Reason #34234123 Not to Vote for Conservative Democrats in The South

Joe Manchin is a Republican. That’s all there is to it. Is he as conservative and crazy right wing as most of the other actual Republicans like Ted Cruz? No. But he is a right-winger, end of story. This is where the problem of blind partisan loyalty begins. Simply having the little (D) next your name is ultimately meaningless. It’s why people attack Bernie Sanders for not being a “real” Democrat when he’s by far one of the most if not the most progressive member in the senate, while championing people like Joe Manchin who is a Democrat, and a conservative right-winger.

According to GovTrack’s ideology score, both Republicans; Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are actually more “progressive” than Joe Manchin. According to National Journal, Joe Manchin has a 55% conservative voting record, and he’s voted with Trump 54% of the time since Trump took office. So Joe is not a progressive, he’s not a liberal, and to borrow a popular phrase, “he’s not even a Democrat!” And yet time and time again we are told that he’s the best we can get. We’re told that West Virginia is simply too red and will never go for liberal policy ideas. However, Bernie Sanders won the West Virginia primary by 15 points. In a recent poll, people in West Virginia opposed the Republican healthcare plan by double digits and when asked what system they would prefer, single-payer healthcare tied with pre-2010-system among West Virginians. So in fact, it is possible to run on a progressive platform and win in West Virginia. You don’t need to settle for rightwing Democrats just because they’re marginally better than Republicans or because they’re not Republicans.

Which brings us to today. An article from The Hill reports that, “West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a Democrat, will announce he is flipping to the GOP at a rally with President Trump on Thursday.” The Hill goes on to write, “Justice’s party switch is a slap in the face to the Democratic Governors Association, which spent more than $1 million to try to get Justice elected in 2016.” So here we are again, faced with this idea that ‘Democrats have to run and support conservative candidates in states like West Virginia because otherwise the Republicans will win.’ Well congratulations. 

After all that, Justice is a Republican anyway. This isn’t surprising and as Politico pointed out last year, Democrats tacked to the right with candidates like Jim Justice who, “support for gun rights, fiscal conservatism, homespun rural values.” Anyone who actually checked out Justice’s record is not surprised by this at all. He’s always been a Republican, he’s just doing this as a formality. 

So now, after months and months of hearing about how we have to support conservative, rightwing candidates in states like West Virginia, because otherwise the Republicans will win, the “Democrat” who ended up winning, became a Republican after all. What a great strategy that was. Run the most conservative Democrat you can find to beat the Republican, and then be shocked when the rightwing conservative Democrat you ran turns out to also be a Republican.

––M

Quote of the Day

…is from a 2012 article titled “Profit is Theft” by Tim Hjersted. In it he makes a solid (albeit very casual) case for why profit is theft. Often we hear right-libertarians who argue that “taxation is theft.” Yet seldom do hear the argument that profit is theft.

Just to make sure this is totally clear, let’s say a worker does 8 hours of work to produce $160 in value for the company. If everyone was paid the full value of their work this person would get paid $160. Instead, this worker is paid $8 an hour and receives $64, while the other $96 goes to the owners. When this wealth extraction occurs day after day after day, it’s no wonder we see the rich getting richer while the poor stays poor. The working class is getting robbed by the very nature of the wage-based employee/owner system.

–M

The “Centre” on Healthcare is still Rightwing

Lately there’s been a lot of talk about the growing need for the “centre” to rise as a political force in America. The story goes that American politics have become so polarised between the far left and the far right that we need to find candidates who will be ‘middle of road’ candidates, thoughtful arbiters who can sift through partisanship and provide reasonable, centrist solutions to appeal to the centre yada yada yada.

The problem with this notion is that it’s entirely false in its premise. Washington is not divided between the far right and the far left. I’d even go as far as to say that other than a handful of politicians in Washington, there is no “left.” What we have in government is the far far right of Republican party which has shifted severely to the right since the days of Reagan, and the centre-right corporatism of the Democratic party which also has moved severely to the right since the days of Reagan. In fact, the Democratic party is now about right where the Republican party was in the 70s and early 80s. Are they less right than the Republicans now? Of course, but they’re still rightwing. 

The reality is that the “centre” between the far far right of the Republicans and the centre right of the Democrats is still far right. The middle between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz is basically John Kasich who is still a very conservative, far right Republican. Predictably, throughout Trump’s time in office, John Kasich has on multiple occasions been highlighted by the media as a sort of “voice of reason” in the age of Trump. There is no “left” in Washington today.

