okay "normie median Biden voter ice" got me. That's funny. But also so true! It prob took him a bit to vote dem too (though I believe that Ice would have never voted for Trump). Would love to hear more thoughts on Ice and Mav's politics. Also the list of who they would have voted for if you're willing to share.

i do worry that posting my extremely in-depth headcanons about some of this stuff will have the JKR “wizard shit” effect on my writing and ruin it a little, but ask and ye shall receive

copy-pasted straight from my list of “unhinged compacflt!top gun headcanons” that ive been keeping since september: on ice & mav's politics

16. Since their friendship began, Ice has always told Maverick who to vote for, since Maverick doesn't care enough to pay attention to national politics. They are begrudging ConservaDems (conservative political views, would vote conservative every election if Republicans weren’t actively sending them to war/actively promoting fascism). Ice’s voting record (and after 1988, Mav’s too) 1980-2020—note that he has always considered himself an “educated moderate”: 1980: Reagan. 1984: Reagan. 1988: Bush. 1992: Bush. 1996: Clinton (reaction to aftermath of PGW. Doesn’t care that Clinton enacted DADT because “I’m not [redacted], so it doesn’t apply to me”). 2000: Gore (refusal to vote for another Bush). 2004: Kerry (Mav votes Bush this year out of spite as he and Ice are going through their break-up). 2008: McCain (Navy loyalty). 2012: Obama (liked him as a person/worked closely with him, didn’t like his policies so much). 2016: Clinton (no other alternative). 2020: Biden (actually liked/previously worked with Biden, and now actively married to another man and therefore had to make some liberal concessions). 2024-onwards they will vote for any Democrat as long as they aren’t a “socialist.”

17. Also, Maverick didn’t vote in 2016. Partially because in my universe the TGM mission takes place that November, very near the election, and he has bigger fish to fry (something Ice will later take him to task for), and partially because I genuinely think he wouldn’t be able to stomach either mainstream candidate and probably would’ve voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, which might have torn his relationship with Ice to shreds a few days before schedule. “Are you fucking kidding me? Johnson? Pete, this moron’s moronic party wants to abolish the driver’s license—” / “—Yeah, and then I could ride your sweet wheels with no problem whatsoever—maybe he’ll abolish pilots’ licenses, too, I’d like to see that—” / “If you vote for Gary fucking Johnson, I will very happily stop footing the bill for your piece-of-shit airplane, and you can see how useful your pilot’s license is then—” / So Mav didn’t vote in 2016. 

35. In terms of what he Tweets: I do foresee, post-retirement, Ice basically becoming a neoliberal military intellectual type on Twitter a la Mark Hertling (look him up on Twitter). Bio: “Retired @SECNAV. Advisor @WhiteHouse and @VoteVets. Contributing writer @TheAtlantic. Interested in geopolitics & modern warfare. Aviator, husband, Padres fan. [American flag emoji]” Only posts pictures of himself and Maverick at three specific annual events: 1. their wedding anniversary (“36 years with this fool and he’s still surprised to find out that I like the F-5 better than the A-4 #happyanniversary”), 2. every EAA Airventure (huge airplane convention), 3. San Francisco’s Fleet Week (which of course they MUST attend, they even headline it in 2018). Informative, analytical, highly-respected. Maybe goes on CNN or NBC all the time to talk about civil-military relations shit (aversion to FOX since the start of the Iraq War). Gonna say he had like four really viral threads about Russia and Ukraine in April or May and so has 300k followers or something like that. He has a personal website that links back to his Twitter and every essay he writes for international publications, with a pretty braggadocious bio (something along the lines of “Tom Kazansky has directly almost started global nuclear war twice in his life, and in the thirty-year gap in between, sold the Swiss half their entire goddamn Air Force and directed an entire Fleet during the Iraq War”). Lots of tweets like “Military aviation hot take: Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is a waste of money. Source: husband with 400+ hours of F-35 experience.” / “[Quote tweet of Russian Foreign Minister boasting about Su-57 production lines] Oh, so you guys finally figured out how to make more than one every other year?” / “Analysis of the failure of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, from an ex-US Pacific Fleet Commander’s perspective: a short [thread emoji] [This thread gets 26k likes and 4k retweets]” / “This weekend my husband & I flew in to @EAA Oshkosh #OSH19 & took home first place for best P-51. Not to brag, but.” (A reply to this tweet: “Sir, you really know how to bury the lede that your husband is Adm. Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell. I had to look it up on Wikipedia.” / @TKazansky: “What, was it not obvious? Who else could it have been?”) Also, I see him writing a whole bunch of op-eds for international political magazines a la Tom Nichols (look him up on Twitter too). Writing analyses of recent geopolitical/military events for the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Bulwark, the Navy Times, the Atlantic, Bellingcat, etc. Not so much focused on domestic issues (but VoteVets [socially progressive vets’ group] board member, and ardently pro-democracy, yay!). He’s a smart guy.

37. This is not a headcanon, just kind of a… a real-life implication. My Ice was Deputy Commander of Third Fleet in 2003, meaning he’d have been there in command of the USS Abraham Lincoln when President Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard that ship in May less than 2 months after the initial American invasion of Iraq. Very premature & embarrassing. Ice would’ve been in direct contact with Bush/Cheney/NSC bureaucrats many, many times during the war. I genuinely believe this is what pushed him over the edge into firm liberal territory.

By 9 ABY, the New Republic had liberated Coruscant, the Galactic capital, and established its government there. After leading the Rebellion and then the Republic through the heady days of the Galactic Civil War, Mon Mothma stepped down as Chancellor, leaving behind a Senate divided into four major power blocs.

THE ORGANA BLOC

Progressive People's Party (center-left, 364 seats): The majority successor to the original Progressive Party which acted as the Rebellion's political wing in the Republic and Imperial Senates, the PPP is majority social democratic and socially progressive. As it carries the Progressive Party's reputation of being the "party of the Rebellion" and the standard-bearer of Mothmism, the PPP enjoys widespread popularity and is the largest party in the Senate, despite surging poll numbers for the opposition after a half-decade of PPP governance. Led by Leia Organa of Coruscant.

Liberal Party (center, 56 seats): Socially liberal and fiscally moderate, the Liberal Party is one of the few parties to survive from the time of the Old Republic in its current form. The Progressive Party was originally a splinter faction from the Liberals, and they affiliate with its successor the PPP in the government coalition. Led by Rees Vera of Mikkia.

Federalist Party (center-left, 39 seats): A social liberal party which advocates for increased decentralization of the New Republic and the establishment of devolved regional governments. Led by Boona Kalan of Taris.

THE IBLIS BLOC

People's Union Party (far left, 122 seats): A socialist party which advocates for the restructuring of Galactic society on a free and equal basis, the transfer of the means of production into the hands of the working class, and the development of a socialist mode of production. In practical terms, the party is democratic socialist and draws strong support from industrial worlds and unions. Local parties such as the Communist Party of Corellia and the Gran Socialist Union are affiliates of the PUP. Led by Garm Bel Iblis of Corellia.

Reform Party (left, 44 seats): A democratic socialist party which argues for a fundamental restructuring of the New Republic into a "Federation of Free Alliances." A successor to the original Reform Party in the Old Republic. Led by Cal Omas of New Alderaan.

Libertarian Party (far left, 2 seats): A loose affiliation of anarchists. Collective leadership.

THE FEY'LYA BLOC

Progressive Conservative Party (center right, 201 seats): A liberal conservative party which is hawkish on military matters and foreign affairs. Generally socially conservative with more liberal factions while remaining economically liberal. The minority splinter of the original Progressive Party. Led by Borsk Fey'lya of Bothawui.

Constitutionalist Party (center, 89 seats): A centrist party, and a revival of the Old Republic party of the same name. Advocates of a return to the structure of the Old Republic as it existed in the High Republic and Republic Classic eras, before what they see as its distortion under Palpatine. The text of the Ruusan Reformations serves as their guiding charter. Led by Waltyr Valorum of Hosnian Prime.

