There has been talk as of late about the possibility of libertarians and liberals uniting to ‘take down’ President Trump.
How this coup d’état occurs in the material world I’m not quite sure, but it is nonetheless an intriguing question.
Both sides have numerous qualms with the Trump agenda, some of which overlap.
The tightening of the immigration system, the travel ban, and a belief in the existence of authoritarian tendencies point to a teaming up of the administration’s foes.
However, the differences outweigh the similarities and I am far from convinced these two will form a successful resistance.
Libertarians pride themselves on individualism, abiding by the U.S. Constitution’s prescripts, and cherishing free market capitalism.
They support minimal taxation (if any) for all individuals and aim for a general disengagement between the government and the private lives of the people.
This includes very few economic regulations, a reduction to the welfare state, and a refrain from unnecessary international entanglements.
No limits to your speech and no antiquated social restraints.
Within Libertarianism is a codified system of beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, that aim to reduce the state apparatus and maximize the liberty of an individual to live as they wish, without inflicting harm on others.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is often considered one of the leading libertarian voices in the country. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
An ideological line can be drawn straight from principle to policy.
Liberals, on the other hand, fail to present a systematic worldview which applies to the plethora of modern questions.
The most vocal left-of-center Americans have turned all of their attention to protesting whatever Trump does.
And as Trump doesn’t adhere to a concrete vision of government’s role in society, liberals follow him deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole.
They were aroused by the zeal of Bernie-sized federal authority, but tremble in the streets now that it has fallen in the hands of he who shouldn’t be mentioned (‘Calexit’ is the type of irony satirists have a field day over, as highlighted by Edward Morrissey in his piece, “California Has Lost Its Mind”).
Instead of formulating a legislative response to fight Trump’s immigration orders they demand a ‘turn-the-other-cheek’ approach to the law.
Even though changing immigration law is a monumental task, proposing such a change would be a more respectable reaction than the emotional response to border walls and ICE raids.
Apply this to another area of the law and it unfolds quickly.
We all want police officers to follow the law when carrying out search warrants or routine traffic stops.
In what universe would it be suitable for them to neglect the law?
By suggesting that we only follow some laws, the law-abiding argument no longer holds up.
On the constitution, liberals love to cite it when fighting Trump but too often refuse to accept its other necessities.
Staging a sit-in is the first amendment at its finest but allowing a conservative speaker on campus is a bridge too far.
Perhaps the point of greatest separation from libertarians is the way the American left thinks in term of group identity.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a leading American liberal. Photo Credit: Nick Fisher/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
This collectivist mindset erodes the focus on the individual which is essential in libertarianism.
Ask your average liberal – millennial or not – and they will most likely describe our current state as a battle between the marginalized and the majority, a society divided among the oppressed and the oppressors.
You are Black, White, Latinx, Muslim, Evangelical, Straight, Gay, Cis or non-Cis, etc.
It’s not you who matters, it’s the group that matters.
This way of thinking appoints all of its resources towards the ‘common good’, a utilitarian goal but one that can easily lead to a starvation for freedom.
The individual becomes relegated to serfdom, pleading for liberties to the group or the state.
I have a hard time believing libertarians and liberals can unite for a common purpose to stop Trump.
Their missions are polar opposites, at times antithetical to the very existence of the other.
It is commonly thought that liberals and libertarians are very similar in their political leanings, but libertarians are simply more frugal with money.
This is a complete understatement of the fundamental differences by which these sides view the world and societal order.
Even if, hypothetically, these two did join forces to take down the President, there aren’t many avenues go down.
Impeachment would lead to Vice President Mike Pence stepping in, someone who libertarians and liberals aren’t too fond of either, or a 2020 defeat, which leaves four years minus a few months left for Trump in the White House.
Some fantasized outcome other than these, as unimaginable as I think it is, would require a serious rebuilding period with the victors sharing the spoils.
As the famous axiom of former Secretary of State Colin Powell (And Pottery Barn) goes, “if you break it, you own it”.
Libertarians and liberals would have a nation-sized divorce on their hands.
As they would try to divide up the assets, their quarrels would become insurmountable.
Unless the Senate Republicans buy into the theory that Trump is a Russian puppet, the Donald is here to stay.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Photo Credit: Ted Eytan/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Don’t Expect A Realignment Of Politics. Expect Something Much More Dramatic
As everyone can see, the world has undoubtedly changed in the past year or so.