One of the best examples of this is the healthcare debate. Obamacare is Romneycare. Plain and simple, the Affordable Care Act is a rightwing, Republican plan that was made up by the Heritage Foundation in the late 80s and championed by folks such as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and Chuck Grassley in the mid 90s and ultimately implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney in 2006. This is how the Republicans win even if they lose. By running to the hard right, Republicans got Obama down to their own  proposal from the 90s. If they won, they got their even more rightwing plan, and if they lost, they still got their rightwing plan from a decade ago that they would then pretend to oppose. Flash forward and today we are once again debating healthcare as the Republicans propose a repeal and replacement of their own plan from the 90s. Paul Ryan spearheaded the House bill, the American Healthcare Act, and now the senate is working on it’s own version of the House bill. Think about that. Our current healthcare debate is basically between Romneycare and Ryancare. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were on the Republican ticket in 2012. They lost that election, and yet here we are deciding which of their healthcare bills we are going to have. Even worse, it’s the Democrats who are defending Romneycare. Rather than propose an actually progressive or liberal plan, the Democrats opt instead to just defend Romneycare.

Rightwing Democrat, Tim Kaine, recently started tweeting that he wants to ‘work with the Republicans to create a bi-partisan’ deal on Obamacare. In other words, he wants to meet them half way. Now think about the ramifications of that. From a progressive viewpoint, there isn’t a “middle” or “centre” between people dying and going bankrupt because they don’t have healthcare and people not dying and going bankrupt because they don’t have healthcare. Even under the ACA there are still 30 million Americans without health insurance. Under the House bill, Ryancare, that number would go up to about 50 million. So what the Democrats are basically saying is that, ’50 million Americans without healthcare is unacceptable (true) but 30 million Americans without healthcare is just fine’ ?? How about zero Americans without healthcare?

Elizabeth Warren recently made the case that Democrats need to abandon their centre-right approach and embrace a progressive option on healthcare. Warren told the Wall Street Journal,

President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer.

So Democrats have two paths, they can either take the Tim Kaine route and do a “bi-paritsan” bill with the Republicans that blends Obamacare, an already rightwing plan, with Ryancare, a very rightwing plan and we end up with a rightwing plan, OR they can take the Warren route and provide an actual alternative and campaign on medicare for all. The second route is by far the best path forward. A recent Q poll found that 60% of Americans support medicare for all including 60% of independent voters. 

Taking the “centrist” approach is not a winning strategy and it only ensure that our politics stay rightwing. 

Though technically, since the Democrats are centre-right that means if they truly want to move back toward the centre, they should move to the left. Just a suggestions.

 

Progressives: Everyone should have healthcare as a right.

Republicans: No they shouldn’t.

Tim Kaine: Come on guys, let’s meet in the middle.

–M

America is not a Centre-right Country

One of the oldest and most exhausted memes in American politics is the notion that America is somehow a “centre-right” country. It’s repeated over and over as commentators and analysts attempt to dissect the electorate. On election night as results came in, CNN’s John King told viewers that, “America is a centre-right country, it’s a lot more conservative, especially out in the heartland, than Democrats think.” In 2015, Politico magazine ran an article with the headline: No, America Isn’t moving Left.

A huge reason this narrative keeps getting passed around is because it’s the clear interpretation of the Gallup Political Views poll. Gallup tracks what Americans self identify as and the most recent results, at least at face value, confirm that America is centre-right. 36% percent identify as conservative, 34% identify as moderate while 25% identify as liberal. Based on that, most Americans are either conservative or moderate or some combination. That would indicate that America is in a fact centre-right country. End of story right? Wrong. Although this is based on what people directly self identify as, people often aren’t the best at describing themselves and may not know what those terms mean policy wise. They may think they’re conservative, but they could also be wrong.

To that, let’s look at polling on specific issues and see if America is till a centre-right country.

Healthcare: On the issue of healthcare, the liberal position would be to have a universal healthcare system where the government guarantees healthcare as right. The conservative position would be to not do that and to have a market based system with choice and competition. So what do the American people want? According to a Gallup poll from 2016, 52% of Americans believe it’s the responsibility of the government to provide healthcare to everyone. In another 2016 Gallup poll, 58% of Americans favoured replacing the ACA with a federally funded health service. More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from last month showed that 60% of Americans support expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a universal medicare for all programme. 