Free Hyperlanes Party (center right, 24 seats): A classical liberal party, economically hypercapitalist and disdainful of government intervention in the market, and supportive of corporations. Socially libertarian. Led by Udo Mopot of Giju.

THE MOTHMA BLOC

Galactic Unity Party (far right, 151 seats): A far right, traditionalist party which advocates for ultraconservative social policies and an immediate cessation of hostilities against the Imperial remnants, arguing that the war was won when the Core was liberated. Often accused of Imperial sympathies and of being a continuation of the Galactic Integralist Party, the state party under the Empire; several GIP Senators have reentered politics under the GUP banner. Led by Leida Mothma of Chandrila, the daughter of former Chancellor Mon Mothma, who does not share her mother's politics.

Core Alliance (right, 10 seats): A coalition of wealthy and influential Core worlds, whose priority is securing and expanding the privileges traditionally afforded them. Led by Jonas Piven of Alsakan.

Anti-Jedi Party (far right, 3 seats): One of the few parties to exist in its current form since the time of the Old Republic. Far right and conspiratorial, it gained some popularity after the Clone Wars due to a conspiracy theory spread by its leader about Emperor Sheev Palpatine being a secret Jedi who had worked with the Jedi Council to seize power, only to then betray his fellow Jedi in order to consolidate power around himself. Currently opposes the nascent New Jedi Order and has taken credit for Luke Skywalker having declined to base it on Coruscant. led by Alyx J'onzz of Tekaris.

Hi sorry for politics question but why is libertarianism considered bad? Like I thought it was about equality and sharing power in opposition to hierarchical authoritarianism but based on how you talk about it I’m likely super wrong about it?? Ty!!

I assume you're talking about this post.

Disclaimer: I don’t have a lot of experience with political theory or political history, so I can’t explain how libertarianism got from what it originated as to the modern American party that calls itself the Libertarian Party.

What I can tell you is that libertarianism as it’s used in modern America refers to the party with a right-aligned libertarian philosophy that prizes free-market capitalism. A lot of libertarians tend to refer to themselves “socially liberal” but “fiscally conservative,” which is to say that they don’t think governments should regulate industry but are generally pro-gay rights and pro-legalizing weed and other drugs.

There is, of course, a distinction between the libertarian party and people who identify as libertarian but aren’t a part of the party for various reasons, and left-aligned libertarians certainly do still exist in America. (Extremist right-aligned libertarians also exist—many constitutional militias are composed of extremist right-aligned libertarians.) But “libertarian” as it’s used in the American common discourse (and as I used it) still tends to refer to supporters of the Libertarian Party.

tldr; Kalvaxus thinks that taxation is theft and he should be allowed to burn towns get money without the government trying to stop him, but also thinks that being gay is fine, probably.

EXCLUSIVE: Comedic actor and outspoken Israel supporter Jon Lovitz went on a tear against Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and members of the Democratic "Squad" for their opposition to the Jewish State.

Lovitz, who is Jewish, declared Sanders the "best example" of a "self-loathing Jew," calling him "disgusting," and mocked how the senator describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist" versus being a communist. 

"That's like asking me, ‘Are you Christian?’ 'No, no, I'm a Jew for Jesus.' Well, that's what it is," Lovitz told Fox News Digital in an interview. "You know the difference between a communist and a Democratic Socialist? A Democratic Socialist is somebody you vote for, and then they take all your money and give back what they think you need. A communist — they just appoint themselves. There's no election and they do the exact same thing. That's the only difference."

"And [Sanders is] saying, you know, we shouldn't have money for, you know, fund Israel, you know, and the Squad, those people… It's no secret they're horribly antisemitic," he said. 

JON LOVITZ TEARS INTO COLBERT, KIMMEL FOR PUSHING ‘POLITICAL AGENDA’ IN LATE NIGHT: THEY ‘HAMMER IT TO DEATH’

He mocked Sanders for having three homes despite his $174,000 salary as a senator.

"'That's normal.' No, it isn't. Not on that salary," Lovitz said while showcasing his Sanders impersonation. 

"All my friends that are Jewish, like, they go, Bernie Sanders, self-loathing Jew. You know, what's wrong with this guy? And that's what that is. 'Oh, that's not true.' Yeah, it is. Yeah, you are. 'I don't like it when people make money. It's not right. They should only make so much. And then it's enough.' Well, you have three homes. You should just have one. 'That's none of your business.'"

Lovitz, who describes himself as socially liberal but fiscally conservative, lamented how Democrats had always been pro-Israel in years past, but now the party has shifted so far left that the Squad promotes the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement. 

"They go, 'Let's give all that money away from Israel, give it to Hamas.' That's what they would say. That's what they want," Lovitz said. "What's that, Ilhan Omar? She wants to [not] give money to Israel for military aid. They're our ally! They're a democracy! Just go — all right. You're against giving money to a Democratic ally, correct? You're against that. But we're giving money to Ukraine."

JON LOVITZ KNOCKS ‘IDIOT’ JOHN OLIVER PANICKING OVER US AID TO ISRAEL: HE'S ‘SHOCKED’ AMERICA SUPPORTS AN ALLY

He then turned his aim at Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., pointing to a recent Fox News Digital report revealing she's part of a secret Facebook group that praised Hamas. 

"'Free Palestine. I'm not antisemitic,' but that means you want to get rid of Israel. She's in her office — in her office, there's pictures of it. She's got a map and a post-it over Israel, it says ‘Palestine.’ I mean, she's Palestinian. I get it… but she's spreading lies," Lovitz said. "She said that Israel bombed the hospital and killed 500 people. And then after they proved that Israel did not fire the bomb and the United States proved it and the bomb hit the parking lot, not the hospital, and the bomb was fired by jihad terrorists, and they have video of it where it's coming from, not from Israel, from Gaza and turning around and hitting the parking lot. She's never taken the tweet down or said I made a mistake. So how can you listen to anything she says?"

He continued: "They want to get rid of Israel. 'Well, just because you want to get rid of Israel doesn't mean you're antisemitic.' Well, yeah, it kind of does because it's a Jewish state. ‘We want to get rid of the Jewish state of Israel.’ Their flag has a Jewish star on it. I mean, yeah, it is. ‘Anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Jewishness.' Yeah, it is. Of course, it is. What else could it be? It's part of being Jewish. The Jewish stars and the flag, but you're not against Jews."

He also singled out Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., though not for her opposition to Israel.

"You know, AOC said?" Lovitz began. "I don't care what party she's in. I think she's cute. But she's an idiot… She goes, 'You know, 29, a lot of people my generation because of climate change are asking themselves, you know, should they have children? And I think it's a good question. And I think, you know, maybe they shouldn't.' Oh. Okay. So you're telling all the people of your generation don't have kids. Then in 50 years, there's nobody left on the Earth, moron!… This is what you're dealing with! Don't have kids. Okay. There'll be no one left to breathe your clean air. It's moronic!"

When asked why he believes there's such a divide among liberals in D.C. and Hollywood alike when it comes to the Israel-Hamas war, Lovitz replied, "Jealousy, fear and misinformation." 

"Before this happened, you know, 500,000 Palestinians would go to Israel for work, like they're dependent on Israel for their survival," he said. "Secondly, if you want to get really technical, they're not Palestinians. They're Jordanian refugees. In 1964, Yasser Arafat changed the name to the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and started calling them Palestinians. So I've had people go, 'Well, if they're not supposed to live in Palestine, why are they called Palestinians?' So it's a propaganda thing. That's true." 

