FiveThirtyEight: Support For Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Unanimous

A majority of conservative Republicans (58 percent), Republicans overall (51 percent), Mormons (53 percent), white evangelical Protestants (58 percent) and adults in Alabama (51 percent) oppose same-sex marriage, according to a survey released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute. [...]

A majority of black people (52 percent), Hispanics (61 percent) and white people (63 percent) back same-sex marriage. The majority of people in all but six states support it. And even in those six states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia — only in Alabama are opponents an outright majority.  [...]

But I think it’s worth looking closely at the 39 percent of Americans who don’t support same-sex marriage, including the 30 percent who outright oppose it. That group really matters because it includes a majority bloc in the Republican Party, which dominates U.S. politics nationally and in many states. They haven’t exactly given up on this issue — the question of same-sex marriage itself has become less of a political football, but LGBT rights more generally may be taking its place.  [...]

PRRI also asked Americans whether they support small businesses being able to deny services to gay or lesbian people if doing so would conflict with the business owner’s religious beliefs. Overall, 33 percent of Americans support that idea, while 60 percent oppose it. The majority of conservative Republicans (59 percent), Republicans overall (52 percent), Mormons (53 percent) and white evangelical Protestants (53 percent) support such religious-based denials of services.

read the article

Social Europe: What Prospects For The Polish Left?

The success of ‘Together’ and other anti-establishment groupings in the 2015 election reflected widespread disillusionment with the country’s ruling elites and a strong prevailing mood that it was time for a change. The party also gained kudos among many younger, left-leaning Poles for its dynamism, ‘newness’ and programmatic clarity. However, ‘Together’ has failed to build on this promise and achieve political lift-off. It was wary about joining anti-government street protests on constitutional and ‘rule of law’ issues organised by the liberal-centrist opposition parties and Committee for the Defence of Democracy (KOD) civic movement. But it has proved very difficult for the party to cut through with its distinctive left-wing socio-economic message at a time when the Polish political scene is so sharply polarised around attitudes towards the Law and Justice administration. In April, the ‘Pooling the Poles’ blog that aggregates voting intention surveys showed support for ‘Together’ averaging at 1%.

The party’s biggest problem is that it represents a rather niche political offering attractive mainly to well-educated urban ‘hipsters’. Unfortunately for ‘Together’ the kind of younger, better-off socially liberal voters who in Western Europe would incline naturally towards left-wing parties, are in Poland often quite economically liberal as well and wary of some of the party’s more radical economic policies, such as very high tax rates for top earners. The less well-off, economically leftist electorate, on the other hand, tends to be older, more socially conservative and often inclines towards parties such as Law and Justice that are right-wing on moral-cultural issues but also support high levels of social welfare and greater state intervention in the economy. [...]

However, his critics argue that Mr Biedroń is a ‘political celebrity’ who has built his reputation primarily as a popular local government leader and campaigner focusing on moral-cultural issues – he was the founder of the Polish Campaign Against Homophobia (KPH) in the early 2000s – but has not yet been seriously tested on the national political stage. It remains to be seen whether his Mr Biedroń’s personal popularity can translate into a more high-profile role and if he is really prepared to undertake the difficult and painstaking task of building a new political movement from the bottom-up.

read the article

Political Critique: Postcards from Malta: The paradox of nostalgia

There is nothing extraordinary in this. Most countries present themselves through stylised, romantic and trimmed images. Yet, if one looks at how everyday Malta is, they will inevitably notice a discrepancy between the Malta that is represented in these romantic pictures and real Malta. Everyday Malta is becoming ever more a society where the neoliberal ethos, typical of the contemporary phase of capitalism, dictates the people’s rhythms and lifestyle in a way that is antithetical to the solid, simple and laid-back Malta of brochures and fliers. Malta’s catalogue images then, involve a contradiction between what we are and how we project ourselves; between how we generally consider ourselves and how we really are/are evolving. Understanding the contradictions between the Malta of adverts and the Malta of the mundane, sheds light on the ongoing social and cultural conflicts in the contemporary Maltese society. The rest of the article focuses on the aspect of this contradiction that concerns the organisation of space and built/rural environs. [...]