Taxes: Concerning taxation, the liberal position is that we should have a progressive tax system where those who earn the most should pay more in taxes. Conservatives believe we should either a) have a progressive tax system but one where the top marginal rates for the wealthy are kept low, b) have a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate, or c) abolish the income tax altogether. Bottomline: conservatives believe in reducing taxation, particular for the rich to spur production. According to a 2017 Gallup poll from April, 63% of Americans believe that upper income people pay too little in taxes. 67% believe that corporations pay too little in taxes. Obviously if one thinks that someone pays too little, they think they should be paying more in taxes, i.e. raise taxes on the rich. A Vox poll from last year found that 73% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich.

Education: The progressive position concerning higher education is that we should have tuition free college for university students. The country used to have basically free college and liberals think we should do that again by making college tuition free. The conservative position on this is basically just not doing that. Not hard to find the difference on this one. However, while many argued that Bernie Sanders was “unelectable” due his “far left” positions, often citing his support for tuition free college, a  poll from last year actually found that 62% of Americans supported the idea of making college tuition free. Go figure.

Minimum Wage: The liberal position on minimum wage varies, but they all include raising the minimum wage. The level it should raised to varies among people; some say $10, some say $12, some say $15. Bernie Sanders ran on raising the minimum wage to $15 which of course was met with the usual “unrealistic, unelectable” critiques. Conservatives typically argue we should either do nothing about the minimum wage and keep it at current levels or go as far as saying we should get rid of it all together. The logic behind this is that if you raise the cost of labour on employers, the quantity demanded will drop, costing jobs. And yet, according to a YouGov poll, 66% support raising the minimum wage to $10, 59% support raising it to $12, and even 48% supported raising it to $15. However, in terms of how the minimum wage is set, which is ultimately more important, a University of Maryland poll found that 63% of Americans believe it should be tied to inflation which would contain built in raises based on inflation. That would automatically put it closer to $15 even if you initially passed a $10 bill but then tied it to inflation. 

The Environment: This one is pretty straight forward. Liberals believe in protecting the environment and helping preserve it by enacting policies designed to curb the effects of climate change. This includes a number of proposals such as a carbon tax, switching to renewable energy etc. Conservatives on the other hand, while not opposed to protecting the environment, believe that any policies about the environment, should place economic growth first. Fortunately, there is a Gallup poll that asks this exact question, whether environmental protection should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth, or if economic growth should be given priority even if the environment suffers a bit. Overall, 56% of Americans think the environment should be given priority while just 35% said economic growth. Also in the poll, 59% said the government is doing too little to protect the environment and 69% support more strongly enforcing environmental regulations.

So across the board, Americans heavily give liberal answers to policy questions. 60% of Americans support medicare for all. 63% of Americans want the minimum wage tied to inflation. 63% of Americans want to tax the rich more. 59% want the government to do more to protect the environment. 62% of Americans favour making college tuition free. So while more Americans may identify as conservative or moderate, interestingly enough, when you ask them about specific policies, they heavily give liberal progressive answers. Thus, this notion that America is somehow a “centre-right” country would appear to be wildly inaccurate. 

–M

Democrats Need a Progressive Manifesto

In order to have any hopes of winning back the house, the senate, and eventually the White House, Democrats have to have a strong manifesto to run on. They cannot continue to simply be the anti-Trump party. As we have seen with Hillary Clinton and Jon Ossoff, that doesn’t work. When they go low, going high does not work either. The Democrats must provide a robust and unapologetically progressive platform and offer a clear alternative in order to secure electoral victories. This begins first by not ignoring progressive candidates running for office. James Thompson and Rob Quist would have both benefitted greatly and may have easily won had the DNC and DCCC lifted a finger to help them. The DCCC’s job is to help elect Democrats and they completely ignored both candidates. The Democratic party must expand its base, not shrink it. That means opening up to and allying with the Greens, independents, and Democratic Socialists. 

Beyond that, the Democrats have to provide a strong alternative to the Republican platform. No longer can Democrats continue to be the centre-right conservative party running against the hard right conservative Republican party. Given that the Democrats are already right of centre, I agree with some that they must move toward the centre. But  that would mean moving to the left, not further to the right.

