Ralph Nader wants liberals and conservatives to work together. In his new book, “Unstoppable,” he cites many instances in which such cooperation ought to be possible, at least theoretically. But the book’s greater value may lie in the opportunity to contemplate, almost half a century after he first stepped onto the national stage, where Nader himself fits on the ideological spectrum.
Ralph Nader is at it again, this time on a mission that he says will bring America’s liberals and conservatives together in the fight against corporate overreach and government secrecy.
Building on a new book he has published, the longtime activist, author and political gadfly, now 80, on Tuesday hosted what he promised would be the first in a series of policy events exploring issues where the left and right can come together to fight voter disillusionment and what he says in the growing political clout of big corporations. There were more attendees than chairs at the event, held at the Carnegie Institute of Washington downtown.
One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.
This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.
Some of these anti-Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.
Join New York Times bestselling author Tom Woods every weekday at noon Eastern as he sets fire to the 3×5 card of conventional opinion with exciting guests and commentary. Listen live, or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher!
Radio hosts Gregg “Opie” Hughes, Anthony Cumia and comedian Jim Norton, of the popular “Opie and Anthony Show” on SiriusXM, went on a fiery tirade Tuesday against “trigger warnings” and the current culture on college campuses, which they argue is producing childish adults unprepared to deal with the “real world.”
Norton also scolded the progressive left for becoming “exactly what you hated.”
“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it!” he said. “You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.”
The discussion that preluded his rant got heated after Norton brought up a recent story out of Wellesley College where “hundreds” of outrage college students objected after a lifelike sculpture of a sleepwalking man in his underwear was erected on campus. Students ended up creating a petition to have it removed.
“Oh my god,” Hughes responded. “We are raising a nation of pu***es, we’ve been saying it for years.”
A year and a half ago a Comic Book Guy type crypto-fascist and racist secessionist by the name of Keith Preston mourned online the passing of the Second Vermont Republic’s founder, the anti-Semitic, racist, Dixie singin’ Thomas H. Naylor and I posted about it here.
Preston, like his hero Naylor and Naylor’s former SVR co-chair and ostensible successor in that useless role, the failed publisher of SVR’s secesher rag, Rob Williams, favors alliances among disparate secessionist groups – white supremacists, homophobes, religious extremists, anti-Semites and misogynists, and SVR has sponsored meetings repeatedly to which they have invited these out-of-state lowlifes in pursuit of such alliances with other bigoted pan-secessionists.
Seems the BBC is prepared to consider hard biological reasons for political opinions. So apparently there are solid biological differences between progressives and reactionaries, but not between ethnic groups.
Note the implications of the scientists comments. Dr Schreiber doesn’t want to go into details but its pretty clear what his conclusion is “liberals” are less risk averse, “conservatives” more. John Hibbing warns us that :
“It’s not so much that I think people should just shut up and accept that some people are different. But I do think they should accept that some people are either not going to change or they’re going to be extremely difficult to change, and that simply by continuing to shout at them, we’re not contributing to anything.”
So they (and we know who he is talking about don’t we?) should be changed and the problem is how to do that given “shouting” isn’t going to work. So drug therapy maybe? Surgery perhaps?
Check out the article .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27437799
Across the paleoconservative blogosphere, on every “libertarian” forum and racist webpage, a strange concept is faulted for the turmoil witnessed in North America and Europe today, as well as for the alleged breakdown of Western social mores. ‘Cultural Marxism’ is the name these courageous right-wing dissidents have assigned this corrosive force.
Last summer, in this capital of gridlock, a miracle occurred.
The American people rose as one and told the government of the United States not to drag us into another Middle East war in Syria. Barack Obama was ready to launch air and missile strikes when a national uproar forced him to go to Congress for authorization. Congress seemed receptive until some Hill offices were swarmed by phone calls and emails coming in at a rate of 100-1 against war. Middle America stopped the government from taking us into what even the president now concedes is “somebody else’s civil war.” This triumphal coming together of left and right was a rarity in national politics. But Ralph Nader, in Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, believes that ad hoc alliances of left and right to achieve common goals can, should, and, indeed, shall be our political future.