COMEDIAN JON LOVITZ BLASTS HBO'S JOHN OLIVER FOR SHAMING U.S. OVER ALLIANCE WITH ISRAEL: ‘GOD BLESS AMERICA’

Lovitz continued, "But the fact is that a lot of Israelis and Palestinians get along fine… Israel has 10 million citizens and 1.8 million are Arabs — Arab-Israeli citizens. They have their own political party, and you can't get anything done in the, you know, their Congress is the Knesset and everything, without their vote. And where do you think they came from? I was there in Israel in '78, and I have relatives there. And my cousin — I said, 'So what's with the Palestinians?' He goes, 'They're Jordanian refugees living in the same spot they've been living in since the '20s. And we said, you know, it's Israel now. If you stay here, you're Israeli citizens. If you leave, you know, it's up to you. But if you stay, you'll become Israeli citizens.' And that's where the 1.8 million Arabs came from — hello! And I'm not saying the Jews are perfect. They're not. No one is. They do things that are wrong. But in this case, they're not wrong."

The "Saturday Night Live" alum blasted calls for a cease-fire, highlighting Hamas' own rhetoric promising future Oct. 7ths. 

"As soon as they start winning — 'Cease-fire!' How can you have a cease-fire against Hamas when Hamas says we're never stopping 'til you're all gone. 'And we're gonna have Oct. 7th. We'll have Oct. 11th and 20th, and we're going to do it over and over and over again.' And now they have all these hostages. They go, 'okay, we'll give you 70 back.' And Israel's answer, which it should be, is like, 'Go to hell. Give them all back. You shouldn't have any in the first place,'" Lovitz said. "And Israel — if they get rid of Hamas, they're gonna make sure that you put in, which would be good, a democratic government, you know, running Gaza. And then what would happen? Oh, they'll have education. They'll have, instead of money, the money for tunnels, you know, it'll go to build schools and hospitals. And women will get educated."

He later added, "I mean, it's the lack of knowledge of what's going on. And again — 'But isn't it horrible that people are getting killed in Palestine, innocent civilians?' Yes, it is horrible because it's war. War is horrible. But Israel, it's a war that Hamas — their government deliberately started. They go, ‘We wanted to start a war'... Hamas doesn't care about all these people getting killed. Israel says leave and Hamas is no, don't leave. They try to prevent them from leaving. What's that?"

In addition to "SNL," Lovitz has starred in films including "A League of Their Own" and "Rat Race," and has been featured in a slew of Adam Sandler comedies. More recently, he has made regular appearances on Byron Allen's comedic game show "Funny You Should Ask" and regularly tours across the country doing stand-up, including monthly appearances at The Laugh Factory at the Tropicana in Las Vegas. 

Wait you’re from Argentina, I’m so sorry about your election :( I read somewhere that this was just a primary, but ppl are acting like the fascist won the whole thing! Who is this fucker and are you all going to be okay?

Hi Anon, yeah I'm from Argentina 🙃

The thing with these elections are that, while they are a primary election, they also give you an idea of what to kinda expect for the general elections. These results are disheartening to say the least.

Here are some snippets from Milei's (the man that came out first in the primaries) wikipedia article in English, so you can have an idea of his ideals and politics and why he's like, the worst from right-wing politics in Argentina

"Politically and economically, Milei is a right-wing libertarian,[4][5][6] and he is supportive of the Austrian School of economics. Milei considers himself to be a short-term minarchist or liberal-libertarian [es; fr] but philosophically an anarcho-capitalist.[7][8] He believes that Argentina is a tax hell and advocates for a fast reduction in government spending in order to balance the budget."

"Several of Milei's political positions have caused controversy,[13] such as his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape,[14] the rejection of sexual education in schools,[15] scepticism about COVID-19 vaccines,[13] support for the freely possession of firearms by the civilian population,[16][17] promotion of the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory,[18] and climate change denial.[19] Due to those controversies, as well as his far-right political positions and radical conservative economic and social policies,[13][20] his primaries win has been considered an upset, and he has been characterized as a far-right populist.[10][11][12]"

"He has been described as far right by several Argentine and Spanish-language publications, including elDiario.es,[43] El País,[44] El Mundo,[45] Perfil,[46] Télam,[47] and Tiempo Argentino.[48] Milei is a follower of the ex-Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the ex-United States president Donald Trump.[49] He is also close to the Spanish far-right party Vox,[50] as well as the former conservative Chilean presidential candidate José Antonio Kast.[51]"

"Theoretically an anarcho-capitalist, Milei considers himself a minarchist or liberal-libertaire.[62] An economic liberal and fiscal conservative, he often referred to Carlos Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999, and his economy minister Domingo Cavallo.[63]"

Full article here

But that's not the end of the problem.

The thing is that following him are Juntos por el cambio (another right-wing coalition, don't let the centre-right part trick you) and Unión por la Patria, the coalition born from the one that managed to get Alberto Fernández to be our current president.

As far as my understanding goes, with the current percentage of votes, neither candidate can win on the first round, which will lead to a ballotage, that is, the two candidates with the most votes will go for a second round. That's where the speculations born from these primary elections come into play. If, by some miracle, Sergio Massa (Unión por la Patria's candidate), the "lesser evil", wins, while generally speaking some things (like some rights hard won) will remain, it doesn't mean the ginormous debt that we've been dragging since Mauricio Macri's presidency will suddenly disappear or that the politics involved in trying to fix that will magically work just because Massa won.

If he doesn't win first round, which is the more likely thing, there are high probabilities that Milei's coalition and Juntos por el Cambio will call their voters to vote for the one that goes to the ballotage and against Unión por la Patria. So the right gets the government.

As you see, the political field is at best a mess, at worst, a big fucking mess. And I'm not even entering in our current economic crisis, and how the price of the dollar gets higher every day and how that affects the society. Or how the politics are less about actual solutions and proposals and more about emotionality and punishing the coalition you dislike the most.

I'm perhaps not the best at expressing myself when talking about these topics, at least not in English. I'm sure there are other Argentinean blogs that will explain this better than me but I will say. That even if Milei wins and doesn't burn the country to the ground with his outlandish economical plans, he still is against a lot of basic human rights that were hard won in this country. And even if he doesn't win but Juntos por el Cambio does, their politics are, perhaps not equally bad, but close to his. And Massa is not a saint of my devotion either, he's the main candidate because the peronist coalition is in as much crisis as the country is.

We got our democracy back just 40 years ago, after the worst and most bloody dictatorship in this country. And now the people are voting for the man that is pushing for the same kind of politics the dictators, Carlos Menem in the 90s and Mauricio Macri in 2015 were vouching for.

I'm not sure what the future has prepared for us (nothing too good as you can see) but at the very least I can say that Argentina is resilient, I can only hope for the best and if that doesn't happen, we'll have to do our best to survive.

it's always 'oh i'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative' but where's the opposite? where are my Keynesian demand-side economics bigots? come on, get creative, people!

"Neoliberalism"

the term has always bothered me, because it's the opposite of what we in the USA call "liberalism" -

"Neoliberalism is essentially an intentionally imprecise stand-in term for free-market economics, for economic sciences in general, for conservatism, for libertarians and anarchists, for authoritarianism and militarism, for advocates of the practice of commodification, for center-left or market-oriented progressivism, for globalism and welfare-state social democracies, for being in favor of or against increased immigration, for favoring trade and globalization or opposing the same, or for really any set of political beliefs that happen to be disliked by the person(s) using the term."

- Phillip W Magness

that's kinda the problem with the term: it means everything and, thus, nothing

I've always cringed whenever I see or hear it, unsure if the person using the term is a free-market capitalist or libertarian or authoritarian or progressive or any of a thousand other political alignments and trying to confuse matters, because the general understanding of politics among most of the world seems to be:

liberal vs conservative / socialist vs capitalist / democratic vs authoritarian / diplomatic vs hawkish / etc

those of us who stay away from the right-wingnut internet and news realm tend to only hear the term as derogatory for "fascist capitalist war-mongers," while right-wingers tend to only hear the term as derogatory for "fascist communist peaceniks" (because they also intentionally misunderstand what "fascism" means)

I hate that "neoconservative" and "neoliberal" mean the same thing nowadays

I mean, does anyone actually use "fiscally liberal" to mean "unregulated capitalist"?