In addition to the already strong stances Democrats have on LGBT rights, women’s reproductive and health rights, and issues pertaining specifically to minorities, all of which should be strengthened even more, Democrats must adopt and run on the following positions in order to provide a clear alternative to Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell in order to secure victories in 2018 and 2020:

• The implementation of a Universal Healthcare system modelled after either the UK or Australia. This means a federally funded healthcare programme that is free to all citizens at the point of use.

• Raising taxes on the richest 10% and especially the top 5%. The creation of a 45% and 50% tax rate along with the closing of all tax loopholes for individuals and corporations.

• Abolish tuition fees for public university students as well as investing in public primary and secondary education as well as free Pre-K schooling. 

• Guaranteed paid time off, maternity/paternity leave for all workers. The right for all workers to have access to a Labour Union. Allowing employees the right of first refusal when the company they work for is for sale. Banning all unpaid internships and increasing apprenticeships. 

• Elimination of all corporate money in politics. Outlaw any and all PACs and overturn Citizens United. 

• Ending corporate welfare, enforcing strict anti-trust laws, and the reinstating of the Glass-Steagall act of 1932.

• A strong infrastructure bill to invest in our communities and repair our roads and bridges. 

• Reforming the criminal justice system by ending mandatory minimums, reinstating voting rights to ex-felons, decriminalising or legalisation of medical and recreational marijuana. Implement and strongly enforce sweeping reforms to our police forces to reduce the number of unarmed and innocent (black) people murdered by police officers.

• Invest in renewable energy to preserve and sustain our environment, create new jobs, and help curb the effects of climate change. Move completely away from fossil fuels. 

• Build new affordable housing structures, index the federal minimum wage to inflation, and provide each citizen with a universal basic income.

By adopting some, most, or all of this will make the Democrats once again the party of workers and re-establish the New Deal coalition. The working class is largely composed of minorities and according to the Economic Policy Institute, by 2032, minorities will be the majority of the working class. Minorities will benefit most from; medicare for all, free college, a living wage, and criminal justice reform. By supporting and strengthening the working class, we are also supporting and strengthening minority communities as we prepare for a country with no majority race by 2055. The idea that it’s the White Working Class vs Minority communities and women is a false dichotomy. Women and minorities are the working class.

By adopting these proposals, Democrats will provide a clear alternative to the Republicans. 60% of Americans support medicare for all. 63% support indexing minimum wage to inflation. 73% support raising taxes on the rich. 62% support tuition free college. Being unapologetically progressive and providing a strong alternative to the Republicans is the only way forward for Democrats. Any call for running to the “centre” is simply a call to be more conservative and be Republican-lite and is unacceptable. 

Dear Dems, Please STOP Running to the Right

Last week, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff lost in a special election race to fill Tom Price’s seat in Georgia. The race drew national attention and quickly became the most expensive race ever. Ossoff’s campaign raised $30M and was convinced an upset could happen. In the end however, Karen Handel, the Republican who during a debate that she  does “not support a living wage” prevailed. 

This marks the fourth straight loss for the Democrats in the Trump era. The first was in Kansas in a special election to fill Mike Pompeo’s seat. There the Democrat ran a progressive campaign and supported free college and single-payer healthcare. So naturally the DNC and DCCC didn’t do anything to help him out, even after Tommy boy Perez, the DNC chair said a 50 state strategy was the “only way forward.” Ultimately the DCCC tossed him a measly $3000. In Montana, Perez once again went back on his support for a 50 state strategy and the DNC snubbed progressive Rob Quist who ran in support of single-payer, campaigned with Bernie Sanders and didn’t take any PAC money. He got nothing from the DNC and DCCC whose literal job is to help elect Democrats. Both candidates actually came very close to winning despite being in such deep red districts. James Thompson lost by 7 seven points. However, In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary in the same district by 27 points. So as a progressive, Thompson managed to run 20 points ahead of Hillary Clinton. In Montana, Quist lost by just 6 points. But Trump beat Hillary in Montana by 20. So as a progressive Berniecrat, Quist managed to run 14 points ahead of Hillary Clinton.

