Discussion:
The Left Is Demonizing Populists - For Pushing What the Left Once Believed
(too old to reply)
Fred J McCall
2023-05-30 05:49:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <u53noa$1rk5b$***@dont-email.me>
***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Democrats are hypocrits and they don't deny it.
>

Earlier this year, British comedian-turned podcaster Russell
Brand interviewed Thomas Frank, the long-standing liberal
defender of American populism. For a man who has spent several
decades imploring liberals to listen to what working-class and
rural America are saying, in this instance, he failed to heed
his own advice. When asked by Brand about the contemporary
American populist movement, as represented by Steve Bannon,
Frank replied,

"In my opinion, there is no such thing as right-wing populism,
there are people who mimic it, and Steve Bannon, Donald Trump,
would be people I would list. But populism is the Jeffersonian
tradition in American life. It is a democratic, left-wing
movement. It's about building a mass movement, a transracial
mass movement of working class people for economic democracy.
That's what it is, that's what it's always been."

With that one statement, Frank brushed off the closest thing our
current moment has to a democratic, transracial, mass movement
of working-class people. He dismissed the only the only serious
counterweight to woke corporate hegemony. He denigrated
contemporary working-class movements that are far closer to the
Wobblies of the early 20th century labor battles than they are
to the Black- or Brownshirts of the dark days of European
fascism.

Sadly, Frank is not an aberration but an exemplar par excellence
of a type of thinking that's taken hold of the Left, namely,
conflating being Left-wing with moral goodness, to the extent
that anything not Left-wing is a moral evil. Thanks to this line
of thinking, the Left has taken to seeing the actual populist
movements rising up across the globe as a threat—though these
Right-wing populist movements embody a broad coalition of non-
elites advocating for themselves against powerful governments
and corporations—in other words, the very thing that the Left is
supposed to itself embody.

Confronted with Right-inspired populist movements like parents
showing up at school board meetings in Virginia, truckers
protesting in Canada, and Brexit voters in the north of
England—people of all races who simply do not want their basic,
fundamental values transgressed—the Left sees only white
supremacists, fascists, and racists. Even the word "populism" is
more often than not preceded adjectives like "far right" and
"extremist" in mainstream liberal media.

The result is a truly tragic missed opportunity for solidarity
between Left and Right. But it's also proof of how far the Left
has fallen from its mission.

After all, what is a populist if not someone who stands for
fairness for the little guy: a level economic playing field,
financial reform, a scaling back of excessive government power,
and a rejection of absolutist ideologies. These were once Left-
wing values; now, the Left systematically portrays the
grassroots populist movements springing up across the world to
address these issues as white supremacist, far right actors.

This broad brush character assassination has reached the highest
levels of power, as evidenced by President Joe Biden's speech
last week denouncing MAGA Republicans in Philadelphia. The most
chilling thing the President said was not the accusation of
fascism against his political opposition, but rather, his
revealing statement that he can only work with "mainstream
Republicans." Biden wants you to think that he is cutting out
the "semi-fascist" MAGA wing, as he called them a few weeks ago,
but what he's actually doing is cutting out the populist wing.
Biden was essentially saying to any American looking for real
reform: You are my enemy.

That should have alarmed the liberal Left as much as it did the
Right. Yet the Left mostly embraced the speech. Like Thomas
Frank, if you're not Left, you can't possibly be on the side of
the good. Ergo, the thinking goes, you're on the side of
fascists.

They let themselves get away with this because they don't know
how to listen. Former Bernie Sanders spokesperson Briahna Joy
Gray acknowledged this a few weeks ago, as she patiently tried
to explain in an interview with progressive journalist Cenk
Uygur at The Young Turks that it might be wise for the Left to
recognize a difference between a sworn political adversary—she
mentioned Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green—and the ordinary
men and women who support Green, in case the Left might be able
to win them over. In response, Uygur spent most of the interview
berating Gray, calling her and others like her who are willing
to speak to people on the other side "fake Leftists."

Self-described progressive Uygur and his Young Turks show are
the Left-wing equivalent of the populist Bannon's War Room, a
popular podcast that reaches millions. But Uygur is far less
smart and less effective, in part because unlike Bannon, he has
no cross over appeal. He can barely have a civil discussion with
his own side. Meanwhile, Bannon welcomes onto his show with open
arms prominent left-wing figures like Naomi Wolf.

For the many who feel besieged by insane political rhetoric and
personal attacks, any genuine cross-party discussion feels like
sanity. But now Bannon is facing a host of charges over a border-
wall fundraising scam that Trump pardoned him for—something he
has cast as an attempt to silence him.

Whatever the legal technicalities of this case turn out to be,
for it to come from the same political culture that overlooked
the evidence of Hunter Biden's corruption means that Bannon's
prosecution will simply provide further proof to his fellow
populists that the state is intent on making an enemy out of
them.