I think Phillip W Magness might be onto something when he says the term essentially exists to demonize any "set of political beliefs that happen to be disliked by the person(s) using the term" - and the right-wing always appropriates language to muddy the waters for everyone (because they require their base to be ignorant and their opponents to be confused)

petition to resume linguistic clarity for socio-economic and political terms

The Early Education Rip Off In Australia

I have a daughter working in child care in Australia. She loves her job and is very good at what she does. However, she is paid a pittance for her skills in this space and the undervaluing of early education in Australia is a disgrace. Listening to Jessica Rudd from The Parenthood advocacy group speak at the National Press Club was enlightening and inspiring. Very little has shifted over many years in this space. The early education rip off in Australia continues. Ten years of Coalition federal governments did next to nothing for the nation in this important sector. Photo by Oleksandr P on Pexels.com

Child Care An Expensive Failure In Australia

The Libs and the Nat’s are all about private enterprise making profits at the expense of the national need, especially when it comes to the care sector. Proper restructuring and investment by government in the early education space is required. Australia is considered to be a wealthy nation by the raw numbers alone. However, much of this wealth is hoarded by private interests and the policies of the two main political parties are designed around this. Australia is lacking in affordable universal child care, proper aged care, and universal dental care as part of Medicare. Social housing is now a crisis black hole in Australia after decades of neoliberal policies, which neglected investment in the social infrastructure of the nation. Private Wealth Interests At The Expense Of Public Need The economic policies of the conservatively minded parties are all about individuals amassing wealth at the expense of the shared fiscal responsibilities of the nation. No capital gains tax on the family home, even if it is worth tens of millions of dollars. No death taxes. There is no redistribution of wealth measures to help promote a level playing field. The Coalition introduced regressive taxation measures, which are culminating with the stage 3 tax cuts. These further entrench divergence between those born into wealth and those not. The wealth divide in Australia jumped massively during the last decade via the economic policies of the Liberal party and National party governments. “Capital gains tax concessions for a main residence were worth $48bn in 2022-23 and rental deductions $24.4bn. In 2019-20 taxpayers reported total rental losses of $10.2bn, delivering them a $3.6bn negative gearing tax benefit.” - (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/01/albanese-rejects-changes-to-capital-gains-tax-on-the-family-home-full-stop-exclamation-mark) Peter Dutton spends his time in parliament aggressively attacking the Albanese government over emotive issues like race, refugees, and war in Gaza and Israel. The Opposition under Dutton refuses all bipartisan entreaties and says No to everything proposed by the government. You would think that after 10 years in government the Coalition would find some grace. Most of the economic policies which have put Australia where it is are from their time in office. It takes at least 18 months to several years for government policies to bear macroeconomic fruit. Toxic Masculinity LNP Politics Not Serving The Care Sector The toxic masculinity of the LNP in Australia – see Peter Dutton – is in large part to blame for the underinvestment in the care sector. This predominantly feminised workforce has been treated with indifference and disdain by Coalition governments. They consider them to be babysitters and women with free time on their hands to look after kids and oldies. The LNP do not have many women members in their ranks – they are underrepresented. Those that they have in parliament are working within a toxic masculine framework. The LNP see politics as a brutal arena where bullies and strongmen prevail. Dutton thinks he can bully Anthony Albanese out of office. Child Care Rip Off Merchants The early education rip off in Australia has private providers charging what they like. “Australia's consumer watchdog has lifted the lid on the burden of childcare costs, revealing families are paying some of the highest costs in the world for their children's education. An ACCC report found Aussie parents are paying nearly 80 per cent more than families overseas, with calls for education providers who are "ripping off" families with unreasonable price increases to be named and shamed. "Australian parents are actually paying 16 per cent of their income towards childcare compared to other countries where it is just nine per cent," mother-of-two and Working Mummas founder, Carina O'Brien told Today.” - (https://9now.nine.com.au/today/early-education-rip-off-consumer-report-finds-aussie-families-paying-80-per-cent-more-than-other-countries/c0569fbb-4d12-4436-80c5-78bcb5d4d7ba) It is time that the Albanese government grows some courage and gets its hands dirty when it comes to leading this country. ALP lite is no longer going to work in the current economic climate. Start paying early educators proper wages, so that the sector can attract and maintain quality staff. Intervene in rural areas by operating national early education centres where they are required. Use existing crown land, where schools are already located in regional areas. The private sector neoliberal approach does not work in too many instances, when it comes to the child care early education sector. “At The Parenthood, our vision is clear: every child, irrespective of background or location, deserves the chance to flourish through access to top-tier early childhood education. It’s not merely about education; it’s about building the bedrock of a just and prosperous society,” Ms Rudd said. ​ Addressing the political and economic landscape, in her speech Ms Rudd will acknowledge the government’s commitment to universal ECEC while also raising concerns about potential challenges and stressed the importance of staying true to this vision. ​ “Reforming early childhood education is legacy material. It’s a reform that will deliver immediate benefits for families on cost of living, but it is also a reform that will build our future capability. It’s an investment in the leaders of tomorrow,” she notes.  ​ “Australia should be the best place in the world to be a parent and raise a child. We are the country of Bluey, for goodness sake. We have mangoes and verandahs, the oldest continuing cultures in the world. We are resilient and diverse; vast and bold.”  ​ Highlighting last week’s report from the Productivity Commission, Ms Rudd will also speak on the flaws in the current activity test – which requires parents to work or study for at least 30 hours a week in order to get the Child Care Subsidy – and the urgent need for workforce reforms in the early childhood education sector. “ - (https://thesector.com.au/2023/11/29/parenthood-ceo-will-address-national-press-club-today-speaking-on-ecec-reform/) Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of Money Matters: Navigating Credit, Debt, and Financial Freedom.  ©MidasWord Read the full article

Believe Them The First Time

(LATimes) Column: Republican hate for LGBTQ+ people fueled Mike Johnson’s rise to be House speaker

By LZ GrandersonColumnist  

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaking at the Capitol on Wednesday.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

The older I get, the more reminders I see that Maya Angelou was right: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Take the new House speaker, Mike Johnson, for instance.

He’s been showing who he is since 1998, when he graduated from law school and started going after the LGBTQ+ community every chance he could. And I’m not just talking about trying to stop same-sex marriage, because let’s face it, many progressives were against it back then as well. But Johnson was extreme by comparison — advocating for laws that banned two adults from having consensual sex in their own home.

So, to anyone who considers themselves an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, know this: Same-sex marriage and other protections are not safe.

Johnson (R-La.) has made attacking the queer community a huge part of his life’s work. We don’t yet know his style as a leader in the House, but we know exactly where he intends to go.

And judging from how the speaker selection process played out over the weeks after the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the Republican Party looks more than willing to go after the queer community with him. Of the three speaker nominations before Johnson’s, the fastest one to collapse was that of House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota. It lasted barely four hours. One of the key issues cited by his opposition: his support of same-sex marriage.

“I told him it wasn’t between he and I,” said Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.) about why he opposed Emmer. “It was between he and the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

For some reason, I don’t think Allen meant “love your neighbor as yourself.”

No, conservatives like him and Johnson tend to use Christianity as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. The powerful players within this huge wing of the Republican Party do not, however, seem to take great issue with other “sins” such as adultery.

Author Jeff Sharlet has written multiple books on the inner workings of a collective of powerful Republican politicians, some of whom share a town house in Washington that was the site of not only prayer groups but also apparently extramarital affairs. The New Yorker dubbed it a “frat house for Jesus.” It takes a very special reading of the Bible to land on “jail gay people” and “extramarital affairs are OK” at the same time.

“The Family,” as the group is called, is also tied to the passage of anti-gay legislation in Romania and Uganda, which now sentences LGBTQ+ people to death and imprisons anyone who fails to report a queer person to the government.

I am not sure how the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” crowd will process all of this information come the 2024 election, especially if there’s a promise of tax cuts bundled up with the distasteful discrimination. However, given how this nation continues to struggle with not only LGBTQ+ rights but also racial and gender equity, I’m not too optimistic.

