Here’s how Stoermer describes Liberal Nationalism and the role it plays in american politics:
There’s a belief system that combines two things — first, that change must happen through official channels (voting, courts, proper debate), and second, that this procedural faith is wrapped in American exceptionalism. The system isn’t just legitimate. It is sacred because America itself is exceptional.
Now here’s where it gets complicated. Klein says the project is “the American experiment.” Newsom builds on that. Kirk said the same things, but meant something completely different. Kirk’s American experiment would destroy Klein’s and Newsom’s — he wanted to dismantle multiracial democracy, restrict voting, and return to what he called the real Founders’ vision. That would end everything Klein and Newsom claim to value.
Yet Klein’s nationalism enables Kirk’s. By treating Kirk’s anti-democratic project as legitimate discourse within the American experiment, by claiming they share common ground, Klein validates extremism as just another voice in the great American conversation.
And I keep wondering: Does the white Christian nationalist movement understand something about liberal nationalism that we don’t? Do they realize that as long as they frame their goals in terms of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American experiment, individuals like Klein will always find common ground with them?
I found other notable liberal figures saying similar things while perusing twitter. Notably senator John Fetterman recently insisted that americans (sorry, I refuse to capitalize demonyms. Sue me) should stop calling Trump an autocrat and pleaded for toning down the anti-Trump rhetoric. To me this attitude plays right into MAGA’s hands. This is the kind of stuff that whitewashes bigotry and helps reactionaries move the Overton window further right.
I would venture that in a similar situation, on this side of the pond we would be out on the streets, striking the economy to a screeching halt. But in the US, there seems to be this nationalist bootlicking mentality that prevents people from even considering direct action, simply because they believe the system will somehow fix itself and everything will be honky dory in the end.
I can’t help but think the US of A was never truly the haven of freedom we were told it was. And as much as I appreciate the comparably stronger fighting spirit of the working class here, I’m not sure it will be enough to resist the rise of the far right here in Europe either, propped up by the ever influential american politics. I’m a pessimist, so please give me hope, or don’t. Thoughts, please?
Allan Miller,
What sources do you use primarily?
I don’t have a particular go-to. We watch BBC, ITV and Channel 4 news, which covers most of the available terrestrial output. I tend to look at the Guardian online – although that does have a ‘leftist’ bias: nearly all our legacy media aligns right. Some – the Daily Express, Daily Mail – are gruesome; they’re bad for my blood pressure. Then I see a fair bit on Twitter – which has developed a distinctly rightward slant since Musk took the helm.
If the BBC would permit me to write their response:
“The BBC wishes to apologise for any distress caused to President Trump by the broadcast of his words on […]. However, we do not consider a financial settlement to be in the interests of our license payers, nor legally justified. As a gesture of goodwill, we will donate $50,000 to a charity of his choice, without prejudice”.
Trump would look bad declining this.
The lawsuit between Trump and CBS was not similar and CBS did not lose it. Rather, CBS caved due to ulterior circumstances. Probably even your Grok would tell you that, but you prefer cultish brainwash.
It was about editing Kamala Harris’ interview. Guess what, they always edit every interview. Some week or two ago CBS made an interview with Trump, edited it – deceptively – to make Trump look more coherent than he is, and then published it. Trump had no objections this time. And if he had any objections and sued, there are no longer any ulterior reasons for CBS to give in.
BBC has no reason to give in. WSJ has not caved either. Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein was there all along. Spin that as leftist liberal bias.
PS: Also, BBC Panorama has apparently done this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti-tree_hoax
Allan Miller,
I like it 🙂
Do you ever look at Twitter?
Yes, as I mentioned. I find it has become a bit of a bearpit under Musk though. Including Grok.
We’re being subject right now to the bizarre spectacle of billionaire-owned newspapers wearing their bias on their sleeves, and their easily-manipulated readers, baying for the end of the BBC because of its perceived… bias. The Express, the Mail, the Sun are entirely aligned with the Right, feed an endless supply of dogwhistles, and are under no injunction to be ‘impartial’. The Sun has been successfully boycotted in Liverpool due to false reporting of the behaviour of fans during the Hillsborough disaster in which over 90 were killed in a crush. The headline was one word : “SCUM”. Now editor Kelvin McKenzie is on lecturing the BBC on journalistic standards! Piers Morgan likewise, subject to intense scrutiny over phone hacking which happened on his watch, though he implausibly denies all knowledge.
