historic gains in the 2010 midterms, buoyed by anger over the Affordable Care Act, which passed in early 2010.

In 2010 Id be on TV with [DNC spokesman] Brad Woodhouse and hed say, Not a damn Republican voted for this bill and theyre going to lose, recalled Doug Heye, a Republican National Committee spokesman at the time. And Id be like, OK, Brad, I think were going to have a good year.

Biden and other Democrats appear haunted by the aftermath of that stimulus, and the president has been pressing Democrats to aggressively sell the benefits of the bill.

We didnt adequately explain what we had done. Barack [Obama] was so modest, Biden told House Democrats at their virtual conference last week. I kept saying, Tell people what we did. He said, We dont have time. Im not going to take a victory lap. And we paid a price for it, ironically, for that humility.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the president would likely travel around the country to tout the bill.

We certainly recognize that we cant just sign a bill again, Psaki said. Were not taking anything for granted.

But the White House is passing on one key way to sell the bill putting Bidens name on the checks that will reach Americans. Trump ensured his name was on the memo line of checks the Treasury Department distributed; Biden will not be doing the same.

This is not about him; this is about the American people getting relief almost 160 million of them, Psaki said.

Democrats believe that several factors are different now than in 2009 and 2010, when Republicans did not pay a political price.

For one, Democrats have such narrow congressional majorities its unlikely they will squeeze through another major piece of legislation like the health care bill, which rallied the GOP last time. The COVID aid bill also includes direct cash relief, unlike the tax credits of the 2009 stimulus, which Americans might not have even realized they received. And finally, Republicans do not appear to be putting forward alternative solutions to COVID relief, instead changing the subject to culture war issues, which Democrats believe voters will see as a cop-out.

The Republican Party doesnt stand for anything right now, said Ian Russell, a Democratic strategist and former political director for the House Democrats campaign arm. They spent last week talking about Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. Its tougher for them when the American people need help and theyre just saying no.

But in the end, Republicans will still go into the midterms with several structural advantages as a party.

Democrats weakness in rural areas and gerrymandering of congressional district boundaries give Republicans an edge in the House. The Senates Republicans also represent 42 million fewer Americans than the Senates Democrats despite the chamber being evenly divided between the two parties, according to a calculation by Vox. That means congressional Republicans need to convince fewer voters to back them to have the same political power as their Democratic colleagues, lessening the risk of spurning popular policies.

The midterm elections are also nearly two years away, which leaves plenty of time for new crises to reshape the political environment and potentially erase the COVID aid bill from voters memories.

Good luck on making any predictions on anything happening in America in 20 months, Heye said.

Liz Goodwin can be reached at elizabeth.goodwin@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @lizcgoodwin.

Read this article:
Zero Republicans voted for the COVID relief bill. Will that haunt them in the midterms? - The Boston Globe

Gonzales says he wants to make sure border communities, immigration agencies have resources to deal with increased unauthorized migration

by: Julian Resendiz

US Border Patrol vehicles are pictured near the Paso Del Norte International Bridge at the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on September 12, 2019. The US Supreme Court on September 11, 2019, allowed asylum restrictions by President Donald Trumps administration to take effect, preventing most Central American migrants from applying at the US border. (Photo by Paul Ratje / AFP) (Photo credit should read PAUL RATJE/AFP via Getty Images)

EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) The 26 Republicans in the House Appropriations Committee are asking their Democratic chair to hold hearings on an immigration problem they say is reaching crisis proportions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Illegal border crossings have skyrocketed this past month and are set to exceed the record-breaking numbers we saw in 2019, the Republicans said in a letter sent Wednesday to U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut. In light of these alarming figures we respectfully request the (committee) hold hearings on the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis at our southern border.

The acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection earlier Wednesday released enforcement data showing more undocumented migrants were stopped at the border in February than in any month going back to June 2019.