In 2021, not long after the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Johnson gave a talk to a group of congressional staffers as part of the Faith and Law lecture series. The bipartisan organization is like a think tank for Christians working on the Hill. Johnson, a Trump ally who tried to overturn the 2020 election on his behalf, listed “the rule of law” second among his seven core conservative principles.

He listed “individual freedom” and “limited government” as first and third — despite wanting laws to ban sex between two consenting adults in their own home.

Beyond his run-of-the-mill doubletalk, the line that caught my attention most was this one: “I’m doing the same thing I used to do back in the late ’90s.”

Remember he graduated from law school in 1998. That is also the year a young gay man in Wyoming, Matthew Shepard, was brutally beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. That tragic story dominated the news for months. And Johnson started his legislative crusade against LGBTQ+ people in the wake of that tragedy.

That is what Johnson was doing back in the late ’90s. He may not be a household name yet, but he is not an unknown. He showed us exactly who he was the first time.

So take Maya Angelou’s advice and believe him.

@LZGranderson

Opinion Columnist

LZ Granderson

LZ Granderson writes about culture, politics, sports and navigating life in America. 

1992 And All That

Labour’s Thirty Year Old Trauma Still Haunts the Party: Could It Happen Again?

Sources: The Sun/ GettyImages

By Honest John

LIKE A psephological Banquo’s Ghost, the 1992 General Election haunts the Labour Party like no other. The contest - thirty one years ago now - is continually held up as a warning against complacency and proof positive of the baleful influence of the right wing media in the U.K. and the almost mystical ability of the Conservative Party to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by relentless attacks on Labour’s economic competence, its patriotism, and even its right to exist as the main party of opposition at all. After twelve electoral defeats out of twenty since the Second World War (and just two victories before that), Labour is perhaps justified in its belief that the British electorate fundamentally do not trust the Labour Party, viewing it alternately as spendthrift, economically reckless and threatening to a British way of life based on capitalist aspiration and social advancement. It suits the Tory Party and the right wing commentariat to present Labour as somehow alien to the value system of good British (or perhaps English) folk, and their rare election victories to be seen as at best aberrations and worse, dangerous. It may also suit certain factions within Labour itself to restrain radicalism and utopianism and to keep the party focused on a centrist agenda that does not really threaten the basis on which the capitalist economy is run.

That sense of excessive caution, even fear, has been at the heart of Labour’s political positioning almost from the moment Keir Starmer became leader. The promises on which he ran for the party leadership have been dropped one by one; commitments on nationalisation, tuition fees, and even the Green Prosperity Plan have been ditched, diluted or postponed. In an attempt to neutralise any hint of the fiscal incontinence on display in Corbyn Labour’s 2019 manifesto, Labour has adopted the “iron discipline” of Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rule and a policy-light offer designed to “bomb proof” Labour’s positioning from any conceivable Tory attack line. With its smooth competence, heavy hitters from the New Labour past and a relentless focus on reassuring the electorate that Labour is “safe” to vote for, the Party has seemed at times in danger of being unable to articulate any vision for the country at all. However, this caution and apparent lack of ambition has been rewarded by a 20 point opinion poll lead for over twelve months, serial council and by-election victories and the drift, turning to a scramble, of business interests and lobbyists, either cynically or hopefully, towards the opposition. Change appears to be in the air. At the Labour Party Conference, quiet confidence was the order of the day and if hope that Labour will at last form a government some time in 2024 was present, this was accompanied by palpable nervousness that the Tories might yet find a way to turn things around, and behind this doubting, is always the shadow of 1992.

It of course benefits the Tories to maintain the fallacy that they are hardwired into the brain of Middle England and can anticipate and stoke almost atavistic fears of a Labour government on the part of voters. It’s nonsense of course, but the Conservative ability to pose as something new after a long period in office does have a track record and John Major’s ability to secure a 21 seat Tory majority and an extraordinary 42% of the vote after the Conservatives had been in office 13 years holds an almost supernatural hold on the Labour imagination, in a way the similar Tory reinvention acts of Macmillan and Johnson do not. It is true that the Conservatives, who rid themselves of Margaret Thatcher due to her electoral toxicity in 1990 (a fact often forgotten by Tory mythologisers who have raised the Iron Lady to secular sainthood) , were able to rally behind John Major, a personally liberal and politically emollient character, and to present him as a new type of Tory leader, less divisive, hectoring and uncompromising than his predecessor. It was also true the Conservative attack machine lethally picked apart Labour’s policy frailties and ambiguities in 1992. This had its greatest impact in the Conservative claims, masterminded by then Party Chairman Chris Patten, that Labour had a “tax bombshell” they would drop on middle income families to fund social programmes and that a “Double Whammy” of tax increases and inflation (complete with posters of a boxer wearing outsize gloves with each “whammy” -more taxes and higher prices - painted on them) would be a result of Labour’s spending plans. Thirteen years of transformative government under Thatcher had completely changed public attitudes on the necessity of increased taxation to fund public services and the appeal of aspiration to the lower middle and upper working classes was key to Major’s self-effacing style.

Superficially, there are similarities today to the political situation in 1990/91. A flamboyant and divisive Prime Minister has been replaced by a modest and technocratic successor; Keir Starmer, like Neil Kinnock, struggles to connect with swathes of the electorate; Rishi Sunak presents himself as the “change” candidate, contrasting himself both to unpopular Tory predecessors and the time-served leader of the opposition, and he and Jeremy Hunt present themselves as fiscally responsible conservatives, in contrast to Labour’s reckless borrowing plans, particularly to fund the Green Prosperity Plan. But there the similarities with 1992 end.

The Thatcher governments in the 1980s had presided over a period of growth in the British economy bolstered by North Sea oil revenues and investment in the new technology industries, following the rapid withdrawal of the U.K. from its previous industrial dependence on coal, iron and steel. With the privatisation of state assets and the “Right to Buy” council houses the proceeds of that growth had been targeted at an aspirant demographic, sufficient to win General Elections under First Past The Post, even as social inequality grew and communities that had hosted Britain’s former heavy industries collapsed into economic wastelands. John Major inherited this voting coalition and retained its support in 1992. Sunak has no such legacy to boast of. Austerity, Brexit and Trussonomics are words that dare not be spoken: inflation, low growth and crumbling public services are the lived experience of families who researchers tell us have lost an average of £10,000 thanks to stagnating living standards, since 2010. There is no prosperous demographic outside the hyper rich of which Sunak himself is a self conscious member, that are seeing their incomes or lifestyles improve. With mortgages barely affordable, the housing ladder long since removed and well paid jobs and pensions increasingly out of reach, aspiration is simply not an option for most ordinary people.

Then there are the opinion polls. In 1991, Labour’s poll lead, when it had one at all, averaged at best 5%; in 1992 it had dropped to 3%. Apparent false memory frequently relates that Labour were “expected” to win in 1992. They were not. The two parties entered the election campaign more or less neck and neck and the most frequently predicted result was that of a hung Parliament. The emphatic Tory win, at least in percentage vote terms, was a surprise but not because most commentators expected a Labour majority government. Contrast this to the fact Labour have enjoyed a lead of between 15 and 20 points for over twelve months, a lead consistent with actual by election and council election results over the same period. An opinion poll lead of this size and duration has never been overhauled by an incumbent government who went on to win a general election, in British political history. Also in 1992 the media was unremittingly hostile to Labour’s mild social democratic offer. Famously The Sun ran a front page that, if Labour won the general election, asked the last person leaving Britain to “please turn out the lights” with Kinnock’s head framed in a light bulb. After the result the same paper boasted that it was “The Sun Wot Won It”. Today, formerly reliably Tory newspapers and journals like The Times, the Financial Times, The Spectator and occasionally even the Daily Telegraph will run Labour-friendly articles, and seem unworried at the prospect of Keir Starmer being PM. Only the Daily Mail and Daily Express can be relied upon to churn out anti-Labour scare stories on a consistent basis.