It’s a trusted global brand, something of which ‘patriots’ and ‘lefties’ alike can be proud. It can’t be bought by a billionaire, does not have to cave in because it needs approval for a business deal. We can watch programmes, live and on catch-up, without interruption by a single advert. Whole bunch of radio stations. Educational material, regional programming. Its board is too heavily weighted in political appointees, but overall, I think it value for money. £170pa for all that beats a billionaire-owned Sky subscription for £250 (rising to well over £1,000pa with add-ons)..
Grok – which is to say, Elon Musk – calls the BBC and NHS ‘bloated’. While they may not be models of efficiency, that’s an interesting choice of words.
Allan Miller,
Apologies, I misremembered. “The Scum” is the nickname for the paper in Liverpool; the headline was ‘THE TRUTH’ over false claims of fan behaviour.
colewd:
As Erik points out, CBS did not lose a lawsuit. The case never went to trial, and if it had, constitutional law scholars are certain that Trump would have lost. One Harvard guy (can’t remember his name) said the case was so frivolous that the Trump lawyers would have been sanctioned for bringing it. CBS’s actions were legal, moral, and in line with standard journalistic practice. They did nothing wrong, and the edits they made did not change the meaning of what Harris said.
Also, Trump lied (as you would expect) when he claimed that CBS substituted one answer for another. In reality, both clips came from the same answer, and CBS just did what they always do: edit for brevity where necessary. But Trump’s lie is the version that circulates on the right, and you, being a perennial chump, fell for it.
CBS settled with Trump not because they thought they’d lose in court, but rather because their parent company, Paramount, was merging with another company and needed the approval of Trump’s FCC. They knew that Trump would weaponize the FCC and block the merger unless they gave in to his ridiculous demands, so it made more sense financially to pay him off so that the merger would go through. It made financial sense, but capitulating to the orange extortionist was morally reprehensible and a disservice to the entire country. As a media company, CBS has a special obligation to stand up for the First Amendment, and they failed.
As Erik also points out, CBS (now under conservative management) edited Trump’s recent interview, and of course there hasn’t been a peep from the right about that. Pure hypocrisy.
It doesn’t take “real hard work”. It’s rather easy, and we’ve demonstrated that. This discussion has been going on for seven months and you still haven’t caught us making any untrue claims. We can tell fact from fiction, propaganda from truth. Yet we catch you falling for propaganda on practically a daily basis, the CBS stuff being the latest example.
We can tell fact from fiction quite easily, and you can’t. That should tell you something. The problem is you, not the media.
Allan Miller,
I saw the BBC edit last night and it was pretty blatant. I agree with you the right bias is there so we have the pot calling the kettle black. Truth and balance maintain credibility. In the short term spin can work but you need consistent truth to maintain credibility. Right now it is up to the public to remain skeptical and sort out the wheat from the chaff. This is very hard as humans we are very emotional beings and can gain information filters due to emotional preference.
keiths,
And they could have lost so they made a payment which shows along with looking at the tape they edited the interview thus doctoring the evidence. This is dishonest journalism just like the BBC practiced. In the short term spin can work but you need consistent truth to maintain credibility.
But in the interest of honesty, which you seem to value, you might mention that there was no relationship between the threatened lawsuit (is there anyone alive Trump has NOT threatened to sue?) and the bribe – that is, the “settlement” greasing the path to a highly profitable merger. This payment is in no way a tacit admission that the editing was dishonest. But given the corruption of the Trump administration, a gratuitous payoff was probably necessary to get Trump’s FCC to approve the merger. CBS would probably have found some pretext as a fig leaf to hand Trump money, but such bribes under Trump are a sensible business decision.
In any case, editing for brevity is normal, unavoidable, and rarely dishonest doctoring (except when Fox News edits Trump to make him look coherent).
colewd:
It’s certain that they would have won, and I just explained that to you:
You simply ignored my statement because it didn’t fit with what you wanted to hear. Do you know something about the law that those experts don’t? Should we conclude “the experts say Trump would have lost, but we know that he could have won because Bill says so, and Bill always gets it right”?
CBS did nothing wrong. Editing for brevity is standard journalistic practice because TV shows have time limits. Isn’t that obvious? Episodes of 60 Minutes last — you guessed it — 60 minutes. They have to cut in order to stay within that time slot. That’s what outlets everywhere do. It’s totally normal and ethical. The only way it would be unethical — and this is where the BBC screwed up — is if the editing is done in a way that distorts the meaning of what was said. CBS didn’t do that.