After those two losses establishment Democrats once again trotted out their tired and failed talking points about “running to the centre.” They doubled-down on the notion that in order to win elections Democrats have to be more conservative and run to the right and be centrist. So how did that work out for Jon Ossoff? How did all that money and running as a centrist work? Jon Ossoff lost by 3.8 points. Yes, technically it was the closest so far. But how did he compare to how Hillary performed in the same district? Hillary lost in GA06 to Trump by just 1.5 points. So, running as a “pragmatic centrist,” Ossoff actually managed to underperform Hillary by 2.3 points. And make no mistake, Ossoff ran as a conservative. He ran against single-payer, he ran against raising taxes on the 1% and he supported budget cuts and balancing the budget. While watching the Fox New coverage of the election, I heard Dana Perino say that he “basically ran as a Republican.” Later, Katie Pavlich was on saying that he was running as a “fiscal conservative.” So yea. That’s who the Democrats are now. Centre-right conservative. Even Republicans are saying, he was basically just a Republican on economics.

Now of course the question becomes, since I obviously oppose Ossoff’s economic campaign, am I glad he lost? Am I glad that Karen Kandel is going to the house instead of Jon Ossoff? The question is actually in two parts. Am I glad Karen Handel is going to congress? No. Am I glad Jon Ossoff is not going to congress? Yes. Even then, would Ossoff have been preferable to Handel? Yes. Without question. But that just speaks to how far right the overton window has shifted in Washington. The Democrats are now a centre-right conservative party. The Republicans have moved so far to the right with people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee that now the “liberal” party is campaigning against single-payer, taxing the rich, and for austerity measures and cutting taxes. What the hell happened? 

So now I’m faced with a decision. Do I support conservative, right of centre Democrats who are only marginally better than Republicans, or do I oppose them both equally? The problem is, if Democrats keep running as Republican-lite on the issues, and they know they’ll still get our vote how are we ever going to get them to change? The answer unfortunately I think has to be voting against them. Otherwise they’ll never get the message. But I don’t know. It’s a tough call to make. Do I want far right people like Ted Cruz? Not at all. Is Jon Ossoff better than Ted Cruz? Yes, absolutely. But he’s a conservative in what is suppose to be a liberal party. So what is the price for being a Republican in the Democratic party? What’s the punishment? There has to be some kind of way to remedy this disastrous trend of Democrats being Republicans. 

People frequently say that if Joe Manchin were to lose because of a primary challenger, that the seat would be gone to Republicans for years. Well, I got bad news for you, the seat is already gone to a Republican. As far as corporate Democrats go, Joe Manchin is the worst of the worst. 

I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s getting to the point where I’m almost ready to launch into a Jim Demint-esque rant about principles and values. 

I’d almost rather have 30 Democrats in the senate who believe in progressive principles and ideas, than 60 Democrats who don’t believe in anything. Put another way, I’d rather have 30 Elizabeth Warrens than 60 Joe Manchins. (I didn’t use Bernie because it would predictably be met with “he’s not even a Democrat!” or some equally asinine argument) The American people agree with the progressive agenda. 73% of Americans believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy. Jon Ossoff, the “liberal” is part of the 27% that don’t. 62% of Americans support free college. Jon Ossoff and corporate Democrats do not. 58% of Americans support a single-payer system. Establishment Democrats are part of the minority that don’t. 53% of Americans believe we should tie the minimum wage to inflation. Unsurprisingly, the the Democratic establishment joins Republicans and a minority of Americans in opposing that. But Americans support the progressive agenda. The future of the country is progressive. That’s why Bernie Sanders received more votes from people under 30 than both Trump and Clinton combined. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will pave the way for a new progressive Democratic majority. 

––M

The Impact of Social Media on Intercultural Communication

This is a short discussion post I had to submit for my online Intercultural Communication class. Here I briefly discuss the contradiction that social media creates in relation to intercultural communication. While on the one hand social media allows us to be more connected than ever before, on the other it makes us more divided than ever:

The technological revolution that has taken place since the 1990’s and the rapid expansion of technology from computers to smart phones, and cars that can park themselves has contributed to vast cultural developments not just in the United States but around the world. 

Perhaps one of the most significant developments to come out of the tech boom and the rise of Silicon Valley is social media. Beyond merely websites and phones apps for people to post about the Coke Zero they just bought at the gas station or pictures of their cats, social media has created what can almost be described as an alternative reality. From an intercultural perspective, social media can be both a blessing and a curse. The positives of social media are pretty straightforward for anyone involved. Social media allows us to connect with and communicate with people from all different parts of the world and from all different cultures. Within seconds I can log on and tweet at someone half away around the world. At almost any given second I can communicate with someone from a completely different culture and with vastly different world views, be it someone from Australia, Japan, India, or Wisconsin. In this sense social media helps bridge the gap between different cultures.

