Archive by Author

Why outrage politics has such a grip on American life

Moral outrage can be a healthy part of the American Democratic process, motivating people to advocate for their beliefs and hold leaders accountable. The founding of the country, after all, is rooted in rebellion and a list of grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

But top leaders are expressing worries about the dark side of outrage politics, and how it is incentivized through structural factors in the media and in the political system.

In an Independence Day op-ed in The Atlantic, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) lamented that “carefully constructed, prejudice-confirming arguments from the usual gang of sophists, grifters, and truth-deniers” have led to America being in “denial” of serious threats.

“The phenomenon is basically the same on both sides. There’s always a wing that will never be happy, where you can never be liberal enough for them, or progressive enough for them. And on the right, never be right-wing enough for them,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview.

“They engage in grievance politics more than anything else. They self-victimize in very mysterious ways. And they use that self-victimization as a weapon to wield,” Crenshaw said.

To some, recent confrontations motivated by political outrage have gone too far.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of two Republicans on the House Jan. 6 Select Committee, has shared threatening letters and voicemails he’s received. Protesters gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court justices to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and then outside a D.C. steakhouse as conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh dined, prompting condemnation from the restaurant.

Humans may be wired to be attracted to outrage.

Mark Lenkner, a librarian and assistant professor at University of Nevada-Las Vegas who has written about political outrage, pointed to the philosopher Robert Solomon describing anger as being an energizing experience.

“In the case of politics, and moral issues, it gets tinged and heightened with moral expectations. So not only do I move from being a victim to being the accuser, but it’s more like I moved from being the victim to being the judge of your actions, and there’s more power in that,” Lenker said.

Other systems then build on capitalizing on moral outrage.

Jeff Berry, a professor of political science at Tufts University and co-author of “The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility,” said that technological and market changes have increased political outrage in the media.

Americans used to listen to the radio for music, but the advent of CDs and digital music prompted a shift toward talk radio and creation of conservative talk radio giants like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

Before the advent of cable and satellite television, networks would need to partner with hundreds of local affiliates across the country to get a national audience, incentivizing them to appeal to the widest audience possible. A cable network, on the other hand, does not have that structural hurdle and can be profitable by appealing to a smaller audience.

“Outrage is a business and it’s feeding a product. It’s supplying a product to people who want to be angry, and want to be even more angry about politics,” Berry said.

Advancement of social media since his book’s 2014 publication has further increased political outrage, Berry said. 

Major technology platforms have taken steps in recent years to try to combat the spread of false information on their platforms. But according to a Yale University study released last year, incentives like “likes” and “shares” on social media amplified expressions of outrage over time. 

“The mere existence of social media – it makes very fringe ideas seem much more mainstream than they really are,” Crenshaw said.

Crenshaw noted that political fundraising also incentivizes weaponizing outrage, which targets the most passionate individuals who are likely to donate.

Republicans regularly paint opponents as “RINOs” – Republicans In Name Only – when campaigning and fundraising.  

Missouri GOP Senate candidate Eric Greitens garnered criticism after he released a video last month encouraging supporters to order a “RINO hunting permit,” and showed him breaking into a house with a firearm.

Democrats capitalize on outrage for fundraising purposes, too.

Marcus Flowers, the Democratic nominee in the race against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is not expected to win the solely Republican 14th Congressional district in Georgia. But by targeting those outraged by Greene’s comments and promising to counter her, he is raking in small-dollar donations.

Flowers raised $8.2 million as of Mar. 31 – the most of any non-incumbent candidate and the eleventh-highest amount of all House candidates, Federal Election Commission data shows. More than $2.6 million of that has gone to the consulting firm Blue Chip Strategies.

Beyond fundraising, the dominance of America’s two-party system and the primary system, with gerrymandering creating more polarized districts, also incentivizes outrage.

“Grifting” candidates, Crenshaw said, “will do whatever their 24-year-old consultant tells them to do if they think it’ll get them that key 10,000 votes out of the district of 750,000 that can deliver them a primary, because normal people just don’t get out and vote anymore.”

