The conversation between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris begins at 8 PM CT.

In Philadelphia Tuesday night, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are looking to make their mark on history in a city bursting with it.

When the presidential debate kicks off, it will be the first – and perhaps only – conversation between the two major party candidates.

“People are waiting to see how Kamala will do,” said University of Texas at Tyler Professor of Public Administration Dr. Ken Wink. “I think they’re also waiting to see if Trump can defend his record as president.”

“I think Kamala Harris wants to show that Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be president, and Trump wants to show that Kamala Harris is not really qualified in a sense of being president based on her past performances,” Wink added.

The economy has consistently polled as an important issue for voters in this year’s election, and the Biden administration has faced criticism over its handling of the economy particularly after inflation hit a four-decade high in 2022.

“Harris has to be able to articulate that the worst is behind us in terms of the economy and yet we all still feel the effects of inflation, there’s no doubt about that,” said Wink. “I think that is the big policy issue that could go either way and both candidates need to do well on that issue.”

When asked during an interview with CNN late last month about her policy shifts, Harris said her “values have not changed.”

“That is an interesting quote, and I wonder if Trump will attack her truthfulness or veracity on those changes of issue positions,” said Wink.

Trump has questioned Harris’ racial identity, after expressing doubt over former President Barack Obama’s country of birth.

Criticism from the Democratic Party persuaded President Joe Biden to drop out of the race following June’s presidential debate in Atlanta.

“If people can see a pretty clear winner, and the polls swing, you know, as much as two percent toward one candidate or the other, that could very well be decisive in the election.” Wink added.

He also said that the vote share from third party candidates could impact the race, even though Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is no longer seeking the White House.

56 days remain until election day. Early voting in Texas begins on Oct. 21, and the last day to register to vote is Oct. 7.

Source

The post East Texas political expert on what to expect during Tuesday’s presidential debate appeared first on Policy Print.

A controversial policy change that bars teachers from using a student’s preferred pronouns without parental permission will soon go into effect in New Brunswick despite pushback. It has caused political turmoil in the Canadian province.

In May, under Premier Blaine Higgs, New Brunswick announced that a policy to create a safe space for students who identify as LGBT in schools will be amended, with the changes coming into effect on 1 July.

The amendments to the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity policy – also known as Policy 713 – removed explicit mention of allowing students to participate in extracurricular activities, including sports teams, that reflect their gender identity.

More controversially, the changes – as explained by the province’s education minister Bill Hogan – also forbid teachers from using the chosen preferred names and pronouns of a student under the age of 16 without the consent of their parents.

In cases where it is not possible to get parental permission, the policy states that a student should be sent to a social worker or a psychologist to develop a plan on how to approach their parents.

Mr Higgs and his right-leaning Progressive Conservative government updated the policy without a legislative vote, due to what they said were “hundreds of complaints from parents and teachers”.

The government has been criticised for not providing evidence of these complaints, and the changes have since created a firestorm in the small province of less than a million people.

Two New Brunswick ministers quit in protest, while two others were pushed out by Mr Higgs for not supporting his plan. The premier now faces a growing threat of being ousted from office, as dissidents from his own party have called for a leadership review citing “a pattern of autocratic” governing.

Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weighed in, igniting a debate on the issue at the federal level.

At a Pride event earlier in June, Mr Trudeau said that “trans kids in New Brunswick are being told they don’t have the right to be their true self, that they need to ask permission”.

“Trans kids need to feel safe, not targeted by politicians,” he said.

In response, federal Conservative opposition leader Pierre Poilievre told Mr Trudeau to “butt out” of New Brunswick politics.

“The prime minister has no business in decisions that should rest with provinces and parents,” Mr Poilievre said.

What is Policy 713? And why was it changed?

Initially passed in 2020 after a decade of consultations, Policy 713 in its original form asked for parental consent in order to formally change students’ names or pronouns, but made it mandatory to use a student’s preferred name if it is not possible to get permission from a parent.

It also allowed students to participate on sporting teams and use washrooms consistent with their gender identity.