However, there are certainly downsides to social media that actually create a bubble for people to hide in and may result in them never encountering people with different cultures and views. Customisation, while nice for many things can actually be a problem when it comes to encountering cultures and viewpoints different from your own. By blocking out anything that thinks or looks different than yourself, one can create a false reality that acts as an echo chamber. By this, social media has also allowed us to create vacuums in which we need only see things that affirm our own existing views and culture norms. If I don’t want to see anything from people of other faiths, political views, or preference in comic publisher (for the record, DC is clearly better) I can simply block that out by not following them. If I never wanted to see what people with different political views thought I can easily avoid it.

 So while there are many benefits to social media in terms of connecting people with different cultures, it can be a double edged sword and also serve as a catalyst for secluding oneself from anything different.

––M

Centrist Dems Still Learning all the Wrong Lessons

Yesterday, Karl Bélanger, president of the Douglas-Coldwell foundation, wrote an opinion piece for the Toronto Sun. In his piece, Bélanger issues a warning to the Canadian NDP that while Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders have both had tremendous success, exceeding all expectations and garnering huge enthusiasm, the reality remains that both politicians lost their respective elections. 

Bélanger writes,

Hearing the NDP leadership candidates step over each other to praise Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, you would think they were respectively the British prime minister and president of the United States.

Many New Democrats are keen to replicate Sanders and Corbyn’s model for where the party should go. They might be right. But let’s keep things in perspective.

As much as their campaigns created enthusiasm and exceeded expectations, the tough political reality is that both Sanders and Corbyn lost.

There are lessons to be learned from both campaigns. Similar to Sanders’ run for the Democratic nomination, Corbyn was facing heavy headwinds. Despite virulent attacks from many British media and even sometimes from inside the Labour Party, he was able to connect with a significant number of millennials and motivate them to go to the booth and support his party.

Yes, Sanders and Corbyn got an impressive number of millennials excited about, and interested in, politics. But in Canada, it is Justin Trudeau that is still the millennials’ champion. In France, Emmanuel Macron connected with millennials. Both Trudeau and Macron are centrists. Cleary the equation to attract the young electorate is not simply hard left or bust. That’s wishful thinking.

Of the last portion where he sys that Marcon and Trudeau are the millennials champions, nothing could be further from the truth. In Canada, with Trudeau’s abysmal record on the environment and his failure to pursue electoral reform, millennials are fast abandoning their love-fest with him. 

As for Macron, the only reason he won and got so much millennial support is because he was running against Marine LePen. Even then, it’s worth nothing that LePen actually got significant support from millennials. But the real champion of millennials in France, was not centre-right corporatist banker Macron, but socialist Jean-luc Mélenchon. As France24 reported, “Firebrand leftist Jean-luc Mélenchon came very close to claiming third place in France’s nail-biting ballot. Buoyed by massive support from first-time voters.” They went on to quote the French director of the polling firm BVA, who declared, “Jean-Luc Mélenchon really succeeded in capturing that youngest segment of the voting population.” So Bélanger is just flat out wrong when it comes to saying that centrist and corporatist Macron is the rockstar of the millennials. If they had it their way, socialist Mélenchon would be the French president. 

The other point Bélanger ignores is that while technically both Corbyn and Sanders “lost” their election bids, the future electorate is clearly in their favour. As if the case in France, where young millennial voters side with Mélenchon, not centre-right tool Macron, in the UK, it was millennial voters that gave Labour such a big night during the UK election. According to SkyNews exit polls, Labour candidates took 63% of votes from those aged 18-34. Clearly, the millennial vote was behind Corbyn and his Labour platform. As CBC notes, “U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has a lot of people to thank for his unexpected showing in the UK general election last night. But on the top of his list will likely be the country’s young people.  According to exit polls, there was a surge in younger voters.” Once again, the millennial voters were strongly with Corbyn and his progressive message and ideas. Even Bélanger’s point that Corbyn “lost” is somewhat misleading. While it’s true that the Tories did win the most votes and the most seats in Parliament, Labour gained 30 seats while the Tories lost 13 seats and their majority. When faced with a scoreboard of +30 to -13, it’s hard to come away from that and say that Labour “lost.” Labour had the better night and in terms of who had a better election, the clear winner is Labour. Labour certain did much better than they did 2 years ago when they lost 26 seats as the Tories gained 24. Then Labour was under the leadership of centrist Ed Millibrand. Go figure.