The left would claim that this is because, compared to Kinnock, Starmer is in the pocket of vested interests and represents no threat to the rich and powerful. But the Labour programme confirmed at its conference is Wilsonian indeed, including tax reforms targeted at the rich, reform of the House of Lords, the biggest proposed improvement to workers’ rights since the 1970s, renationalisation of rail and a post Brexit commitment to an industrial strategy to propel a rebalancing of the economy towards green energy. To top it all, there is a promise to build 1.5 million affordable homes in New Towns - an unapologetic commitment to Keynesian economics. The Starmer programme is therefore far to the left of anything ever proposed by Blair, who prided himself on adherence to free market solutions to Britain’s problems. However, much of the right wing media this time seem relatively sanguine about this Labour programme of social and economic reform, Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rule notwithstanding.

Neil Kinnock’s Labour in 1992 did offer a programme of renewal and a reprioritisation of social values, but insufficient numbers of voters were prepared to give it a hearing. The difference in 2024 is that the majority of the electorate want change after 13 years of serial failure, social vandalism, open corruption, ideological folly and broken promises delivered by a series of chaotic and unserious Conservative governments. Keir Starmer will succeed where Neil Kinnock failed not just because the Tories have been rumbled, but because Labour possess a credibility it did not have 31 years ago and above all, because it offers a weary electorate that precious electoral commodity: it offers voters hope.

17th October

I just realized that when my parents repeatedly say “I just need more time to change than you young kids do” what they mean is “I don’t want/am too scared to put in the work to analyze my own biases and how I’ve hurt people with them and work at being better going forward” and that sucks

The Politics of Austerity. FROM SUMMER 1931, the political situation became serious as the unemployed organized in many parts of the country to try and force work and relief out of the government. As in the early 1920s, the government of ‘independent’ Newfoundland felt unable to maintain law and order without the aid of the British Navy for policing purposes.

As the financial crisis deepened, the country’s situation became precarious. In mid-1931 default was narrowly avoided by bank loans which were provided only on the most stringent terms. Thus, a process began in Newfoundland which is familiar today, that of financial institutions dictating policies to sovereign states. In Newfoundland, tariffs were to be revised and a strict program of retrenchment followed. The government also agreed to seek British government assistance in managing financial affairs. By the end of 1931 the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue in London was looking into Newfoundland’s finances, assisted by a British Treasury Official. Montreal businessman RJ. Magor, was hired to reorganize government departments with a view to cutting expenditures.

Late in 1931 further loans were required to keep the sinking country afloat This provided the opportunity for the banks to extend their control In future, all customs duties would have to be paid “day by day” into a special bank account which would be controlled by top Treasury officials, including Sir Percy Thompson.  A sum from this fund would be paid weekly to maintain public services “upon the minimum scale necessary for their continued functioning.” The balance would go to pay the interest on the public debt interest on the public debt.

Fiscal crisis and impending bankruptcy were the rationale for rolling back reforms and imposing austerity measures. As Lichten argues in Class, Power and Austerity “austerity is a class policy —it is not politically, economically, or socially neutral.”  To examine this policy reveals clearly the class relations involved in state action. In 1931 the basis of self-government in Newfoundland was already seriously undermined. The formal mechanisms of government were gradually removed from popular influence through normal democratic channels as finance capital began to take control of the country’s purse strings. Floundering politicians accepted an offer they could not refuse.

Through such control the banks and the financial advisors were able to redirect the country’s political, economic and social policy. The failure of opposition to materialize reveals a great deal about the weakness of progressive forces in Newfoundland in the early 1930s. And in this regard it is significant that it was the party that claimed to represent the interests of “the masses” against those of “the classes” which launched the austerity programme, and that it was Coaker, head of the fisherman’s union, who had emerged as the champion of retrenchment within the Liberal government.

Retrenchment involved a full-scale attack on the Liberal agenda and on “the masses,” with cuts in spending being most severe in areas of least resistance. Systematically, Newfoundland’s limited state-welfare measures were dismantled. The cuts were intensified when the Conservative United Newfoundland Party came to power in mid-1932. Retrenchment was one side of the coin, the other was tax increases. Basic food items and inputs for the fishing industry were taxed, and these changes in customs duties raised the cost of living by an estimated 30 per cent. Other taxes were increased as well, but over all the changes were most regressive.

The retrenchment programme was far-reaching. Almost one-third of the Civil Service was laid off; the rest suffered salary reductions. Budgets for health and education were cut dramatically, including the paltry sum which was allowed for medical aid for paupers. The postal service was partially dismantled as 300 post offices were closed. All this happened at the same time workers in industry, commerce, state employment and fishing suffered from declining incomes and unemployment. Such legislation as did exist to protect workers’ interests was often not enforced, including minimum wage laws which had been passed in 1931 to protect forest industry workers.

Two government departments increased spending. The Justice budget was increased to pay for the cost of policing the country, and in particular the doubling in size of the police force in 1932. The increased cost of public relief accounted for the rise in the Public Health and Welfare budget, a rise which occurred despite conceited efforts to cut spending in this area.

As the whirlwind of depression struck Newfoundland, the numbers of people on public relief rose dramatically. By 1931 concern about “extravagant expenditure” to support the able-bodied poor was being expressed by those anxious about the country’s financial situation. Such spending, it was argued, also imposed an undue burden on both the working and middle classes.

Relief spending was well over $1 million in 1931-32 and continuing to rise (to about 16 per cent of state revenue) in an unplanned and uncontrolled fashion despite attempts to discourage people from applying for the dole. The Charities Department was soon “seriously in arrears” with the payment of bills for relief supplies issued by merchants. Fears of mass pauperization began to grip the middle classes. For many, some means of controlling relief spending had become imperative.

The need to ration spending was reinforced in December 1931 when, as a condition for further loans to the country, the banks undertook to extend their control over Newfoundland’s financial affairs. From January 1932, all spending would be strictly rationed. In November 1931, R. J. Magor began to implement a plan to reorganize the dole. His efforts in this regard fitted well with those of Sir Percy Thompson to introduce a system of treasury control in Newfoundland. It was hoped that Magor’s reorganization of relief would eliminate all ad hoc, unplanned and unauthorized spending. Relief would be administered by “Keymen” in various locations. This was an attempt to take the politics out of relief provision, and thus remedy what was widely held to be a principal cause of escalating relief costs. Magor’s scheme provided a standard relief ration which cost about $ 1.80 per month to each adult who qualified for assistance outside St. John’s.

As the Magor ration was imposed on rural Newfoundland, people began to resist. Protests began to reach the government and some raids on merchant’s stores occurred. In other cases, such raids were narrowly avoided by the issue of rations. Early in 1932 an attempt was made to introduce “the ration” in St. John’s, where previously those on relief in the capital city had enjoyed better rations than the outports. The St. John’s unemployed were already organized, and fiercely opposed Magor’s scheme.

Petitions, marches, and one violent confrontation convinced the government to abandon its plans for St John’s. The triumph of the St John’s unemployed against the “Magor ration” stimulated opposition in other parts of Newfoundland. In some areas, limited successes were achieved. Finding itself unable to follow its plans to cut relief spending substantially, the government directed its cost-cutting efforts elswhere. But again it met fierce opposition in key areas, as when the Great War Veterans’ Association managed to limit proposed pension cuts.

Through February and March 1932, opposition to the Squires government grew steadily, fuelled by charges of corruption in high places. Newfoundland political parties of this period were fragile coalitions, always in danger of falling apart under pressure. By March 1932 members of the Squires government were thinking about abandoning ship. H.M. Mosdell, a Minister Without Portfolio, openly criticized the March budget as “grinding the faces of the poor.” He talked of betrayal and warned of the people’s wrath. In late March, he resigned from the government along with two other members. By this time the unemployed were again on the move, taking advantage of the delicate political situation to press for increases in the dole ration.

Meanwhile, a decision had been reached to confront the Squires administration’s alleged wrongdoing. The day before the opening of the House of Assembly on 5 April a meeting was organized in St. John’s by the merchant elite, including Eric Bowring and W.S.Monroe. The following day a “monster parade,” headed by the Guards band and including “prominent business men, doctors, legal men and a large number of women” as well as “ex-service men, naval reservists and members of the Merchant Marine,” marched to present a petition to the government.