People keep waiting for the “war” to begin in Ukraine. But a 21st century-style war has already begun here, and may be almost over – something that Vladimir Putin seems to understand even if the rest of us do not.
In a world where Youtube, Twitter and Facebook dominate, the overt “hard power” of guns and bullets is no longer as publicly palatable as it once was. Autocratic states prefer to bankrupt dissidents instead of executing them; NGO workers are not “disappeared” but their offices are shut down for zoning irregularities. Nowadays even dictators have to be “post-modern.”
Putin, schooled in the art of covert power, understands this new world, both instinctively and politically. To adequately comprehend what the Russian president is doing in Ukraine you have to travel across the occupied east, which is both a journey into a country falling apart and a gradual immersion in the realities of Russian geopolitical strategy.
Progressives in San Francisco are at war with themselves as anti-free market activists and immigrants are attacking – sometimes physically – the liberal but mostly white tech industry which funds the city. And though the rhetoric of the battle focuses on class, much of the conflict is being driven by the anti-white animus of Open Borders activists.
The hard Left in San Francisco is a mixture of anti-capitalist and anti-white sentiment. Thus, the demonstrators at May Day in the City by the Bay were not grizzled American workers fighting for high wages, but ethnic activists dressed like Aztecs and demanding amnesty. A poster for the day’s events, half in Spanish, pictured anti-American activists blocking a deportation bus. [Happy May Day, San Francisco, by Steven Jones, SF Gate, May 1, 2014] Mercifully, they limited themselves to blocking traffic, rather than the traditional Aztec practice of human sacrifice. [S.F. May Day rally ends with arrests, by Kale Williams, SF Gate, May 2, 2014]
Remember the Sixties, when self-styled revolutionaries went to barricades and courtrooms in their crusade for absolutely unfettered free speech? Somewhere between then and now, the long march through the institutions all but complete, freedom lost its appeal.
The outrage vented this past week by progressives against freedom of speech has left me wondering, “Where have all the flowers gone long time passing?/Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?” I thought the whole point of the Sixties Revolution was to set the people free so they could express themselves without fear of being busted by “The Man”.
Now all we hear is lefty talk along the lines of “freedom of speech needs qualifiers and social agreement”. More…
The racial polarization of the recent elections—where the large majority of whites voted for Republicans, and majority of minorities voted for Democrats—could continue for decades. Does a dramatic change in your social environment make you more conservative, and if so, what kind of change would it take?
Working at Northwestern University, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson apply that question to demographic change, and, in particular, to white Americans vis-a-vis the prospect of a United States where the majority of Americans are drawn from today’s minorities. Does a threat to one’s status as the demographic “in-group” increase political conservatism? The answer, in short, is yes.
Using a nationally representative survey of self-identified politically “independent” whites, Craig and Richeson conducted three experiments. In the first, they asked respondents about the racial shift in California—if they had heard the state had become majority-minority. What they found was a significant shift toward Republican identification, which increased for those who lived closest to the West Coast.
This essay was authored by Paul Gottfried for Nomocracy in Politics.
As a young faculty member at Rockford College forty years ago, my divisional chairman, who was a devout Straussian, once told me that a faculty colleague did not believe in “liberal democracy.” I’ve no idea how my superior arrived at this discovery, but he was clearly incensed and felt “real enmity” for people who didn’t see any difference between “liberal democracy and other forms of government.” My superior also shared with me a text he was then working on that showed definitively that Marx “rejected liberal democracy.” The strange thing is that up until the moment I listened to these harangues, I had never encountered the term “liberal democracy” and when I first heard it used (at age thirty-one), I thought it was a reference to Democrats who had endorsed George McGovern.