As for Bernie Sanders, perhaps Bélanger should keep in mind that the future of the country, millennials, strongly supported Sanders. In fact, according to the Washington Post, Sanders received more votes from people under 30 than both Trump and Hillary combined. So while Bélanger is warning the NDP to stray away from Sanders and his brand of politics, the facts simply don’t agree with his assessment at all. Since millennials overwhelmingly supported Sanders and very noticeably stayed home or voted for a third party when it came to the more conservative corporatist centrism of Hillary Clinton, if anything NDP should embrace and adapt Bernie’s message and ideas. The common argument from establishment Democrats and neoliberals is that “Bernie can’t be or isn’t the future of the party.” Well, considering he received more votes from the future of the country than both Trump and Hillary combined, whether or not it’s him specifically, Bernie’s message and ideas are exactly the future of the party. 

So Bélanger is just flat out wrong on almost every point. The millennials are not with Macron, Hillary, and Trudeau (they are still largely with Trudeau but that support is waning) and rather are with Mélenchon, Sanders, and Corbyn. The lessons that centrist Democrats and so called “liberals” need to learn is to embrace progressivism and more Democratic socialistic ideas. But unfortunately, as they get wiped out on every level of government and get proven wrong time and time again, they keep moving further to the right and insisting that centre-right conservatism is the way to go. *sigh*

––M

Green Lanterns: Rage Planet ~ Review

About two weeks ago I bought Sam Humphries Green Lanterns vol. 1: Rage Planet. I’ve heard pretty solid reviews of the Green Lanterns series so far and decided I would give it a shot. This was actually the first Green Lantern(s) book I’ve ever read. With DC Rebirth dominating comic sales I figured I might as well try it since I’ve been thoroughly enjoying other Rebirth titles.

Overall I was very satisfied with this. The writing is a bit repetitive, and some of the dialogue is a bit cheesy, but it works well. The plot isn’t too complicated or revolutionary and is fairly basic but it is nonetheless enjoyable. 

There are two new Green Lanterns; Simon Baz and Jessica Cruz. Simon acts largely on instinct and is very headstrong from his past experiences. Jessica is very different and suffers from almost crippling anxiety and insecurity. Thus the two could not be more different from each other. Yet despite their differences, they manage to create a good contrast that makes a pretty solid team. 

In this book the two must work together to fight off the Red Lanterns and their leader, Atrocitus. The Red Lanterns are powered by rage (which here appears to be a more abstract force) and are intent on turning the world into a rage filled vacuum so that they can launch what is called “Red Dawn.” 

Anyway, the dynamic between Simon and Jessica is done really well. I’m pretty introverted so naturally I tend to like and relate more to Jessica than Simon who strikes me as kind of a ‘ready, fire, aim’ type character. The character development throughout the story is probably the strongest part of this whole arc. While the plot was very basic, it still was really fun to read and set up the next arc really well with the whole ‘rogue guardian’ and the ‘phantom ring.’ I’m really curious to see what comes next, so this book succeeded in capturing my attention and I’ll definitely be reading more of this series.

Rating: 7.5/10

––M

Senior Thesis Ideas

As I enter my fourth and final year at the University of Kansas, my senior thesis is fast approaching. I will graduate in May of 2018, but before I can do that, I have submit my thesis to the department. I’m not sure what the thesis requirements are for my communication major, so this post will only be dealing with my religion major. 

While there are smaller and more tedious assignments throughout the semester, the main assignment for the Religious Studies Capstone course is, “a research paper (10-13 pages) and several related assignments that are informed by and engage with the readings and discussions on theory and method we have covered in the course. Paper topics should be developed in close consultation with the instructor.”

To be quite honest, 10-13 pages seems really short for a senior thesis. I’m sure there’s a lot of busy work for the course, but still. Anyway, seeing as I’ll be taking the course and writing my thesis in the spring, I figured it’d be wise to start thinking about what topics I might be interested in writing my thesis on. If possible, I’d love to go into the course already knowing what my topic will be and already have a good chunk of the research done. 

So here are some ideas that I have as of right now. Some of these will definitely need to be refined and worked out with my instructor, but these are just places to start to get myself thinking.