 In the past twenty years or so, Malta has been developing along one model, to the benefit of some and the (increasing) detriment of others, and with the blessings of both major political parties. Unlike places like the Emirates, however, which in relation to space and its content generally promote themselves as hyper-modern hubs—versions of Las Vegas in the Persian Gulf—Malta does not brand itself as the place of ultramodern sky-scrapers. Instead, the country is portrayed through images that highlight its idyllic Mediterranean location, rural lifestyle or its ‘glorious past’. This Malta, promoted in tourist catalogues (Mediterranean, ‘genuine’, Malta seems to be more marketable), but also internally radiates its Żepp u Grezz heritage through advertised architectural legacies, be these village cores or walled cities. [...]

Such political-environmental initiatives should recognise that the phenomenon of over-construction, which is antithetical to tranquil and human-scale development, is not born in a vacuum. It has very concrete roots and causes, and is not the sole responsibility of individual politicians. Ever since there was a decline in manufacturing, construction has increased its role in the economy and played an ever more important role in setting the economic wheels in motion. Conscious individuals and organisations who desire to change things radically should be aware of this and propose alternative economic and social strategies that go beyond moralising or single issue initiatives, important as these initiatives may be. Regarding the latter, groups and interests who stand to gain from the retaining the status quo and the politicians who represent their interests can afford to lose a pawn to win the game in the long run.

read the article

Vox: George H.W. Bush’s broken promise that changed the Republican Party

Presidents give hundreds of speeches, but, for better or worse, Americans tend to remember just a few one-liners. For George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st US president, that line was his pledge at 1988 Republican National Convention when he accepted the nomination.

“Read my lips. No. New. Taxes.”

The crowd roared in approval, but their cheers were short lived. That’s because when Bush took over the Oval Office, he inherited the consequences of his predecessor Ronald Reagan’s supply-side or “trickle down” economics: massive budget deficits. And in 1990, Bush broke his promise and raised taxes.

Bush was a traditional “country club” Republican, whose relatively moderate economic and social beliefs contrasted with more right wing conservatives that had supported Ronald Reagan. So when he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, Reaganites abandoned a moderate, bipartisan approach to politics and the Republican Party has moved further to the right ever since.

Politico: Jeremy Corbyn’s quest for power off course

It wasn’t all bad news for the party. Labour made gains in and around London and the south-west city of Plymouth, while Theresa May’s Tories had a mixed night (though they will have feared much worse). But on the evidence of Thursday’s poll, Labour will need to broaden its appeal to gain a majority in a general election — currently set for 2022. [...]

Matthew Goodwin, an academic who has studied the realignment of British politics, pointed out that Labour was going to have to win around 65 more seats to get a majority in a general election. “Some of those potentially might come from areas like Scotland but some will have to come from areas outside of their heartland. They are going to have to try and make progress in some of these areas, otherwise the prospects of a majority will be slim at best,” he said. [...]

“The average voter will probably think that Brexit has come and gone and ‘where is my comprehensive immigration reform and where is my comprehensive exit from the EU?'” he said, adding that the referendum had not prompted any comprehensive national discussion about how to rejuvenate communities like Yarmouth which voted so strongly for Brexit.

read the article

Haaretz: Israel's Rabbinical Courts May Soon Have Unprecedented Power Over non-Israeli Jews

A government bill giving Israeli rabbinical courts the authority to punish foreign Jewish men who refuse to grant their wives a religious divorce is advancing through the legislative process.

The bill would allow these courts to prevent non-citizens in these circumstances from leaving Israel after a visit, or even to jail them. Such steps against foreign nationals are thought to be unprecedented. [...]

Current law allows the rabbinical courts to handle divorces of Jews who aren’t Israeli citizens, but only if one member of the couple has some connection to Israel —– for instance, by having lived there for some time before suing for divorce. The new bill would eliminate this restriction and give the courts authority to hear divorce cases for any Jew anywhere, as long as “there’s a real fear that a [religious] divorce can’t be obtained at the couple’s last place of residence outside Israel.” [...]

“Israel is unilaterally applying its authority to Jews all over the world, without in any consideration of their desires and willingness,” Shakargy continued. “This bill violates the accepted rule that states try hard not to ‘touch’ those who aren’t their citizens. It creates a situation in which Israel isn’t respecting the accepted legal boundaries.” [...]