The parade turned into a riot. The police proved incapable of handling the situation and armed volunteers of the Great War Veterans’ Association were called upon to maintain order. Significantly, leaders of F.C. Alderdice’s opposition party mobilized the military, using Harold Mitchell, a prominent war veteran and soon-to-be a Minister in Alderdice’s United Newfoundland Party government. Richard Squires barely escaped serious injury in the riot. The situation in St. John’s remained tense for several days, and the British cruiser HMS Dragon was called upon to show the flag.

The violence of early April had serious repercussions. Immediately, the Government decided to expand the police force in order to strengthen its ability to maintain law and order. An auxiliary police force was also raised. But the incident also led to the government’s demise. No longer able to control the situation, and with his support melting away, Squires had little choice but to call an election. The breakdown of law and order was further evidence that his government could govern no longer.

Following an election in June 1932,a government was formed by the United Newfoundland Party, a “formidable collection of merchants” led by Monroe’s relative, F.C. Alderdice. The Liberals could only hold two of the 27 seats. Alderdice had but one election pledge — to look into the “desirability and feasibility” of placing the country under a form of government by Commission. Thus, the anti-democratic sentiment which had been smouldering burst into flame in the wake of the April riot.

Calls for an end to responsible government had been increasing since the middle of 1931. But as the financial crisis deepened, there were further demands to end party politics. The feeling was that democracy and the party system were obsolete: particularly that they hindered retrenchment, as well as swift and firm action to deal with the crisis. Some called for a national government, arguing that class warfare had to be eliminated and superseded by a politics devoted to national salvation.

The obvious model here was the national governments which had been formed in many countries to face the difficulties of World War I. The establishment of a national government in Britain in 1931 also stimulated thinking along the same lines in Newfoundland. Others called for a “bloodless revolution” to be brought about by business men and for a body of honest men to dedicate themselves to saving the country from ruin. Still others sighed “Oh, for a Mussolini,” for a dictator who would act, rather than fiddle while the country burned.

Many people in and out of politics and groups across the political spectrum continued to voice support for a strong, non-democratic government. For instance, at least one Liberal candidate, Joey R. Smallwood, running in his first election, argued for an end to politics:

I told the people bluntly that I could see no nope whatever for Newfoundland unless very drastic changes were made—Close down the House of Assembly,“ I cried. "Bolt and bar the doors and windows of the Colonial Building. Do away with the Government — not just the Government we have now, but any government.  Send a petition to the King asking him to appoint a Commission to run the country for the next ten or fifteen years”…

Then I developed the theme. “It’s time to take a political holiday. Party politics has become meaningless except to ruin us—just a continual squabble between the Ins and the Outs. Both parties have gone intellectually bankrupt”…And then I drove home my meaning. “Are there any men here, or women, in this hall who really believe that it’ll make any real difference to them which side win in the coming election? If you do, you probably believe in Santa Claus, too. Don’t waste shoe leather. If you live next door to a polling boom, at least you won’t wear out any shoe leather going in to vote. If you live a hundred feet or more, don’t waste that much precious shoe leather And then I went out on a limb.

"Mark my words, whoever wins in this election, they won’t be there very long. It might be six months, or a year, or a year and a half—but I guarantee you here and now that inside of two years the House of Assembly will be closed down, the Government will be united out, and Newfoundland will be under a Royal Commission appointed by the King. I guarantee you this.

Others were no less vigorous but more partisan in their denunciation of party politics. In the poem, "A Vision of the Future,” published in the Evening Teleegram,18 March 1932,  it was the Liberal “wasters” who had “rung the nation’s knell.” But, more than this, the poem mobilized anti-communist sentiment and tarred the Liberal government in Newfoundland with the Bolshevik brush much as critics had done to the Labour Party in Britain in 1931. Were people going to allow Newfoundland to become a Terra Nova Soviet” led by “Sir Richard Lenin Squireskoff?”

In this version of events it was the Liberals who, in the recent past, had drawn the masses into politics and created the demands upon the state which had led to financial collapse. The Squires party, like the Britain’s Labour Party, had become the party of the dole. It had encouraged parasitism, undermined the traditional independence of the Newfoundlander, and unduly burdened the middle classes. The people even had come to regard support for the unemployed as a right, and dependence on the state as acceptable. “Moral regeneration” was needed.

New standards would have to replace old, budgets would have to be balanced, the country’s garment would have to be cut according to the cloth; selfishness would have to be banished, and cooperation and unity would have to take precedence over class division and competition. In short, it was agreed that “the people” should be encouraged to make sacrifices, exert self-control and “see it through” without resorting to protest (let alone violence). Re-education was needed to break dependency and bad habits and encourage self-help.

To this end, the police force would make citizens aware of their duties and investigate relief, the Courts would punish those caught cheating on public relief, and many of the well-to-do of St. John’s and elsewhere would organize a back-to-the-land movement and the development of urban garden allotments.

In trying to understand the movement to support replacing democratic government by some form of non-democratic state, it is important to focus on the way particular social groups experienced the crisis. The violent outbursts of 1932 played a key role in persuading many people that drastic action was needed to deal with a volatile and dangerous situation. Images of order and stability gained their power from experiences of chaos and instability.

The violent confrontation of February, the riots of early April and July in St John’s, the numerous break-ins at merchant’s stores and other violent confrontations in Conception Bay in September and October 1932, all played a part in rearranging the social kaleidoscope. Unsurprisingly, the rioting and looting had made many merchants very uneasy.

The events of early April had a profound effect on William Coaker. He felt that if the “mobbers” had gained access to Richard Squires in the House of Assembly then he would have been killed. And once the crowd had “tasted blood… restraint would have disappeared” and most of the members supporting the government would also have been killed. J.R. Smallwood, in a belatedly-published document written in the late 1930s, described Newfoundland’s contemporary mood in these words:

It has often seemed to me that the emotional state of the Newfoundland people, in relation to politics, was startlingly similar to those of the German people during the two or three years ending with the rise of Hitler to power.

The “swing of the pendulum of public emotion” had given rise to “a great revulsion against politics.” The fishermen felt themselves to be “the victims of great injustice at the hands of the merchants and exporters,” but there seemed to be no way to remedy this under the existing political system.

Central to anti-democratic thought was the idea that party politics prevented retrenchment In this context, the dole issue was crucial. To cut relief spending, some way of lessening pressure from below had to be devised. The police force had been substantially expanded and this allowed the government to take a stronger stand against those demanding relief, but the hold on law and order was a slender one as the violent outbreaks of mid and late 1932 revealed. The state was not in a position absolutely to refuse demands and to deal ruthlessly with opposition.

Yet, the pressure to cut spending intensified in 1932. The United Newfoundland Party was able to make savings in some areas, but it attempts to cut relief ran into violent opposition. In late September, Alderdice expressed concerns about “absolute revolt” if further cuts were made.’ Arguments about “insurrection” and “mob rule” were also used to persuade the banks to make further loans to Newfoundland in late 1932, but the loans were only made on the condition that a commission of enquiry into the country’s future be held.

That something drastic had to be done was clear to many people, including Sir Percy Thompson, who thought that no government could continue to govern successfully in Newfoundland. Elected government was, he argued, too close to the people and too subject to popular pressure to make the kinds of decisions needed to keep the ship of state afloat.”

- James Overton, “Economic Crisis and the End of Democracy: Politics in Newfoundland During the Great Depression,” Labour/Le Travail, 26 (1990): pp. 105-110.

Trump is History. It’s Joe Biden Who’s Changing America

While most of official Washington has been consumed with the Senate impeachment trial, another part of Washington is preparing the most far-ranging changes in American social policy in a generation.

Congress is moving ahead with Biden's American Rescue Plan, which expands health care and unemployment benefits, and contains one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce child poverty since the New Deal. Right behind it is Biden’s plan for infrastructure and jobs.