Nicki Lyons-MacFarlane, who volunteers with LGBT youth in the city of Fredericton, said the policy has benefited many such students in the province.

“Students have been validated and affirmed by this policy,” they told the BBC. “If anything, it has saved lives.”

They added that in light of the changes, students now fear being mis-gendered or outed to their families.

Mr Higgs’ government said the changes to the policy are about “ensuring parents also feel respected”. In a recent interview with the CBC, the premier, who has been in office since 2018, said he has seen “a tremendous amount of outpouring support” for his stance.

But the changes have been the subject of fierce opposition from parts of the public in New Brunswick.

Several local protests have been held, and school psychologists and social workers have filed grievances with the government.

The province’s child and youth advocate, Kelly Lamrock, has called the new policy “shoddy and inadvertently discriminatory”.

Donald Wright, a professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, said the changes to Policy 713 came as a surprise for some, and have been the topic of conversation for many in the province. But Mr Wright added the premier is known for supporting “wedge issues” that are typically divisive.

“He believes that enough New Brunswickers will support him on this,” he said.

The move, however, has proven to be a remarkable political gamble for the premier, Mr Wright said.

“He has lost a quarter of his cabinet,” he said. “That is not insignificant.”

Hadeel Ibrahim, a reporter who has covered the issue for CBC in New Brunswick, said the changes to Policy 713 were the final straw for those who have previously opposed Mr Higgs’ other policies and his style of governance.

“Some people are saying there is a de-emphasis on the ‘progressive’ part of ‘Progressive Conservative’, because they believe he is going too far to the right,” Ms Ibrahim said.

The rest of Canada weighs in

The debate over the policy in New Brunswick quickly spread beyond the province’s borders.

LGBT advocates in other parts of Canada have raised concern Mr Higgs’ move is a sign of “American-style politics” on gender identity seeping into Canadian society. Laws restricting and regulating the lives of transgender youth are part of a rising trend in the US, with numerous states passing laws that relate to transgender people.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a national civil rights group, has threatened the premier with a lawsuit, arguing the changes to Policy 713 are “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

But there has also been some support. Action4Canada, a conservative Christian group based in British Columbia, touted it as a “heroic decision” and a test case.

“Premier Higgs and (Education) Minister Bill Hogan have courageously and unapologetically taken the first steps, in Canada, towards protecting children from going down a path of destruction,” the group said in a statement.

The debate comes at the heels of other controversies on LGBT issues and schools that have taken place across the country. Earlier in June, a Catholic school board in the Toronto area voted against flying the Pride flag outside its main offices, prompting a student walk-out in protest.

A poll commissioned by Canadian think-tank Second Street of 1,523 people in early May – before New Brunswick’s policy changes were announced – suggested that 57% of Canadians believe parents have a right to be informed by a school if a child wants to change their gender identity.

“I don’t think it is too surprising that parents want to know what their kids are up to in school,” said think-tank president Colin Craig of the results.

Ms Ibrahim said that no official polling has been done on the policy change in New Brunswick. As a result, it has been difficult to discern just how much local support the premier has on this issue.

As the amended policy comes into effect on Saturday, some teachers in New Brunswick have already stated that they will not follow it.

A handful of school boards have said they will develop their own policies that will allow teachers to use a students’ chosen name and pronouns informally, regardless of parental consent or age.

Given the political and public reaction, Mr Wright at the University of New Brunswick said there appears to be more support for Policy 713 in its original form than the amendments.

And with his future as leader now on the line, Mr Wright said the premier may have “misplayed his cards”.

Source: British Broadcasting Corporation

The post Policy 713: LGBT School Policy Change Causes Political Turmoil in Canada appeared first on Policy Print.

It has been easy to point to Mr. Trump and his progeny nationally and locally and conclude that there is something wrong in American politics that has negatively affected us in Nevada. However, the Trump effect did not spring into existence in a vacuum. No, for the last few decades, there has been a vile cesspool of festering anger, fear, and distrust directed at the people, processes, and institutions of our fragile democracy.  