From the Trump victory to Brexit to the resilience of right-wing parties in Europe, there remains a certain level of chaos in the world order.
There seems to be an aura of the past which we will never regain, for better or worse.
A space in time so close in a textbook but eons away from the society we inhabit today.
These sweeping changes to the status quo leave many of us asking, what’s next?
Lying ahead there must be some fundamental shift away from the political alignment of years past; a transformation that will reset our society after the obliteration of previous norms.
I’m not going to pretend that I know what type of realignment we can expect, nor am I advocating for any or all of those below.
Nonetheless, here are a few which I see, at least partially, as possible.
The first is the battle between big government and small government.
After a fiery American election cycle and two hotly contested primary challenges, the Democratic and Republican parties have taken a beating.
With civil strife bludgeoning both establishments we may see a revolt against the major parties and a new system of simple ideological differences emerging- not the traditional party labels being the great divide.
The new reality could be a more principled approach to worldviews instead of the patchwork we see in the main parties today.
A poll conducted in May of 2016 shows that only 13% Americans surveyed believe the two party system works, and 38% say it is “seriously broken”.
One would imagine a rise in those who consider themselves Independents would be in order if that many seem fed up with the current system.
On the contrary, according to Gallup poll results which accumulated over the course of 2016, registration among Independents is at a six-year low.
To further complicate this entanglement between and within both parties, Republicans and Democrats see this divide in vastly different ways, according to Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins who describe their investigation into this question in their book Asymmetric Politics: Ideology Republicans and Group Interest Democrats.
They wrote about their theory in the Washington Post:
“…the Republican Party defines itself in ideological terms as the vehicle of symbolic conservatism. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is organized as a social group coalition”.
However, their research finds that even Republican voters who consider themselves as having strong conservative principles depart from such “orthodoxy” on specific policy questions.
A more obvious example of this is in their support for then-candidate Donald Trump, someone who strays from ideological consistency much of the time.
For me, I see no clear direction for the conventional two-party system except to continue on in the confusing and muddied path it’s on now.
To suggest that an ideological realignment is likely to occur here, at least in American politics, would be inappropriate at this time.
The next is the continuation of the divide between the elites and everyone else.
In Europe and in America, disenchantment and the desire to throw out those in power are moving full speed ahead.
Concerns over immigration, political correctness, cultural ambiguity, and long-term economic prosperity are major factors in this anti-establishment wave the western world is currently riding.
People, on a large scale, no longer believe those in charge are inherently better at their jobs than people from completely outside of that system.
Photo Credit: Beshef/flickr (CC BY 2.0).
In comes the torch to burn it all down: voting.
This would be a different conversation if the United Kingdom had remained in the European Union and both candidacies of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had inevitably failed.
That would have put a scare into the old order but their influence would have braved the storm.
But they didn’t.
The anti-establishment movement has gained real power.
It could fail miserably, or it could provide the footing for this anger to wipe out every remaining piece of the old system for the near future.
Insert the electoral chances of right-wing parties in France, Germany, and the Netherlands — to name a few — and Europe then makes the Trump revolution look like a dress rehearsal.
Now, elections could forever be won by who we think hates the elite most, not policy differences.
We may, as many of us already do, watch press briefings and tally not the legislation being announced but the number of coded messages sent to the holders of power in Washington, New York, Brussels, and Paris.
A candidate’s success may be determined by how many CEOs, seasoned politicians, TV anchors, and university professors are forced to face those who feel forgotten on bended knee. Those isolated and cold from globalization in the Bible Belt, Rust Belt, and Stoke-on-Trent.
Recent events have shown us just how disconnected these people are.
They all told us none of these political movements would get off the ground, and we have seen very few self-reflections once they all realized they had been fooled by the very people they were supposed to understand.
As a 21-year old, this was the first time I saw this strong of a vilification of the politics-as-usual attitude.
These exchanges could be typical every few years as elections and referendums come around.
But for me, I can’t imagine these frustrations going away.
The battle lines may have forever been redrawn.
The final is the chasm between multiculturalism and assimilation.
This is the most politically charged of the realignments I see possible.
Multiculturalism is the existence and preservation of distinct cultures within a community or society-at-large.
Assimilation, on the other hand, is the adaptation and conforming of different groups into a unified culture in a given community.
As different groups have become scrambled together in the modern world, people are trying to decide which of these they believe is best for society.
An interesting phenomenon I noticed through the election cycle was the proud flying of other nation’s flags on the streets of America.