“There’s an obvious problem with the redder a district gets, the bluer district gets, when the only people that representatives have to talk to are primary voters – now you’re obviously going to get that kind of populist pandering,” Crenshaw said.

Berry cautioned against equivocating outrage with ideology, but acknowledged the impact of primary voters. 

“Every politician is a bit of a marketing scientist. And they’re very aware of what their base wants,” Berry said. “So, there’s a real structural element in terms of American party politics, that contributes to the success of outrage, and that is the party primary.”

Those that can identify factors that foster outrage in politics, though, have few suggestions for remedies.

“My message to voters always is stop falling for it,” Crenshaw said. “These people are here to lie to you, and get more sides to lose whatever side you’re on, they want you to lose, because that’s how they get their clicks. That’s how they get their engagement and that’s ultimately how they make money.”

It can be difficult to strike the right balance on outrage, Berry said.

“We want to live in a society where there’s protest, and we want to live in a society where people have the right to use outrage. What we would like to do, though, is live in a society where there are some boundaries and some norms of civility. So even if you’re animated and passionate and angry, you still don’t do things that are disruptive to the whole system, in politics in general,” Berry said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump goes after 'RINO' Murkowski during Alaska rally: 'She's worse than a Democrat'

Former President Trump used a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, on Saturday to target Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is up for reelection this November, asserting that “she’s worse than a Democrat.” 

While Trump was in the state to campaign for several candidates he has endorsed, he focused much of his speech on Murkowski, calling her “a lousy senator” shortly after beginning his stump speech. 

“She’s a total creature of the Washington swamp, but much worse than that, and a tool of a corrupt establishment, the likes of which we’ve never seen. The fake news media loves her,” Trump said. 

The former president criticized Murkowski for opposing the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh while joining two other Republican senators and all 50 Democrats to vote for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation.

He also slammed her for her vote in favor of bipartisan gun safety legislation passed in the wake of high-profile shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas. 

“This is your precious chance to dump the horrific RINO Senator Lisa Murkowski, who’s worse than a Democrat. She’s worse than a Democrat,” Trump said, using the acronym for “Republican in name only.” 

Trump-endorsed Alaska Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka called Murkowski “Biden’s CEO,” adding that she was his “chief enabling officer.”

Murkowski has drawn Trump’s ire after she voted along with six other Republican senators to convict the former president after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. In June 2021, he endorsed Tshibaka, setting up one of the most-watched Senate races for November. 

Trump’s rally in Alaska comes ahead of the state’s Aug. 16 primary. Cook Political Report rates the Senate race as “solid Republican,” meaning that whoever wins the GOP primary will be considered the heavy favorite in November. 

The former president also praised former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who is running for the state’s sole House seat and is another of Trump’s endorsees.

“She will be a true warrior for your state and for the country,” Trump said of Palin during his rally. 

“Sir, we need you back. Four more years, four more years,” Palin said while taking the stage alongside Trump. “And President Trump, you are home.”

Trump also waded into a slew of other topics, including Elon Musk’s decision to terminate his agreement to buy Twitter and the Tesla CEO’s “rotten” contract.

“You know [what] he said the other day? ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that.’ He told me he voted for me,” Trump said. Musk has made multiple remarks about his party leanings in recent months, saying in May that he “might never have voted for a Republican” and tweeting last month that he had voted for a Republican for the “first time.”

“So he’s another bulls–t artist, but he’s not going to be buying it. He’s not going to be buying it. Although he might later, who the hell knows what’s going to happen? He’s got a pretty rotten contract.”

The comments come after Musk last month tweeted that he had not yet decided who he was backing for president in 2024, but was leaning toward Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). DeSantis has been rumored to be considering a run for the presidency and could challenge Trump in a GOP primary if both decide to seek the party’s nomination.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to know about the assassination of Shinzo Abe

Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated on Friday, stunning Japan and the world.

The 67-year-old leader, Japan’s longest serving prime minister, remained an influential figure in the country’s politics after stepping down from the role in 2020. He was shot in the back while giving a speech outdoors and was quickly airlifted to a hospital, but was pronounced dead hours later.

Tetsuya Yamagami, 41, was arrested for the assassination shortly Abe was shot. He has admitted to killing the former leader.