It's a pretty amazing thing to see those who dare point out the
uni-party, who hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible
for policies that benefit the only the rich and corporations, be
attacked not by the Right but by the Left.

This tactic prevents a serious, effective, non-partisan, people-
led opposition. And who benefits from that?

Jenny Holland is a former newspaper reporter and speechwriter.
Visit her Substack here.

https://www.newsweek.com/left-demonizing-populists-pushing-what-
left-used-believe-opinion-1741529
Fred J McCall
2023-05-30 08:34:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <u53nuc$1rk5b$***@dont-email.me>
***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Democrats are hypocrits and they don't deny it.
>

The following is a lightly edited transcript of remarks made by
Brooke Goldstein during a Newsweek episode of The Debate about
free speech. You can listen to the podcast here:

First, I want to say, my deepest sympathies and compassion for
Mr. Rushdie. I hope that he recovers soon what happened to him
is absolutely horrific.

And I think the ripple effect is obvious. The deterrent effect
on freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing theology —
specifically, Islamist terrorism — because you might get
physically attacked, you might get assaulted, or you might be
murdered. And obviously Salman Rushdie is not the first or the
last person to have had a fatwa against him.

I actually had a fatwa also against me and my camera crew when
we filmed our movie, The Making of A Martyr. For that movie, I
risked my life to expose the recruitment of innocent Muslim
children towards violence to become suicide and homicide bombers
and child soldiers. And we were threatened as well. And not only
that, we were called Islamophobic by Western media.

And you know what occurred to me? If risking your life to raise
awareness about crimes against Muslim children is anti-Muslim,
what then is pro-Muslim? So hypocrisy abound, and obviously the
threats of violence create a situation which really chills open
and free dialogue about theologically motivated terrorism.

Brooke Goldstein is a human rights attorney, the founder and
executive director of The Lawfare Project, and the author of
Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech.

https://www.newsweek.com/free-speech-becoming-dangerous-again-
opinion-1739525
Fred J McCall
2024-02-22 10:44:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <t2o3up$3oqde$***@news.freedyn.de>
***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Global warming is bullshit.
>

editor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to
the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his
editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that
global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the
list of “what everyone knows.”

Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global
warming is happening is less relevant than whether the
climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of
the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies
promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy
initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories.
They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic
global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and
requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have
signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate
change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about
60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is
widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans
has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this.
What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became
the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions
of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of
the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In
more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific
community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led
to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation.
Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
believe that current climate models do not accurately portray
the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of
satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C
between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global
warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average
temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50
years?5

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/
Rudy Crayola
2024-02-24 02:09:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2/22/2024 4:44 AM, Fred J McCall wrote:
> In article <t2o3up$3oqde$***@news.freedyn.de>
> ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Global warming is bullshit.
>>
>
> editor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to
> the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his
> editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that
> global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the
> list of “what everyone knows.”
>
> Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global
> warming is happening is less relevant than whether the
> climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of
> the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies
> promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy
> initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories.
> They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic
> global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and
> requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have
> signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate
> change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about
> 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is
> widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans
> has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this.
> What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became
> the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions
> of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of
> the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In
> more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific
> community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing
> corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led
> to this IPCC report.”4
>
> Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation.
> Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> believe that current climate models do not accurately portray
> the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of
> satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C
> between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global
> warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average
> temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50
> years?5
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/

Freddy is long dead and not communicating, Rudy!
>
Fred J McCall
2024-02-22 11:24:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <t2s487$3r3mn$***@news.freedyn.de>
***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Democrats are hypocrits and they don't deny it.
>

The following is a lightly edited transcript of remarks made by
Brooke Goldstein during a Newsweek episode of The Debate about
free speech. You can listen to the podcast here:

First, I want to say, my deepest sympathies and compassion for
Mr. Rushdie. I hope that he recovers soon what happened to him
is absolutely horrific.

And I think the ripple effect is obvious. The deterrent effect
on freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing theology —
specifically, Islamist terrorism — because you might get
physically attacked, you might get assaulted, or you might be
murdered. And obviously Salman Rushdie is not the first or the
last person to have had a fatwa against him.

I actually had a fatwa also against me and my camera crew when
we filmed our movie, The Making of A Martyr. For that movie, I
risked my life to expose the recruitment of innocent Muslim
children towards violence to become suicide and homicide bombers
and child soldiers. And we were threatened as well. And not only
that, we were called Islamophobic by Western media.

And you know what occurred to me? If risking your life to raise
awareness about crimes against Muslim children is anti-Muslim,
what then is pro-Muslim? So hypocrisy abound, and obviously the
threats of violence create a situation which really chills open
and free dialogue about theologically motivated terrorism.

Brooke Goldstein is a human rights attorney, the founder and
executive director of The Lawfare Project, and the author of
Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech.

https://www.newsweek.com/free-speech-becoming-dangerous-again-
opinion-1739525
Loading...