And if you think they doctored the evidence then, why aren’t you howling now about Trump’s recent 60 minutes interview that he is so proud of (though God knows why)? That interview lasted 73 minutes, but they only broadcast 28 minutes of it. Answer: Trump disliked the Harris interview, so that made CBS unethical in your view. Trump liked his own interview, so that makes CBS ethical in your view. It has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with what your Big Orange Daddy likes or dislikes.
Which is why you aren’t regarded as credible. This very discussion makes the point. First, you claimed that CBS lost the lawsuit, which is false. They settled. I told you that Trump would have lost the case, and I cited the experts. That was the truth, and you ignored it simply because you didn’t like it. You even made the bogus argument that the CBS payment proves that they could have lost, after I had just explained to you why CBS made the payment:
They knew that Trump wouldn’t hesitate to abuse his power and weaponize the FCC against them — just look at his weaponization of the Department of Justice. They made a calculation: “To pay off the extortionist will cost us $16 million, but if we don’t capitulate, he’ll kill the merger and that will cost us even more. Let’s pay him off.”
You got the whole thing wrong.
ETA: In fact, Trump has already weaponized the FCC as we saw in the Jimmy Kimmel fiasco. He hates free speech and the First Amendment, because when speech is free and people speak honestly, Trump looks bad. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, including the First Amendment, and he has repeatedly attacked it instead.
colewd:
If you think it’s important, why haven’t you made the effort to learn how to do so?
You just described yourself. Speak for yourself, not for humanity as a whole. In the seven months of our discussion, you haven’t found a single instance in which your opponents have failed to separate the wheat from the chaff.
We don’t reject the truth on emotional grounds, the way you do. When you truly value the truth, you accept it even when you don’t like it. Give it a try.
colewd,
There remains the fact that Congress and Senate both voted by simple (but insufficient) majority that he was guilty of incitement, based on the unedited version of that same speech. No-one in America had their minds changed on this issue as a result of this broadcast; positions crystallised 4 years ago. He has lost nothing financially, while his reputation is pretty low in the UK anyway. A billion for this affront is just taking the piss. It is outrageous that the rich can bully in this way. I despise the man even more. I do hope the BBC stand up to him.
colewd,
Given who we’re talking about, that’s funny. Of course journalists are held a higher standard than [checks notes] the President of the USA.
Allan Miller,
We appear to at least have common ground of truth being important for long term credibility.
colewd, to Allan:
Do you find Trump to be credible?
Now that more damaging info has emerged from the Epstein files today, he is back to insisting that they are “a Democrat hoax”. Do you think he’s right? In July he said that the Epstein files were
Do you believe him?
Should presidents be credible, or is that only for presidents who aren’t your cult leader?
Saw an interesting comment on this, to the effect that the reason Mike Johnson postponed swearing in the 218th vote to discharge the Epstein files from the DoJ wasn’t just to delay the inevitable, it was to give Bondi and company plenty of time to comb through all they had in full detail. So that when the DoJ finally releases the files, they will be so thoroughly sanitized they’ll glow in the dark. You won’t find anywhere in them any hint, even indirectly, that Trump or any of his cronies was ever even aware that Epstein existed. Most likely DoJ will be conscientious enough to burn everything that might annoy the king.
After all, everyone not a proven Trump loyalist has either quit or been fired. If there are any people left anyone might even suspect of being loyal to their oath of office, they won’t be allowed anywhere near those files.
(Note that these new emails didn’t come from DoJ, they were turned over by the Epstein estate.)
Karoline Leavitt dubs the BBC a ‘leftist’ organisation in response to a question from… GBNews, an unashamedly rightist organisation. It isn’t, but why would one wish to crush an overseas organisation simply due to its perceived political leanings? Especially when one (nominally) worships free speech?
The US appears to get its view of the UK entirely from the likes of GB News. That all rapes are committed by immigrants, that the BBC is ‘leftist’, that parts of the country are under Sharia Law, that we are afraid to roam the streets for fear of stabbing, as we cower in our little hobbit-holes dressed as Pearly Kings or Beefeaters. No corrective to these cartoons is accessed for a balanced view, because … ‘leftists’.
Meanwhile, all Americans wear ten-gallon hats and say “yee-haw” a lot…