Here are five things to know about the assassination:

1. Abe was killed during a campaign event

Abe was on a street in the city of Nara in western Japan when he was killed on Friday. 

He was speaking at an event for the Liberal Democratic Party ahead of elections for Japan’s House of Councillors, which are set to take place Sunday. 

Abe was a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, Japan’s current governing party, for decades. 

He served as prime minister of the country and president of the Liberal Democratic Party from 2006 to 2007 and again from 2012 to 2020. 

2. Attacker used handmade gun

Officials told reporters that Yamagami, who has admitted to fatally shooting Abe, used a handmade gun to assassinate the former leader, according to multiple outlets.

The gun, which could be seen in video of the attack, appeared to have two barrels held together by duct tape.

Japanese public broadcaster NHK reported, citing sources inside the investigation into the shooting, that the gun was one of several Yamagami made out of steel pipes and adhesive tape. He told police he purchased the parts he used to make the guns online, per the outlet.

Gun ownership and gun violence are both rare in Japan, which has some of the world’s strictest gun laws. The country bans handguns and allows residents to possess shotguns and air rifles only if they undergo a rigorous licensing process that involves a mental health evaluation, background check and both a written exam and an accuracy test at a shooting range, among other steps. That process must then be repeated every three years to renew the license.

Once licensed owners have obtained guns, they are also required to register them with police, who must inspect them annually, and to provide authorities with information about how the weapons and ammunition are stored.

3. Police investigating shooter’s motives

Authorities in Japan are working to uncover why Yamagami assassinated the former prime minister, with the shooter claiming his motive did not have to do with Abe’s politics. 

Investigative sources told The Japanese Times that Yamagami said he attacked Abe because he believed the former prime minister promoted a religious group that caused his mother to go bankrupt. 

The shooter allegedly told authorities he initially planned to attack a leader of this religious group, to which his mother made large donations, before setting his sights on Abe.

4. Security for Abe receives scrutiny after assassination

The apparently light security protections for Abe on the day of the assassination have attracted scrutiny in the aftermath of his death.

Cars were passing behind the former prime minister while he spoke, as the road was not blocked off for his speech, and the crowd was only feet from him, The Japanese Times reported. 

Japan’s National Police Agency said it will be investigating if there were any flaws in Abe’s security, per the outlet.

During his speech, Abe was to be protected by a team made up of authorities from the Nara prefectural police department’s security division and Tokyo’s Metropolitan Police Department.

The head of the Nara prefectural police, Tomoaki Onizuka, on Saturday said that there were “undeniable” issues with the former prime minister’s security and vowed that a “thorough investigation” would be conducted, according to The Guardian.

“I believe it is undeniable that there were problems with the guarding and safety measures for former prime minister Abe,” Onizuka said.

“In all the years since I became a police officer in 1995 … there is no greater remorse, no bigger regret than this,” he added.

5. Abe’s body taken to Tokyo

After he was declared dead, Abe was taken from the hospital in the Nara prefecture to Tokyo, according to The Japanese Times. 

Senior members of the Liberal Democratic Party were at his home in the capital city when his body arrived to pay their respects, according to the outlet.

A wake will be held for Abe on Monday, followed by a funeral on Tuesday, CNN reported, citing Abe’s office. NHK reported that only family and others close to the former prime minister would be in attendance at the funeral, which his widow will host at a Tokyo temple, according to CNN.

Abe’s shooting was met with an outpouring of statements expressing shock and sadness from leaders around the world.

“I am stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened by the news that my friend Abe Shinzo, former Prime Minister of Japan, was shot and killed while campaigning,” President Biden said in a statement issued by the White House. “This is a tragedy for Japan and for all who knew him.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

AP runs fact check on fake Abe tweet about Clinton

The Associated Press ran a fact check of a screenshot of a tweet circulating online that was purportedly written by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about Hillary Clinton, determining that the tweet was fake.

A screenshot shared online showed a tweet apparently posted by an account with the Twitter handle “@ShinzoAbe” that included a Google translation in English reading, “I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.” It was purportedly written before Abe’s death, on July 7 at 1:09 p.m.