Demographic transformations are dramas in slow motion. America is in the midst of two right now. Our population is becoming majority non-white at the same time a record share is going gray. Each of these shifts would by itself be the defining demographic story of its era. The fact that both are unfolding simultaneously has generated big generation gaps that will put stress on our politics, families, pocketbooks, entitlement programs and social cohesion.
The Pew Research Center tracks these transformations with public opinion surveys and demographic and economic analyses. Our new book, The Next America, draws on this research to paint a data-rich portrait of the many ways our nation is changing and the challenges we face in the decades ahead.
Let’s start with what demographers call an “age pyramid.”
Here’s the money quote: “It would be a far, far better thing if Harvard and Brandeis and Mozilla would simply say, explicitly, that they are as ideologically progressive as Notre Dame is Catholic or B. Y.U. is Mormon or Chick-fil-A is evangelical, and that they intend to run their institution according to those lights.”
EARLIER this year, a column by a Harvard undergraduate named Sandra Y. L. Korn briefly achieved escape velocity from the Ivy League bubble, thanks to its daring view of how universities should approach academic freedom.
Korn proposed that such freedom was dated and destructive, and that a doctrine of “academic justice” should prevail instead. No more, she wrote, should Harvard permit its faculty to engage in “research promoting or justifying oppression” or produce work tainted by “racism, sexism, and heterosexism.” Instead, academic culture should conform to left-wing ideas of the good, beautiful and true, and decline as a matter of principle “to put up with research that counters our goals.”
Keith Preston critiques the growing libertarian movement within the context of current political trends in the United States. Topics include:
How libertarianism has grown in popularity since 2007.
Why the libertarian movement is merely a microcosm of the wider society.
How the mainstream right is experiencing a growing conflict between libertarians, neoconservatives, and social conservatives.
The bleak future of the Republican Party.</li.
The probability of the neoconservatives future return to the Democratic Party.
How the corporate class is attempting to co-opt libertarianism.
How the political class of the future will be a triumvirate of neoconservatives, progressive liberals, and the hard left.
Why the present day anarchist milieu is not a movement for functional adults.
Emerging cracks in the left’s coalition of constituents.
The need to cultivate much better quality anarchist and libertarian movements in the decades ahead so that these movements will be prepared for the crises that will unfold as the twenty-first century progresses.
Subtitled: Privilege Checking is Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, and Useless
Privilege exists in this country. There are people who wear fancy suits, nice boots, and black dresses who are given immunity for heinous crimes no one else would get away with. They pass laws restricting commerce between individuals and rape and pillage the people in the streets; their friends in the financial industry regularly launder money to drug cartels and get away with it while kids in Florida get arrested for measly Bitcoin transactions. The elected and unelected government comprises the most privileged class in the US—not even the entertainment class can escape their clutches.
It used to be that homosexuals were subject to criminal prosecution, psychiatric incarceration, and severe professional and economic sanctions. See this old CBS documentary from 1967 for an example what the old order was like. Now, half a century later it seems the homosexual rights movement is bent on inflicting the same treatment on dissenters. This is a classic illustration of how former outgroups become just as abusive as the former ingroups they replace when they become powerful. It may not win me any friends by pointing this out, but that’s too damn bad. The truth is still the truth. The wider question for anarchists and libertarians is what exactly does the gay rights movement contribute to the wider struggle against the state, the ruling class, or the empire at this point in history? So far as I can tell, the answer is nothing. Individual gays, lesbians, LGBTQs, etc. may contribute mightily (see Justin Raimondo, Glen Greenwald, Chelsea Manning, etc.) but the sexual minority rights movement has become institutionalized like labor unions, civil rights, and feminism before it. That’s why it’s time for serious radicals to move on to other things.
The ousting of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla seems to be a first in the history of American corporations. After just two weeks in the top job, Eich stepped down as chief of the company that makes the popular Firefox web browser. Though CEOs have taken heat for their positions on controversial issues—Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has said the investment bank lost at least one major client because he holds the opposite view from Eich, in favor of gay marriage—none have ever resigned their posts as a result of public protest over a private political stance.