If you were to watch a nominal protest of then-candidate Donald Trump you would have seen Mexican flags next to Cuban flags slightly behind Palestinian flags, all whose holders desire a more multicultural society.
The interior of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. It features great works of literature and art from all around the world, symbolizing America’s welcoming spirit. Photo Credit: m01229/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Many view this as a beautiful sign of toleration.
However, many others view this as one more stratification of American society.
Instead of coalescing under one banner, we all have different ones that make us take yet another step away from our neighbors.
The situation in Europe is slightly different than the one in America.
As a steady flow of migrants and asylum seekers from terror-stricken, war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East have continued throughout 2016, this question revolves around the rapid changes to European culture and identity.
As the majority of refugees flee Muslim-majority nations, some European governments have welcomed them.
However, many Europeans are pessimistic about these changes.
Pew Research can help us understand this.
In a survey of 9 out of 10 European nations, at least half of individuals believe that Muslims want to maintain a “distinct” culture and not integrate into the customs of their new European communities.
A separate report shows that a majority of Europeans surveyed believe refugees increase the likelihood of terrorism, and no more than 4 out of 10 citizens in any EU country feel an increase in diversity is good for their country, compared to 58% of Americans who think diversity makes the U.S. a better place to live.
In Greece and Italy, a majority of citizens feel more diversity makes their country worse off.
Issues such as gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality, and secularism are a few instances where the two cultures just do not see eye to eye.
Right-wing European parties have become the vehicle for these frustrations.
Marine Le Pen, the head of the French National Front Party, is leading in the polls (as of the time of my writing this) to win the first round of the French Presidential race.
She also has more support from those aged 18-34 than any other candidate in France, which may come as a surprise to many.
The central issues which run through these populist, right-wing parties are immigration and a distaste for international agreements that reduce national sovereignty.
Many are calling for a total shutdown of Muslim immigration, something that an average of 55% of Europeans surveyed agree with, and making a Brexit-like move from the EU or other foreign obligations.
The multicultural attitude Europe is known for is being challenged strongly on many fronts.
As popular movements are seemingly rejecting the openness the continent has historically praised, the concept of assimilation seems to be a dire turn many are hoping to see.
As hordes of people around the globe chant for multiculturalism, for the elimination of border walls and even, in some cases, for the abolition of sovereign states completely, there is a powerful camp that believes different cultural groups living together is an ideal scenario.
On the other hand, there are millions of individuals who see a lack of a unified culture as a ticking-time bomb for social strife. People who feel the palpable modifications to their culture too large of a pill to swallow.
This possible realignment would be ugly, it would be a knock-down drag-out brawl of the most nativist sort, but it is undoubtedly an element that drove many to the polls in recent history.
In the end, no one really knows what will arise from this grinder the western political system has been thrown in.
Anyone that suggests they know for a certainty should be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
The possibilities I have just laid out are merely avenues our society may take as we move forward.
And only one thing is certain, whether we like it or not- we will experience this together.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Lorie Shaull/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Young Politician: A Poem
“Young Politician”
As I sit here reading about policy briefs, I hesitate, then pray for our commander in chief.
I may not agree, he didn’t receive my vote, but I am patriotic so I will maintain hope.
As a person someday soon running for office, I maintain integrity as I try to win over my caucus.
Stigmas are there, you will corrupt, your morals will go bare, but I say no, money and power will not move my hand, will not change my views, I don’t care if alone I stand.
Low funding will make difficult obtaining an electorate, but with hard work and perseverance never being separate, I believe, I predict, a change will occur, all people will unite and democracy will endure.
A flood will WASH out, flINGing TONs, remove the poison of buying power, of swearing in sons.
Maybe this is all just a young politicians dream, creating an ideological view of our decision making teams.
Once more I say that this is what I strive for, equality, dignity, and the ability to find more.
This is just my view of what America should provide, my goal is to stand for those I represent.
I promise I will never hide.
Learning by doing is the only way, I meet with my representatives to understand the game they play.
Association leaders and coalitions alike, observing humanities definition creates an adrenaline spike.
Everyone has a stake for this is just the life we live, controlling our outcomes, finding a way to give.
Back to the community and back to the land.
Making sure the environment has a person for which with to stand.
The media may only try to show some of the viscous side, but our leaders do care for people, their jobs just happen to coincide.
A difficulty will be the fact of reelection, without missing the point of why I represent a collection.
A collection of people and of their visions.
For the future, for the culture, there is always some missions.