The screenshot also shows a Twitter verified blue checkmark next to the user’s name. 

The AP determined the screenshot and its tweet were fake for several reasons. The Japanese text included in the screenshot of the tweet does not actually reference Clinton, Abe’s real Twitter account uses a different photo and account handle and the tweet is actually referencing a meme, the outlet reported.

The AP also noted that the typeface used in part of the screenshot of the tweet was different from that used on the social media platform, behind some of the words there is a little discoloration, there appears to be some stretching and pixelation of the Japanese characters and the screenshot is blurry.

Reuters also ran a fact check of the screenshot of the tweet and determined that the tweet did not actually come from the former Japanese prime minister.

The longtime Japanese leader was giving a campaign speech on Friday when he was killed by a gunman. A suspect was soon detained by police. 

President Biden in a statement said he was “stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened” and called the attack a “tragedy.”

Source: TEST FEED1

End of Roe makes bad situation worse for incarcerated women

The Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade is raising concerns for women of color who are behind bars — a population that could be disproportionately affected by abortion bans in states across the country.  

Women of color are statistically more likely to seek an abortion and to be incarcerated, highlighting why advocates worry they could be hurt by the decision. 

“The criminalization of abortion is going to further drive mass incarceration,” said Chelsea Moore, policy director for the non-profit Dream Corps Justice. “And anytime we see any form of new criminalization, it inevitably disproportionately impacts Black and indigenous people of color.” 

Women in jail already faced severe hurdles to access healthcare services, including obtaining menstrual products and abortion services.  

Roe’s overturning significantly complicates an already difficult situation, raising questions of how women will be treated in federal facilities, state prisons and county jails that lie under different state laws. 

Before the court’s action, incarcerated women had a right to an abortion, but there were no mandatory standards, said Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an obstetrician who is also director of the Advocacy and Research on Reproductive Wellness in Incarcerated People program at Johns Hopkins University.  

Federal facilities had their own rules and regulations, while state facilities and even county jails could have different rules.  

In practice, this left incarcerated women facing a number of hurdles, and women imprisoned in states with heavy restrictions were generally unable to get an abortion.  

Even those women who legally could access the service faced challenges in paying the typical $500 cost for the procedure and transportation, particularly in so-called abortion deserts — states or areas with only one or two clinics. 

Such deserts will be expanded by Roe’s reversal.   

“Overturning Roe v. Wade is going to make a bad situation even worse for this population,” said Sufrin. “If someone is pregnant and incarcerated in a state where abortion is illegal, they don’t have the freedom of movement to try to travel to another state where abortion is legal. Maybe they would get released from jail while still pregnant, but they might be too far long at that point to try to organize the logistics of going to an abortion-supported state.”  

Women released from prison on probation or parole will also face new challenges as states move to outlaw abortion following the Supreme Court’s decision.  

“There are travel restrictions for people on probation or parole,” said Moore. “If you want to leave even your county, but especially your state, you have to get permission from your community custody officer. If you live in a state where you would need to travel to get an abortion, that’s going to be near impossible.” 

Sufrin said she is especially concerned how the “vigilante policing” of pregnant people could lead to self-managed abortions — and therefore more women incarcerated — if some states go through with threats to press charges against women who do go over state lines for abortions.  

Incarcerated women who carry fetuses to term will face another challenge: Environments where access to quality prenatal care is often nonexistent. “In some cases, what the facility calls prenatal care may just consist of getting your blood pressure checked once every few weeks,” said Sufrin.  

Sufrin’s research estimates there are as many as 58,000 admissions of pregnant people to prisons and jails each year.  

As part of their research, Sufrin’s team tracked pregnancy outcomes for one year at federal prisons as well as 22 state prisons and six jails, including the nation’s five largest. They found that out of more than 800 pregnancies that ended in birth, only one percent of those ended abortion — suggesting difficulties accessing the care needed.  

“When Roe was in place and incarcerated people had a constitutional right to abortion, it was already a less than ideal situation,” said Sufrin. 

Today, there are 20 prenatal women in federal custody, according to a spokesperson for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They added that BOP is reviewing all potential policy options for protecting the reproductive health of inmates in its care and custody.  

