Zack Polanski blames both Conservative and Labour governments for regression in trans rights (EXCLUSIVE) - Attitude https://apple.news/AtSPmxzDwRhiEooSzgI-6Ew?highlight=Zack%20Polanski%20blames%20both%20Conservative%20and%20Labour%20governments%20for%20regression%20in%20trans%20rights
Getting back into Marxist analyis
Popular wisdom that income taxes are a major burden for most families is mostly an opp
No, *your* flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. My flag decal, with the pistols and the Punisher skull on it, totally slaps ass and the man standing at the Pearly Gates will recognize that.
The piece I wrote for Liberal Currents on Musk's USAID cuts and how we can respond to them is out, take a look if you get the chance.
John Rensenbrink was right topping out that the Greens had an unhealthy dependence on Nader (who was never a member) but they never found anyone better
Sure only the tattoo but also
Platner has yet to *run* in a race as big as the one Mamdani already won. The privileging of white faces as the ‘real American’ ones continues
Incredible
I have been devastated all day over the passing of Reverand Jackson. He was one of the most impactful voices in my life
Rest in peace to the Reverend Jesse Jackson. His speeches, particularly his address to the 1988 DNC, have brought me hope in the hardest moments of my life. His work as an acolyte of Dr King, his creation of the Rainbow Coalition, kept the dream alive through the age of reaction
and i wrote this a decade ago about jackson as the model response to trump-style politics www.slate.com/articles/new...
i wrote this last year about jackson and mamdani www.nytimes.com/2025/08/23/o...
anyway let’s check in with keir starmer to see how “conceding to popular prejudice” is working our for the labour party
A Democrats for Nixon ad portrayed McGovern as a flip-flopper because of his awkward reversal in the Eagleton affair, and the president, by contrast, posed as a pillar of firmness in 1972. Yet McGovern was a more consistent figure in his political career than Nixon had been. The startling opening to China by the fervent anti-Communist was only the most obvious of Nixon’s reversals. His presidency was a field for almost continual political zigzagging. The critic of government interference in the free market at the start of his term was the initiator of wageprice controls in 1971. The advocate of affirmative action in his Philadelphia Plan of 1969 was a sharp critic of racial quotas in 1972. The champion of a more humane welfare system in 1969 was a stinging critic of “the welfare ethic” in 1972. Nixon had conservative instincts, but he lacked conservative principles. Looking back at his presidency from the vantage point of the Reagan years, when conservative principles were ascendant, a number of “revisionist” historians began to claim that Nixon had been, of all things, a liberal.25 They pointed to his ambitious Family Assistance Plan, his proposal for national health insurance, his plan for affirmative action in the construction unions, his innovative record on the environment. As Joan Hoff, the most prominent of the “revisionists,” put the argument, even if politics may have been the propelling motive, Nixon was staking out advanced liberal ground during his presidency by his willingness “to move beyond the twin boundaries of the New Deal and Great Society.”26
The “revisionist” thesis about Nixon is flawed, however. It makes Nixon look liberal by taking him out of his historical context, in which government activism was still popular, and examining him within the context of Reaganism. It slights the fact that many of Nixon’s proposals'were responses to even stronger measures proposed by the Democratic majority in Congress. It credits Nixon for executive actions whose sources were genuine liberals—for there were still liberal Republicans then—in agencies like the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Environmental Protection Agency. And it downplays the ephemeral existence of so many of Nixon’s domestic initiatives. Jonathan Schell observes that “the productions of the Nixon Administration emerged from nowhere and sank back into nowhere when their usefulness was at an end.”27 “Usefulness” was the key—and the usefulness of liberalism for Nixon, like the usefulness of conservatism, lay in electoral payoffs and not in ideology. Environmental policy illustrates the electoral focus behind so much of Nixon’s domestic policy. Because he supported the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act of 1970, and a number of other environmental measures, he is often seen as a surprisingly progressive president in this field, especially against the backdrop of the anti-environmental turn later taken by Republicans. But Nixon’s policies were primarily responses to the upsurge of the environmental movement at the end of the 1960s, which placed his administration on the defensive. In the Senate, Edmund Muskie of Maine and Scoop Jackson of Washington, both of whom were expected to challenge Nixon for the presidency in 1972, were competing with one another for the role of environmental champion. As historian J. Brooks Flippen comments, the president’s advisers told him that “the administration should embrace the new environmentalism, take the offensive, or risk being run over on an issue that increasingly appeared political…