The Republicans say that on Tuesday alone the Border Patrol and Army National Guard members run into 5,204 migrants, bringing the total for this fiscal year to more than 200,000.

Over the last two years, Congress and the previous administration passed legislation to strengthen our border and provide the resources needed to assist agencies with the surge of migrants. We are eager to continue working together to gather the facts about the current situation on the border and develop solutions to address this crisis, the Republicans said.

U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, who represents a large West Texas district that includes Culberson, Hudspeth and East El Paso County, said he recently visited a shelter for unaccompanied minors in Carrizo Springs and inspected a stretch of border near Eagle Pass.

Every week I see firsthand the problems caused by the lack of resources at the border. Our communities are hurting, and I plan to use my position on the Appropriations Committee to ensure we are utilizing all of our resources to combat the ongoing crisis at our southern border, Gonzales said.

Gonzales, New Mexico Republican Yvette Herrell and Arlingtons U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, were scheduled to give more details on the proposed hearings during a live teleconference from Washington, D.C.

To watch the 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) event, follow this link:https://www.republicanleader.gov/live/

Visit theBorderReport.com homepagefor the latest exclusive stories and breaking news about issues along the United States-Mexico border.

Excerpt from:
Republicans want to hold hearings on immigration crisis on the border - KTSM 9 News

And so it begins. A dozen Republican attorneys general have filed a legal challenge apparently the first of many expected group efforts over President Joe Biden's executive order restoring an Obama administration directive that federal agencies estimate the social costs of carbon emissions when devising policies.

Taking such costs into account is just common sense when trying to understand the connections between federal actions and climate change, so of course President Donald Trump ended it. Biden brought it back, and now Republican attorneys general want the courts to rule that doing so somehow violates the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch.

Maybe if they didn't have their heads so deeply buried in the tar sands they'd recognize that pursuing policies that fail to reduce carbon emissions imperils people in red states just as much as anywhere else.

"Setting the 'social cost' of greenhouse gases is an inherently speculative, policy-laden, and indeterminate task, which involves attempting to predict such unknowable contingencies as future human migrations, international conflicts, and global catastrophes for hundreds of years into the future," the lawsuit argues.

Whether their legal argument has any legs is doubtful.

"My immediate reaction is that these states should have a very hard time convincing a judge that a President asking his agencies to work together, to engage with the public and stakeholders, and then to follow the best available science and economics to evaluate the consequences of their decisions, is somehow illegal," Jason A. Schwartz, legal director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, told Bloomberg Law.

The reality is that global warming is happening, and human activity is driving it. We will spend "hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars" whether we abandon fossil fuels and convert the vast majority of the world's energy production to renewable sources, or if we just shrug our shoulders and forge ahead with emissions that are raising sea levels (which will drown billions of dollars worth of coastal development), increasing both floods and droughts, and feeding bigger, stronger hurricanes and other major storm systems.

Yes, the transition to renewable energy will cost jobs in the oil-and-gas sector but it will also create new ones in the renewable energy sector, something some industry leaders recognize as they try (sometimes under government pressure) to position themselves less as oil-and-gas companies than as energy companies.

Also, China already is casting a clearer eye on the future than the U.S., despite Republicans' oft-expressed concerns about maintaining the vitality of American industry and leading the global transition. If the U.S. doesn't get its act together, it will cede the turf to a major economic rival, forgoing the chance to forge a stronger and sustainable energy sector, and economy, while clinging Trumpishly to the energy policies that got us into such straits in the first place.

Of course the Republican attorneys general have every right to turn to the courts to challenge policies they believe violate laws and damage their states and constituencies. Blue states did that very thing, with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra involved in 110 such challenges himself.

But constituents of those Republican attorneys general would be wise to look closely at the risks they are taking, and remember that voters were the ones who elected these would-be saviors in the first place.

The Los Angeles Times

Read the original:
Martelle: Republicans are still sticking their heads in the tar sands on climate change - Chattanooga Times Free Press