It’s unclear whether federal prisons will follow the laws of the state the facility is in, or their own rules and regulations on abortion.  

Another issue with subpar maternal care is that it increases the likelihood for miscarriages and stillbirths. 

Research shows that Black women already have a 43 percent higher risk of miscarriage than white women. Once incarcerated, some practices, like shackling, can lead to increased risk for negative pregnancy outcomes. 

Pamela Winn was six weeks pregnant when she was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison. At the time, she was a registered nurse and the single mother of two boys. While incarcerated, she found herself shackled anytime she was transported.  

One day, as she was being loaded into a van — shackled — she fell. When she began bleeding a few days later, concerns of a miscarriage immediately floated through her mind. For weeks, her pleas for medical attention went unaddressed by prison staff.  

At 20 weeks pregnant, Winn miscarried.  

“I suffered the entire miscarriage shackled to the bed with two male officers between my legs,” Winn said in her testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing: “Women in Prison: Seeking Justice Behind Bars” in February 2019. “When the nurse stated I had passed the fetus and asked for the linen that I had soiled, she was told [by] the officers that the linen which contained my unborn child had been thrown in the trash.”  

With some states charging women for inducing miscarriages due to previous drug abuse or other behaviors, it’s not clear if incarcerated pregnant people who miscarry will have time added to their sentences, leading some women already incarcerated worried about their futures.  

Kathryn Griffin, founder of Texas DOC’s Our Roadway to Freedom rehabilitation program, spoke to women at the Lucile Plane State Jail in Dayton, Texas on what the end of Roe will mean for them. Texas is one of six states with a total abortion ban. Many of the women Griffin spoke to told her the abortions they’d heard of were only for those at the county jail, and usually only for life threatening situations like ectopic pregnancies.  

“Because they’re incarcerated, they feel they’re at the back of the line,” said Griffin. “They’re not a priority.” 

Others, though, recounted their own failed pregnancies while in custody.  

“Some of them talked about miscarrying, the fetus falling in the prison or jail toilets,” said Griffin. “They didn’t know they were even pregnant. And then they weren’t granted privileges to go [to a hospital] to make sure everything was out.” 

Almost all expressed concerns over recidivism rates. 

Some of the women said after all the rehabilitation work they’ve been doing to ensure they don’t end up reincarcerated, they’re now worried the end of Roe will lead them back to imprisonment.  

For Moore, the health care crisis in prisons and jails across the country, compounded with the Court’s decision, will only lead to a loss of lives, especially for Black women, who are three times more likely to die in childbirth than white women.  

“We need to demand more of our legislators,” said Moore. “We need to let them know that this is an issue that we care about, that the issue of overturning Roe is not disconnected from the mass incarceration crisis that we’re experiencing. It’s related to it and it’s going to compound it and we’re tired of locking people up and throwing away the key and devastating Black and indigenous communities of color.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

It’s time to open a new front against Putin inside Russia

During May, President Biden spoke to the Russian people about the war in Ukraine. “You are not our enemy,” he told them. This is a powerful truth which should be followed by an aggressive program to separate the Russian people from their corrupt, despotic, reckless overlord.

It’s time the U.S. reached out directly to the citizens of Russia. For two decades, Vladimir Putin has waged an information war of lies and deceit among his own people and against liberal democracy everywhere. We must launch a counter-offensive, based on truth, fact, and democratic values.

As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden was one of the strongest supporters of the Voice of America. He guarded its budget and prevented it from being taken over by the State Department. In 2002, he reminded the Senate, that “No matter how powerful our military, we will not be able to achieve all our foreign policy objectives if we lose the war of ideas… we must use our most powerful tools: Truth, creditability, and openness [and] reach out to people in their own language…”

Messaging of Soviet citizens by the U.S. Information Agency played an important part in the West’s victory in the Cold War. But in 1999, Congress disestablished the Agency, and since then the U.S. has been without an effective voice in advocating for freedom and the rule of law in countries ruled by despotic governments, including Russia.