dramatic step that he personally disliked: he instituted the first system of peacetime wage-price controls in the nation’s history. Although the controls generated discontent in the ranks of organized labor, they did the trick for Nixon’s electoral prospects. The rate of inflation, running at 4.4 percent for the first half of 1971, fell to 3.2 percent for the election year. McGovern hit hard on the issue, but with the problem of rising prices seemingly coming under control, it did not help him much in the election. Two months after his landslide victory, Nixon relaxed the wage-price controls that had kept inflationary pressures under wraps through the election and, exacerbated by soaring food and energy prices, inflation took off again.31 Recession was an even larger contributor to Republicans’ electoral disappointment in 1970 than inflation. In 1972 the Nixon administration drove the economy hard toward an expansionary surge. The president ordered government departments to spend money as quickly as they could during the first half of the year, when the effects would be felt by Election Day. The Federal Reserve helped out with an easy money policy. By the fall the economy was booming, with real GNP growing by 8.1 percent in the final quarter of the year.32 Taking no chances, the Nixon administration also directed as much money as it could into voters* pockets during the months immediately preceding the election. In a classic work of social science analysis, Political Control of the Economy, Edward Hifte used Nixon as his prime example of how incumbents can manipulate economic factors before elections. He demonstrated how transfer payments—Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, and federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments—“accelerated in late 1972 and decelerated after the election.”33 So, in 1972, voters had a choice between a dangerous, radical populist and a safe, mainstream incumbent who was spreading prosperity far and wide. Nixon cared about …
in the summer of 1972 positioned him as a shrewder negotiator than a pacifist like McGovern could ever be. McGovern owned the issue of Vietnam when he competed with a large field of rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. But in a Gallup Poll in the fall, Nixon Jed McGovern by 58 percent to 26 percent on the question of who would “do a better job of dealing with the Vietnam situation.”36 McGovern’s “one issue,” the American disaster in Southeast Asia about which he felt the deepest anguish, belonged in electoral terms to Nixon. Positioning on policy to serve reelection was one component of Nixon’s fouryear campaign for a second term. With some luck and a lot more of design, Nixon’s policy choices worked in tandem in the election year to serve his interests and sink McGovern’s hopes. Not all of Nixon’s policy stances were designed to neutralize liberal issues so that Democrats were unable to exploit them or to burnish the president’s credentials for bringing prosperity and peace. Some had a different aim: to break apart the traditional Democratic coalition and draw its disaffected constituencies over to the president’s side, even if they had to share space there with their traditional adversaries.
A criticism of the revisionist interpretation of Richard Nixon as a liberal; it was the product of Nixon having to placate a Democratic Congress during a time when government intervention was still credible and seeking to silence potential issues during re-election.
The major sticking point for a lot of states will be actually changing the law (I'm thinking about NC) But plenty will play ball, too.
Dream political career:
Mayor of a city manager city
Lieutenant Governor
Vice President
President
UN Secretary General
Dream political career:
Mayor of a city manager city
Lieutenant Governor
Vice President
President
UN Secretary General
You could build a political partt around "natural law politics" and you could name a party the transcendental party
The Natural Law Party is such a cool name for it to just be about transcendental mediation
American politicians that played a direct role in the country music industry:
John R Brinkley
Texas regular Pappy Daniel
Robert Byrd
Robert Byrd was on Hee Haw???
Been watching Ken Burns Country Music, good stuff, mighty sad
I'm attending Congressional NC District 11 Democrats's event, “11th Congressional District Democratic Candidate Forum” - sign up now t www.mobilize.us/mcdowellcoun...
Here's an idea, constrain the executive *before* they do something crazy. Congress was Article I for a reason
I am begging you, as an American, to boycott the Olympics, boycott the World Cup and sanction us
People will die, families will be broken, lives will never forever.ruined by the vanity and gluttony of men
We must abolish the presidency
Even if you didn’t vote for this, if you are an American this has been done in your name and you have a responsibility to do what you can to renounce and stop it. It’s not fair, but it is the duty that has been placed on us.
well, safe to say that Ken Martin's DNC recognizes exactly what the party has and values it accordingly, contra the NY Dems