Some scholars in political science and applied psychology define this political phenomena as “cynicism.” It has become the default setting of our society. Indeed, we consider it astute and insightful when comedians, politicians, pastors, reporters, and political commentators sardonically pontificate on the news of the day. The quicker and more forceful the cynical take on current events, the more clicks, views, engagements, and other measures of influence and success achieve high ratings. Nowadays, it truly seems that first responses from pundits, politicians, and keyboard warriors on social media on any current event, policy, or question concerning politics is a cynical one. 

Cynicism has, in certain quarters, a distinct kind of glamor. It sounds tough not to have to have an optimistic attitude about the future in the face of adversity and to deride optimism as useless idealism. Cynics will tell you that everyone is selfish and weak and that ‘the system’ is rigged and driven by greed, and that there is nothing you can do to influence or change the system to create good outcomes that benefit people and society. And, if you try, you will be disappointed. 

Many politicians seem to be brokers of cynicism rather than leaders working to inspire the best out of us by articulating shared hopes and values. It is harder to obtain and keep power with a positive point of view about what we can do together to solve problems. But is this phenomena being driven by politicians or is it being driven by you and I – citizens and voters entrusted with the responsibility of electing good people and supporting policy choices that benefit all of us?

It seems to me that voters often reward the dishonest, the self-interested, the partisan, the incompetent actors in our political system by allowing them to manipulate our fears for political gain. We have the power to resist what is cynical and embrace a more optimistic view of who we are and what we want to become, but we seem to settle for a political identity driven by our favorite actors in the angertainment industry. 

Some might suggest that the Age of Trump emerged as the direct result of cynicism imposed upon us by both the political right and political left. Perhaps. Many assume that the political radicalization in recent years is a product of increased issue position polarization driven by activists on the left and the right, but this is not the best explanation according to some scholars who have looked at this issue. In “A Radical Vision of Radicalism: Political Cynicism, not Incrementally Stronger Partisan Positions, Explains Political Radicalization,” in Advances in Political Psychology, Alain Van Hiel, Jasper Van Assche, Tessa Haesevoets, David De Cremer, and Gordon Hodson (November 10, 2021), Van Hiel et al. challenge the “priority afforded to the idea that moderate people espouse ever more radical ideas because of issue position polarization, whereby more moderate left-wing adherents gradually become more and more attracted to radical left-wing parties and moderate right-wing supporters become ever more attracted to radical right-wing parties.” 

Instead, they argue that issue position polarization — the psychological process that makes like-minded people become more extreme, and because of this, also more similar — is not the best way to understand the rise in electoral support for radical people and their political parties. Rather, they point to “… decisive evidence that issue position polarization is not the major driving force behind “political polarization,” and argue that other mechanisms are likely in play, namely by those “rooted in political cynicism.” 

From this perspective, according to Van Hiel et al, the abyss between moderates and radicals rests upon whether  people wish “to be in the political system” at all. The authors then make the compelling argument that, “[p]olitical cynicism, which entails a profoundly negative attitude towards and lack of trust in the establishment, is a most relevant political attitude which divides moderates from radicals and populists.”

“Politically cynical people show low trust, and they generally have active, overt negative feelings towards and negative expectations about the intentions and actions of politicians. It is exactly because of the powerful negative emotions embedded in political cynicism that makes it particularly central in shaping political preferences.”

Our constitutional form of government provides a mirror of who we are and what we value every election cycle. So before we raise our voice in outrage over what we don’t like about those we elect, we should consider how our own biases, prejudices, fears, and anger have contributed to the results we have achieved together. If we don’t like the leaders we have nominated or elected, then the answer is not only to “vote the bum out,” but also to consider our own failure to hold ourselves accountable for positively engaging in our civic duties. 