Ironically, three months after the demise of the USIA, Vladimir Putin became president of Russia. From his early proclamation that the collapse of Soviet Communism was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” to his venomously anti-U.S. speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, to his seizure of part of Georgia in 2008, all of Crimea in 2014 and his invasion of Ukraine this year. Putin has pursued the re-creation of the Soviet empire by covert and overt aggression.

The brutal invasion of Ukraine has finally awakened the West. We now understand that our security and values are on the line in Ukraine and we have two objectives there: (1) to save Ukraine’s independence and freedom and (2) to defeat Putin. This requires more than more military and economic assistance to Ukraine. It requires an information counter-offensive against Putin inside Russia that includes the policy missing since 1999, advocacy.

News delivered by the Voice of America is vitally important, but news is not advocacy.  Advocacy marshals truth and fact to influence thinking and behavior. Advocacy in Russia to its people would describe Putin’s crimes, his corruption, and his mismanagement. Advocacy will persuade the Russian people they deserve peace, not war; they deserve grandchildren, not sons coming home in coffins; they deserve honest government, not kleptocracy; they deserve to live as well as Westerners, not as increasingly impoverished subjects of Putin. And advocacy will inspire the Russian people to fight for all that they deserve.

We can reach the Russian people directly using the multitude of popular social media sites and messaging services already there. More than 35 million Russians now use the encrypted app, Telegram. Younger Russians especially, are using the internet for news and information from outside of Russia, and this is the demographic we need to reach.

Putin’s censorship agency, Roskomnadzor, has blocked access to some sites such as Facebook, but Russians still reach those sites using Virtual Private Networks (VPSs). Sale of VPN services have soared in recent months. 

Our messages to the Russian people reflect and defend their interests and encourage them once again to have the confidence to demand freedom and a better life. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent video message to Russians is an example of creative advocacy based in truth and fact. It went viral all over Russia. Content and variety of messaging is limited only by our creativity. But the medium must be advocacy and the message must be that freedom is good and Putin is bad.

To open this new front against Putin inside Russia, President Biden should revive in modern form the advocacy functions once carried out by the USIA. Production can be assigned to whichever department has the most talent in creative communications, but it’s critical the project have the personal interest and enthusiastic support of the president. He could appoint a Director of Freedom Advocacy who would report directly to the National Security Council without bureaucracy in between.

The Russian people are not our enemy, as President Biden said. In fact, they can be our most effective allies against Putin. We need to reach out to them now because our fundamental values and our national security require it.

Joe Lieberman represented Connecticut in the U.S. Senate, 1989-2013, and is founding co-chair of No Labels. Gordon Humphrey represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate from 1979-1990

Source: TEST FEED1

Bidens wish Muslims celebrating Eid al-Adha 'a joyous holiday'

President Biden said on Saturday that he and first lady Jill Biden wished “a joyous holiday” to Muslims in the United States and around the world who are observing the holiday of Eid al-Adha.

“Jill and I send our warmest greetings to Muslims across the United States and around the world celebrating Eid al-Adha. The Eid traditions and Hajj rituals that commemorate the devotion of Abraham and his son to God are an opportunity for Muslims to renew their faith, and a reminder of the common roots of the world’s great Abrahamic religions,” Biden said in a statement.

“And the act of sharing the sacrifice with those less fortunate in service of God mirrors our common commitment to work together to meet the challenges of our world today.”

Biden also touted the progress that the U.S. and the rest of the world has made in battling the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that Muslims would be able to make the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, for the first time since the start of the pandemic. 

“It’s a symbol of the progress we have made in fighting this pandemic and of all work we must still do to strengthen our recovery,” the president said.

Eid al-Adha, known as the “Feast of Sacrifice,” honors a story told in the Quran of how Ibrahim demonstrates his obedience to God by his willingness to kill his son, Ismail. In the story, God ultimately stops Ibrahim from killing his son by offering him a ram to use instead.

The holiday features slaughtering livestock, meat from which is then shared amongst the poor, friends and family. It also features the hajj trek to the holy city of Mecca, which takes place each year and which Muslims are supposed to complete at least one time.

Source: TEST FEED1

Can election denialism be a winning issue in November?