Sacred Feminine in Ancient Religions
If I had to pinpoint one event as the source of my interest in biblical studies, it would have to be reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. It was within the pages of Brown’s novel that I first encountered the gnostic texts; The Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. It was while reading the Da Vinci Code that I became aware that Christ’s divinity was not always as it is now, fully human, fully divine. While much of the history in Brown’s novel is exaggerated at best with most of it being grossly sensationalised or made up, there are definitely small kernels of truth in the book. There really is a Gospel of Mary. The Church did “vote” on Christ’s divinity at the Council of Nicea. There actually was a military wing of the Vatican called, The Knights Templar. Opus Dei is a real organisation. Other than that though, the rest of Brown’s book essentially all made up. However, the concept of divine or sacred feminine, which plays a huge thematic role throughout the book, is a real concept that was prominent in ancient religion, particularly ancient Greek religion. For this paper topic, I would study the philosophy of and behind ‘sacred feminine’ of ancient Greece. The feminine had a very special place in religious thought and ritual to the Greeks. It is also a strong theme that can be seen in the Gospel of Mary, a 2nd century Gnostic text. This makes sense seeing as the Gnostics based much of their theology on Greek philosophy. The idea of the divine mother or the divine feminine can be observed in some of the fundamental teachings of the Gnostics. So this paper would be an analysis of the sacred feminine of the Greeks and how it was adapted into the Gnostic theology behind the Gospel of Mary. Much work has been done on the GoM by Elaine Pagels and Karen King. As of right now, if I chose this topic I would probably title the paper something along the lines of; Cracking the Da Vinci Code: The Influence of Sacred Feminine on Christian Theology.

Amazon Warriors of the Ancient Greeks
This topic, should I choose to go down this route, would definitely need some refining. Seeing as this is for my religious studies capstone course, I would need some tie-in to religion. This isn’t impossible but I would need to dig a bit deeper. The Amazons were a mythical tribe, created by the ancient Greeks, of warrior women. Though they are regarded as a mythology, research has shown that there is some historical framework for which one can ground the Amazons in. Some pose that the Sythians and the Greeks’ admiration for them, were the basis for the Amazon myths. Again, I would need to find some way to incorporate religion into this. Perhaps this could also deal with women in ancient religions. My main interest in this stems from two points. The first is my love for Greek mythology. I have long been a fan of the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, etc. The second point is my passion for comic books. Wonder Woman is my favourite comic character and her character is heavily rooted in Greek myth. According to the comics, Wonder Woman was molded from clay by her mother Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons, and was brought to life by Zeus. Thus, since she is an Amazon, I’ve always been curious about the mythologies surrounding the Amazons. Recently, Adrienne Mayor has written a book about the Amazons and the archaeological and historical evidence about warrior women across the ancient world. Should I decide to do something about the Amazons I would likely title the paper something like; The Amazons of the Ancient Greeks: The Quest for the Historical Wonder Woman.

The Q-Source Theory
Being more inline with my previous studies, this next topic deals with what is known in New Testament studies as, the Q-source. The mainstream view among scholars is that the Gospels Matthew, and Luke, share a common source apart from Mark. That source, the narrative goes, was a saying source containing a list of sayings by Jesus. Matthew and Luke then subsequently rearranged those sayings in their own fashion and that’s why the synoptic Gospels are so similar while at the same time being so different. (John did not use this source). While this has some explanatory power, I’ve never been a fan of this theory and find to be simply too convoluted and based on speculative evidence. A much more likely explanation would be that Luke simply had access to Matthew and is redacting both Mark and Matthew. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas with the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 provided scholars with an idea of what Q may have looked like as a sayings source. The problem is, it’s just unnecessary as it adds a component to the theory that doesn’t need to be there. There is a solid case for the notion that Luke used Matthew, which would remove the need for Q. So I doubt the validity of Q as a theory and its explanatory power. To me, this is a classic case of Occam’s Razor; the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. This thesis would be a push back on the Q theory and an argument in favour of something like the Farrer hypothesis. If I pursue this topic, I like the title; Xing Out Q: The Case Against the Synoptic Saying Source, for the paper. I also really like the title: Houston, We Have a Synoptic Problem: The Case for Dispensing the Q Theory.

So those are just three ideas that I’ve been considering around in my spare time. Each would require a great deal of research as I haven’t done too much of any research in either topic. I am however, currently reading Mayor’s book on the Amazons and own a copy of Burton Mack’s book on Q. While I haven’t made any decisions and won’t need to for a while, it never hurts to start thinking about this now and maybe start doing some preliminary research. 

––M