This does not mean we will get everything we want from government or that we will always like the outcomes achieved through the political or legal processes established by law and Constitution. It does mean we will agree to play by common rules, engage in the process in good faith, and accept the results. If we don’t like the rules and processes or believe the rules are unfair and produce unjust results, then there is a process and procedure available to create change that requires the grievant to make a case, build a coalition, and propose a better alternative.

Inevitably, cynicism erodes perceptions of legitimacy in our institutions of government causing citizens to disregard the rule of law. Because democratic governments derive their authority from public support, a persistently high level of political cynicism threatens their credibility and legitimacy. But even if the legitimacy of the government is not at risk, a politically cynical climate has been shown to lead to a situation in which political leaders have a harder time solving societal problems (Chanley et al., 2000; Neustadt, 1990). As a result, leaders make weak decisions and fail to address controversial issues decisively (Hetherington, 1998; Porter, 2008). (Levels of political distrust and cynicism are high, as manifested in the startlingly high figure of not less than three-quarters of the electorate which nowadays says it does not trust the political process and the politicians participating in it

One of the causes of political cynicism is the overwhelming amount of information and misinformation available — and the inability to distinguish fact from fiction. Facts are now a matter of perspective and preference more than a thing that is known or can be objectively proved to be true. In the age of so-called “fake news,” not all of that information is reliable. Even for voters who are savvy enough to separate the good information from the bad, merely feeling as though they’ve been exposed to false information is enough to affect their attitudes about politics come Election Day, researchers have found.

Dam Hee Kim, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Kate Kenski, a professor in the same department, co-authored a paper that looks at how perceived exposure to false information – also termed misinformation or disinformation – affects political cynicism. The paper, which they co-wrote with lead author S. Mo Jones-Jang of Boston College, is published in the journal New Media and Society. The researchers’ findings, based on survey data from the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, show that the more people believe they were exposed to disinformation in the two weeks prior to an election, the more cynical they feel about politics when it’s time to vote.

Americans have never been more cynical, according to several studies and surveys. For example, as Maggie Koerth pointed out on the site FiveThirtyEight, the American National Election Studies survey, which has tracked American opinion since 1948, the average trust score in 2016 was 17, the lowest ever recorded, and has continued to decline. Although these questions are about trust, they serve as a proxy for understanding cynicism. When cynicism goes up, trust goes down, and vice versa. Koerth also notes the same trend in other measures of trust, perdata collected by the Pew Research Center.

Based on the foregoing, I wonder, dear reader, whether we should blame our elected leaders and point our fingers at their failures and shortcomings in a storm of cynical vitriol as we try to make sense of why our political culture is so toxic and our political system for resolving our differences seems broken? Perhaps if we hold the mirror of democracy up to our own rhetoric and political activity in furtherance of what we believe and value, we would discover poisonous hallucinogenic cynicism has infected our perspectives, attitudes, and actions, which in turn have shaped our present political realities. With this wisdom in hand, we would then be compelled to seek an antidote to our cynicism that will bring a sober optimism to our body politic, one grounded in our shared identity as citizens of our great nation and state, our commitment to defending and upholding our Constitutional form of government, and our uncompromising respect for the rule of law. 

To be certain, there are liars, idiots, and corrupt individuals that should be opposed vigorously. There also are those with a hyper-partisan and cynical commitment to promoting conflict in society in order to gain and keep power. There also are bad policy decisions made by leaders that cause human suffering that should be debated and fixed. Moreover, even uncynical people are often driven by self-interested agendas that should be tempered by what is truly in the public interest.

Resisting cynicism does not require us to ignore facts and disregard truth. Indeed, there is no civil society without a shared understanding of facts and truths that are, as the Founding Fathers of our country put it, “self-evident.” But even in the face of sharp disagreements, we have built a resilient system of government that works to safeguard against the failings and shortcomings of human beings.

Though we may have cause not to trust one another for one reason or another, we should trust our system of government – all three branches – to do what they were designed to do to provide for our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is cause for great political optimism even in the face of what sometimes appears to be a hopelessly broken political culture.  

Source: The Nevada Independent

The post A cynic’s lament on political cynicism appeared first on Policy Print.