A number of Republican candidates who have pushed dubious claims about the last election, or questioned the legitimacy of elections, are winning their respective primaries, raising questions about whether election denialism can be a winning issue in the general election.

Some of the most prominent primary winners include Nevada secretary of state candidate Jim Marchant (R), who claimed he himself had suffered election fraud in 2020 after an unsuccessful bid running for a House seat. He told a candidates forum earlier this year “your vote hasn’t counted for decades.”

Another recent primary winner, Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano (R), asked a state Senate committee following the 2020 election to hold a hearing after questioning the integrity of the election, which Rudy Giuliani participated in. Mastriano penned an op-ed a month afterward making dubious claims about the election, citing the hearing testimony, and later referenced that hearing during a candidate debate. 

Some of those races have high stakes. 

Should Marchant become the next secretary of state in Nevada, he would be overseeing state and local elections. Mastriano is running for Pennsylvania governor, who appoints the state’s top elections official. Neither campaign responded to The Hill’s requests for comment.

Adding to growing concerns is recent polling indicating that some of these candidates are competitive. A poll out of Pennsylvania last month, for example, showed Mastriano trailing Democratic rival Josh Shapiro by single digits.

Nonetheless, experts and strategists who spoke to The Hill are skeptical that touting such claims will be a winning issue come November.

In the case of Mastriano, Republican strategist Terry Sullivan said he believes other issues factored into voters’ decisions during the primary.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of voters who were going to the polls based solely on that issue,” Sullivan said.

Todd Belt, the director of the political management program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, said that those remarks “resonate with the hardcore Republican base.”

Belt noted that the messaging could be effective during primary season because there’s usually lower voter turnout generally around that time, with only the most enthusiastic within a party’s base heading to polls. He said that the most energized voters for the Republican Party have included those who have denied the election results or voted for former President Trump.

“It remains to be seen whether or not that will help them in the general election because we may see a number of Democrats as a countervailing force … enthusiastic about voting because of what’s going with the January 6 committee, and so that might be a wash when it comes to the general election,” Belt noted.

Some Republican strategists believe that focusing on those issues in the general election is a non-starter as candidates try to appeal to a wider subset of people.

“There’s no situation where this benefits a Republican candidate in the general, none,” said Republican strategist Doug Heye. 

He added that “if you are not focused on inflation, and those things that have Joe Biden’s approval rating in the tank, you’re not doing what you’re supposed to be doing. You know, you can still win, right? A lot of things can happen, but you’re not doing the job that you’re supposed to be doing. And you know, if you win, it will be in spite of yourself.”

One Republican strategist who asked for anonymity to speak candidly agreed that candidates should be focusing instead on issues like inflation.

“If you’re a Republican in this environment, you should be wholly and solely focused — no matter if you’re running for attorney general or Congress or U.S. Senate — you should be focused on issues that tackle, you know, inflationary pain that families and individuals are suffering, economic woes that we’re seeing, the general malaise people feel about, you know, today’s American and a bit of the short-term future,” the strategist said. “And it would be a mistake to deviate from that as a Republican.”

Marchant and Mastriano were both quick to declare victory in their primaries, even after they had cast doubt on the way elections were conducted in the past, as The Associated Press noted. But their earlier comments continue to dog their campaigns—and some continue to double down.

“It’s not just conspiracy. It’s a fact. People have had some outrageous or questionable things happen to them. That’s 2020, 2021. And even in this recent primary [in] 2022, they believe their voting rights have been infringed upon. We need to get that solved,” Mastriano told The Epoch Times last month.

Concerns over candidates like Marchant and Mastriano come as the number of candidates who have espoused dubious claims about elections has swelled.

The pro-Democracy nonprofit States United Action has tracked the number of election deniers who are running in statewide offices this cycle.

Data released last month showed at the time that at least 35 candidates who the nonprofit classified as election deniers were running for governor in 20 states; at least 15 were running for attorney general in 13 states; and at least 23 were running for secretary of state in 17 states. 

Among the candidates who have yet to win their primaries is former local news anchor Kari Lake, who’s running for Arizona governor and is endorsed by Trump.

During a debate held late last month, she asked gubernatorial challengers if they agreed that the last election was “corrupt” and “stolen,” leading three of the four candidates to raise their hands. 