One source involved in this issue said the government had already told Reform and Conservative Jews “they aren’t Jewish enough” by canceling plans for an expanded egalitarian prayer area at the Western Wall. “Now, it’s adding that Diaspora Jewry must subordinate themselves to Israeli rabbinical courts. It’s thereby creating an Israeli Vatican.” 

read the article

Vox: Most American voters prioritize the economy. Republicans are voting on national security.

A recent poll from Morning Consult surveying more than 275,000 registered voters across the country from February through April of this year, shows 35 percent of Republican voters see security as their top policy issue going into the 2018 midterm election cycle, closely followed by the economy, which 29 percent of Republican voters listed as their top policy issue. “Senior’s issues,” likely including Social Security and Medicare, as well as health care issues follow.

Democrats and independent voters, however, largely still identify the economy as their highest priority when picking their candidate. Notably, security and health care are the second and third priorities for independent voters, while for Democrats, health care is almost as important as the economy (24 percent and 22 percent). Security is fourth behind senior’s issues for Democrats. [...]

But even in the presidential election, security issues were important. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, 90 percent of Trump supporters said the economy was “very important” to their vote in 2016. Eighty-nine percent of Trump voters said the same of the issue of terrorism.

read the article

Quartz: China’s huge celebrations of Karl Marx are not really about Marxism

Driven by leader Xi Jinping, China is going all out to celebrate Marx’s 200th birthday on May 5 like no one else—and has even gifted a huge bronze statue of the German political theorist to his hometown, to be unveiled tomorrow. Last week, Xi ordered his colleagues to study Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto, written with German philosopher Friedrich Engels. Earlier this week, he paid a visit to the prestigious Peking University—which will hold a forum for Marxism researchers worldwide tomorrow—and thanked it for its role in promoting the left-wing theory. The state broadcaster has been carrying a five-part education show titled “Marx is Right.” And state papers have run dozens of articles remembering the German philosopher who predicted that workers’ struggle would lead to a classless society, with one saying (link in Chinese), “Let’s go back to Marx, and be people with ideals.” [...]

On the surface, China identifies itself as a socialist country, with Marxism enshrined in both the party’s and the state’s constitutions. But the truth is that the nation has long abandoned Marx’s views of class struggle and the inevitability of the workers’ revolution, after it began carrying out a series of market-oriented reforms in the late 1970s that led it to become the world’s second-largest economy. Today’s China bears all of the hallmarks of a capitalist society ranging from private property to rampant consumption to exporting its overproduction. [...]

But then, China’s celebrations of Marx aren’t about Marxism but about its own political model. Since taking power in late 2012, Xi has repeatedly called for greater confidence in China’s chosen path, theory, system and culture—together known as the “four confidences”—amid concerns about the Communist Party’s ever tightening controls over the Chinese society. More recently, a globalist Xi has floated the idea that the political system of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” can be a model for the world. During this year’s Davos forum, Chinese state media stated outright that the world should choose between Xi’s “shared future” vision and Donald Trump’s “America First” policy—two contrasting outlooks for humanity.

read the article

The Washington Post: Trump is manufacturing an immigration crisis. Here’s why that helps him

President Trump has said that the group of migrants that recently made its way from Central America to the United States symbolizes out-of-control immigration, lawlessness and violence besetting the country. “Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming,” he tweeted last month . This week , he added : “The migrant ‘caravan’ that is openly defying our border shows how weak & ineffective U.S. immigration laws are.”

The facts suggest the opposite. Last year, according to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report, illegal cross-border migration was at its lowest level on record . [...]

The decline in illegal immigration has been a two-decade trend. Over that time, the number of Border Patrol apprehensions along the southern border has dropped by about 80 percent, from 1.6 million in 2000 to 300,000 in 2017. [...]

Focus on the cultural anxieties of the American public. Nothing embodies these fears as much as immigration. It has become a catch-all, particularly among non-college-educated whites, Trump’s core supporters. The president has often noted how crucial the border wall is to his base, declaring that “the thing they want more than anything is the wall.” Indeed, a recent poll indicated that 81 percent of Republicans want the wall to be built.

read the article