There are back room discussions about how to make our nation great, some see national politics as hard to relate.
I plan to start small, just a county man for now, that’s all.
But if life were to take me to the big time, I promise to never commit a crime.
Once again the struggle is to truly work for the people, the ones who worship no one and those under the steeple.
Those new to this country and those here for generations.
Creating positive change is possible, but there are always implications.
Tradeoffs and realities are hard to ignore.
For most people this is a continuous bore.
Another goal is to never neglect the process.
This is the only way to truly make progress.
I know there will be dissent and I can handle the heat.
Because I want to be the politician that everyone can meet.
That everyone can trust and rely on to do what’s best.
My approval rating will however not be that test.
It will be the smiles on all the faces of the people’s lives I have changed.
And maybe in the future another hopeful will have a meeting arranged.
My final wish is that the next generation will be even better.
More honest, more caring, and tougher than leather.
That is how this country has continued to grow.
It will never be easy however, so everyone just prepare for a show.
—
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Oliver Bildesheim/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Can This Video Game Change Your Ideology?
I’m a firm believer that interactive media can elicit stronger emotional effects than just reading a book or watching a movie.
But can playing video games change someone’s perspective on war and the refugee crisis?
Many video games feature war or armed conflict as a central inclusion to their story arc. War facilitates a reason to shoot people, defend a base, or just kick some ass.
And you’ll almost always be completing your objectives as part of the in-game military or government.
This War of Mine: The Little Ones uniquely puts you in control of those most vulnerable during war, the civilians.
Without much instruction, the game thrusts you into an abandoned house, one where you and your randomly selected group of survivors must hunker down until a ceasefire.
The problem is, you don’t know when that day will come.
Through my three playthroughs thus far, none of the groups I was given made it to the end.
The difficulty spikes in the game come from the unexpected nature of every encounter.
One night may be completely calm and routine, but following the next day, half of your group could be lethally wounded by raiders that also stole most of your supplies.
The setting of This War of Mine is all too real.
Gameplay from This War Of Mine: The Little Ones.
It’s inspiration comes from the Siege of Sarajevo, a battle for the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina that represented the longest siege of a capital in modern history.
Lasting for 1,425 days between 1992 and 1995, the siege claimed the lives of more than 10,000 people.
This War of Mine recreates the danger the Bosnian war presented by blocking off previously loot filled areas with fights and sniper fire.
The Little Ones add-on even subjects children to these perils.
The horrifically recognizable sniper alley of the Siege of Sarajevo manifests itself in “sniper junction” an in-game scavenger location, and tragic odes to the real-world travesty are seen everywhere in the game.
While slightly underutilized, the inclusion of children into the game hammers home one of the game’s central selling points; “In war kids are still kids”.
I often used their inclusion in the game to warrant the atrocities I committed. I didn’t want to add to the bodies littering the city, but I soon realized I had to kill in order to live.
I found no joy in robbing an elderly couple in order to feed my group of survivors. I tried to morally justify it by saying that they had lived a long life and that my group was still young.
I often risked too much for a simple set of bandages or basic crafting supplies, and got my best scavenger killed in the process.
I gathered toys for the children instead of feeding my group for the day, causing one of the adults to become immobile from starvation for several days.
I chose not to intervene when a soldier was attempting to rape a woman.
I decided the supplies were more important and the risk of being shot was too great.
And those were the choices I had the most control over.
I didn’t get to choose who would attack me on sight.
I made no decision as to whether I would be raided multiple nights in a row.
I especially had no choice when my first playthrough ended because my final survivor killed himself.
Gameplay from This War of Mine: The Little Ones
This War of Mine: The Little Ones is not a fun, light-hearted romp.
It is a grossly realistic look into the human element of war, including the often forgotten or downplayed numbers of civilians trapped by shelling and snipers.
While the Siege of Sarajevo took place more than 20 years ago, present day wars still ravage humanity in places like Aleppo, Syria.
Video games existed two decades ago, but their arguably mainstream appeal today would allow games like This War of Mine: The Little Ones to have a widespread impact on our collective thinking.
Will one game alter the perspectives of everyone who plays it?
I doubt it.
But games like This War of Mine have created a new entry point to dialogues on touchy subjects such as the refugee crisis.
You can’t solve a problem without first addressing its existence and I see video games as a way to shine light on the iniquitous pieces of humanity, whether they dwell in the past, present or future.
This story was originally published on ThePolyglot.net.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Photo Credits: 11 bit studios
What Do You Think?