Over in Michigan, attorney Matt DePerno (R), who has also been endorsed by Trump and is running for Michigan attorney general, has also made questioning election integrity a focal point of his campaign. 

DePerno’s and Lake’s campaigns also did not respond to requests for comment. 

Still, some point out that plenty of viable candidates are not touting these views. 

“One thing that is really important to highlight is that there are really good pro-democracy candidates that are running on both sides. This is not a, you know, a lot of people want to make this a ‘Republican versus democracy’ issue, but it’s not,” said Thania Sanchez, the senior vice president of research and policy development with States United Action. 

“So even though yes, half of the races have an election denier running, that means half of the races do not have an election denier running,” she added.

Source: TEST FEED1

To counter abortion ruling, shift from recriminations toward development

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling enabling states to restrict abortion has pleased conservatives and alarmed social liberals. Differences in values have always existed, with all sides firmly convinced of their own moral superiority. This is not an issue of men versus women. In every state that restricts abortion, women outvote men. Regional cultural differences will not disappear any time soon. Elevating these differences to the center of public life accentuates them. 

Culture wars have been incredibly destructive and detract attention from pressing issues. The United States is deeply troubled. Life expectancy here, once higher than that in many Western European countries, is now on par with developing countries such as Colombia and Ecuador. Heated conflicts over cultural issues have led many social conservatives – including many Christians who traditionally sympathize with the poor and favor environmental protection – to form political coalitions with economic conservatives, who favor lower taxes, less public investment and minimal regulation to protect the environment, consumers and workers.

The regions of the United States that levy the highest taxes and invest the most in infrastructure, education, public health, food safety and environmental protection have tended to develop the most productive and healthiest populations. Public investment causes economic growth and improvement in population health. 

State laws restricting abortion do not hamper the ability of well-educated and prosperous people to travel across state lines to obtain an abortion. The best way to counter bad local laws is to give people the means to escape them.

But people in less developed regions are hindered by limited transit options, financial resources and educational opportunities. Many of these problems can be ameliorated with prudent public investments.

We can help people living in those regions, without demanding that they or their neighbors surrender their sense of identity or moral values, by focusing the government primarily on economic development and individual mobility rather than cultural indoctrination. The time, energy and money that have been spent arguing about whether Missouri’s abortion laws should be adopted by Illinois or vice-versa could better be spent improving the speed and frequency of trains connecting St. Louis to Chicago.

While access to abortion can improve women’s health and economic opportunities, political compromises that entail slightly less convenient access in return for increased public funding for education, transit and health care may help women (and men) more.  Indeed, women in many European countries where Christian political parties formed coalitions with Social Democratic ones, such as Ireland and Italy, simultaneously receive more generous economic protections while facing more legal restrictions on abortion compared to their U.S. counterparts. Italian and Irish women now live years longer than their U.S. counterparts.

Culture wars over race can also be counterproductive. In France, Germany and much of Western and Northern Europe, governments are not permitted even to collect data on race, much less use it to allocate government contracts, jobs or university admissions.  This is because Europeans regard legalized racial classification and discrimination, even in the form of affirmative action to help minorities, as reminiscent of what took place in Nazi Germany. Yet racial minorities in Western Europe are less likely to be imprisoned or executed. Even the most liberal U.S. states have incarceration rates that look medieval by Western European standards. 

After World War II, a development-oriented approach helped transform jingoistic German and Japanese societies into economic powerhouses and bastions of liberalism. To accomplish this long-term transformation, the Allies had to make tactical concessions to local moral values, even treating many war criminals with leniency.

Conflicts over cultural and social issues have ravaged the United States more than military conflict. After centuries of religious, ethnic and ideological strife, European priorities have changed. They are now more interested in maintaining a functional public sector that is concerned with the wellbeing of its people than with fighting Kulturkampfs. 

When will Americans mature enough to follow this proven recipe for success? When will we learn to respect those whose moral values are different from our own, to work together on areas of agreement and to rebuild? 

Michael Simkovic is the Leon Benwell Professor of Law and Accounting at the USC Gould School of Law.

Source: TEST FEED1