The juxtaposition of Trump’s impeachment trial and Biden’s ambitious plans is no coincidence.

Trump left Republicans badly fractured and on the defensive. The Republican Party is imploding. Since January 6th, growing numbers of Republicans have deserted it. State and county committees are becoming wackier by the day. Big business no longer has a home in the crackpot GOP.

Republican infighting has created a political void into which Democrats are stepping with far-reaching reforms. Biden and the Democrats, who now control the White House and both houses of Congress, are responding boldly to the largest social and economic crisis since Great Depression.

Importantly, they are now free to disregard conservative canards that have hobbled America’s ability to respond to public needs ever since Ronald Reagan convinced the nation that big government was the problem.

The first is the supposed omnipresent danger of inflation and the accompanying worry that public spending can easily overheat the economy.

Rubbish. Inflation hasn’t reared its head in years, not even during the roaring job market of 2018 and 2019. “Overheating” may no longer even be a problem for globalized, high-tech economies whose goods and services are so easily replaceable.

Biden’s ambitious plans are worth the small risk, in any event. If you hadn’t noticed, the American economy is becoming more unequal by the day. Bringing it to a boil may be the only way to lift the wages of the bottom half. The hope is that record low interest rates and vast public spending generate enough demand that employers will need to raise wages to find the workers they need.

A few Democratic economists who should know better are sounding the false alarm about inflation, but Biden is wisely ignoring them. So should Democrats in Congress.

Another conservative bromide is that a larger national debt crowds out private investment and slows growth. This view hamstrung the Clinton and Obama administrations as deficit hawks warned against public spending unaccompanied by tax increases to pay for it. (I still have some old injuries from those hawks.)

Fortunately, Biden isn’t buying this, either.  

Four decades of chronic underemployment and stagnant wages have shown how important public spending is for sustained growth. Not incidentally, growth reduces the debt as a share of the overall economy. The real danger is the opposite: fiscal austerity shrinks economies and causes national debts to grow in proportion.

The third canard is that generous safety nets discourage work.

Democratic presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson sought to alleviate poverty and economic insecurity with broad-based relief. But after Reagan tied public assistance to racism -- deriding single-mother “welfare queens” – conservatives began demanding stringent work requirements so that only the “truly deserving” received help. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama acquiesced to this nonsense.

Not Biden. His proposal would not only expand jobless benefits but also provide assistance to parents who are not working – thereby extending relief to 27 million children, including about half of all Black and Latino children. Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah has put forward a similar plan.

This is just common sense. Tens of millions are hurting. A record number of American children are impoverished, according to the most recent Census data.

The pandemic has also caused a large number of women to drop out of the labor force in order to care for children. With financial help, some of them will be able to pay for childcare and move back into paid work. After Canada enacted a national child allowance in 2006, employment rates for mothers increased. A decade later, when Canada increased its annual child allowance, its economy added jobs.

It’s still unclear exactly what form Biden’s final plans will take as they work their way through Congress. He has razor-thin majorities in both chambers. In addition, most of his proposals are designed for the current emergency; they would need to be made permanent.

But the stars are now better aligned for fundamental reform than they’ve been since Reagan.

It’s no small irony that a half century after Reagan persuaded Americans that big government was the problem, Trump’s demise is finally liberating America from Reaganism – and letting the richest nation on earth give its people the social supports they desperately need.

MEPs approved new fiscal rules for the EU during a plenary session on Tuesday despite an ongoing campaign by trade unions to prevent "austerity 2.0" from passing through.

"This reform constitutes a fresh start and a return to fiscal responsibility," said co-rapporteur Makrus Ferber (EPP – Germany). "The new framework will be simpler, more predictable and more pragmatic. However, the new rules can only become a success if properly implemented by the Commission."

The regulation passed with 359 votes in favour, 166 against and 61 abstentions, with conservatives, liberals and socialist groups helping to get the text over the line.

Advocates of the reform say it heralds a return to fiscal control after a more lax approach during the Covid-19 pandemic. Member States will now be required to keep budget deficits at less than 3% of national GDP. In addition, countries with excessive debt will be required to reduce it on average by 1% per year if their debt is above 90% of GDP, and by 0.5% per year on average if it is between 60% and 90%.

'Straitjacket'

European and Belgian trade unions have led a long campaign denouncing the reforms as a "Europe-wide return to austerity".

According to ETUC General Secretary Esther Lynch, 18 Member States including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland would be unable to meet the required minimum level of investment in housing, healthcare and education under the new rules. In addition, only three Member States – Sweden, Ireland and Denmark – will be able to meet the social and climate investments required of them.

"This agreement, forced by the austerity approach of some European capitals, will require member states to reduce their debts rapidly and in ways that are economically and socially unsustainable," ETUC stated on the eve of the vote. "This will mark a return to austerity. At the same time, the new rules will also act as a disincentive to invest towards the social and climate objectives EU member states have agreed upon, by limiting the marge of manoeuvre of public deficit."

Similarly, Belgian MEP and President of the European Greens/EFA group Philippe Lamberts (Ecolo) drew attention to the social and environmental cost of tighter economic measures. "These new budgetary rules will impose a straitjacket on all EU Member States," he said on Monday. "It will deprive governments of the financial resources needed to guarantee a thriving economy, social services and climate action."

Other political groups in the European Parliament acknowledge that the reforms are imperfect, but necessary nonetheless. "There is no doubt that this deal is much better than no deal and going back to the old rules or having no rules at all," said co-rapporteur Margarida Marques (S&D – Portugal).

Right-wing and far-right political groups welcome a more stringent approach to EU budgetary rules. "There are a number of Member States who have gone too far in debt financing and this is a potential danger which can't be justified nationally or EU-wide," said MEP Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR/N-VA – Belgium). This echoes positions of "frugal" countries such as Germany, who fear another bail-out in the worst-case scenario.

Tax the rich

Tuesday's vote has not stopped the opposition campaign in its tracks. ETUC, the trade union leading the fight, has now emphasised the need to "tax the rich" as a solution to the EU's budgetary difficulties.

"Working people who have suffered a historic drop in living standards as a result of the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis simply don’t have anything left for politicians to take," stated Lynch in a press release published in the wake of the vote. "Instead politicians who supported these fiscal rules should have the decency to meet them through taxes on the corporations which registered record breaking profits which fueled inflation."

The vote on the budgetary reforms is one of almost 90 to take place during the Strasbourg plenary this week. This is the last time MEPs will convene before the end of the mandate and there is a palpable sense of urgency to deliver to voters before European elections on 9 June.

Antis are the equal and opposite of libertarians. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative, though they lack the awareness to admit that.

i never thought of it this way but it’s legit

In 2009, during the first grand coalition under Angela Merkel, Scholz was among the SPD MPs who voted in favour of the constitutional debt brake. This balanced budget rule went further than the stability pact. It preceded the era of austerity that almost ripped the euro area apart. It led to chronic under-investment, from which the euro area is still suffering today. Scholz was labour minister at the time, not directly responsible. The actual author of the debt brake was another social democrat, Peer Steinbrück, then finance minister. But Scholz was a strong and vocal supporter of this policy.

Scholz changed his mind on the debt brake. I would never blame politicians for changing their mind after a mistake. That said, Scholz has a history of supporting ordo-liberal, conservative economic policies. As chancellor, he may do the same, just like his mentor, Gerhard Schröder.

So why are Social Democrats fiscally conservative? After the second world war, the SPD was the party of Keynesian economics. The most famous representative of that movement was Karl Schiller, the great SPD economics minister in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His disciple was Helmut Schmidt, who later became chancellor. The era of fiscal conservatism started in the 1980s when the SPD was in opposition. The party convinced itself that it had to become respectable by endorsing economic conservatism. The SPD, like the Democrats in the US, also became fully paid-up subscribers of financial deregulation. There is nothing that scares a social democrat more than being called fiscally irresponsible or financially illiterate. This also explains the proximity of leading Social Democrats to financial power. Rich people give them respectability.

Hope and Change