Latest news with #progressivism
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Trans Dem Rep. McBride suggests party went too far with transgender agenda before public was ready
Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., told the New York Times on Tuesday that the Democratic Party may have overplayed their hand with regard to trans issues during the 2024 election cycle. McBride, the first transgender representative who was elected to Congress in 2024, spoke to The New York Times' Ezra Klein about where the Democratic Party went wrong on transgender issues and how they should approach winning back the public. "I think that's an accurate reflection of the overplaying of the hand in some ways — that we as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage," McBride said. McBride suggested that the trans movement caused a perceived cultural aggression that allowed the GOP to say, "We're punishing trans people because of their actions. Rather than: We're going after innocent bystanders." "And I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people. We became absolutist — not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement — and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. Part of this is fostered by social media," the Delaware lawmaker said. McBride argued that progressives pushed for every single perfect policy and cultural norm without keeping public opinion in mind. "We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place," McBride told the NYT. The Democratic lawmaker cautioned the party not to get too far ahead of public opinion and said they lose their grip on it if they do. "And I think a lot of the conversations around sports and also some of the cultural changes that we saw in expected workplace behavior, etc. was the byproduct of maybe just getting too far out ahead and not actually engaging in the art of social change-making," McBride continued. McBride said in November that the GOP's focus on countering trans issues was a "distraction." "I think we are all united that attempts to attack a vulnerable community are not only mean-spirited, but really an attempt to misdirect. Because every single time we hear the incoming administration or Republicans in Congress talk about any vulnerable group in this country, we have to be clear that it is an attempt to distract," McBride said during an interview last year with CBS. The lawmaker was surprised by Republicans prioritizing efforts to keep transgender athletes out of girls' sports, according to a January 2025 interview. "I've had conversations with colleagues about many of the bills that are coming before us and certainly have heard from some colleagues who, like me, are mystified that this is a priority for a Republican conference that is entering a Republican trifecta, that this is an issue that they prioritize," McBride said. McBride noted during the interview with Klein that the transgender movement needed to negotiate with public opinion, and that they shouldn't treat the public like Republican politicians. "When you recognize that distinction, I think it allows for a pragmatic approach that has, in my mind, the best possible chance of shifting public opinion as quickly as possible. It would be one thing if screaming about how dangerous this is right now had the effect of stopping these attacks, but it won't," McBride said.
Fox News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Obama called out by progressives for not doing enough to counter Trump
Some liberals reportedly want former President Obama to do more amid President Donald Trump's second term, accusing the former president of sacrificing his "megaphone." "There are many grandmas and Rachel Maddow viewers who have been more vocal in this moment than Barack Obama has," co-founder of the Progressive Change Institute, Adam Green, told the Atlantic. Obama campaigned alongside former President Biden before he dropped out of the race and also stumped for former Vice President Kamala Harris when she became the nominee. The former president spoke out against Trump in April at an event in New York, but has largely remained out of the spotlight since Trump won. "It is heartbreaking," Green said, "to see him sacrificing that megaphone when nobody else quite has it." Obama accused the Trump administration of trying to destroy the post-World War II international order at the April event before suggesting sacrifice might be necessary to fight back against Trump. "It has been easy during most of our lifetimes to say you are a progressive, or say you are for social justice, or say you are for free speech, and not have to pay a price for it… And now we're in one of those moments when… it's not enough just to say you're for something. You may actually have to do something and possibly sacrifice a little bit," Obama said. "Should Obama get out and do more? Yes, please," Democratic media consultant Tracy Sefl told the Atlantic. "Help us," she said. "We're sinking over here." The Obama Foundation did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. The former Democratic president also weighed in on the back-and-forth between Harvard and the Trump administration in a post to social media in April, praising his alma mater for standing up against the president. Eric Schultz, an adviser to Obama, told the Atlantic that the former president is careful about the issues he weighs in on. "We try to preserve his voice so that when he does speak, it has impact," Schultz said. "There is a dilution factor that we're very aware of." Obama's former Attorney General Eric Holder told The Atlantic that the former president was out there opposing Trump, but said Democrats needed to be careful not to "regularize" him. "Should he do more? Everybody can have their opinions," Holder said. "The one thing that always kind of pisses me off is when people say he's not out there, or that he's not doing things, that he's just retired, and we never hear from him. If you f------ look, folks, you would see that he's out there." Jon Favreau, a former Obama speechwriter and co-host of "Pod Save America," told the outlet that the Democratic Party needed new stardom but added that if Trump attempted to run for a third term, he would beg the former president to be the party's standard-bearer again. "The party needs new rising stars, and they need the room to figure out how to meet this moment, just like Obama figured out how to meet the moment 20 years ago," he said. "Unless, of course, Trump tries to run for a third term, in which case I'll be begging Obama to come out of retirement."
Reuters
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Slovak PM seeks control of 'national identity' issues in potential clash with EU law
June 10 (Reuters) - Slovak leader Robert Fico is seeking to change the country's constitution and install what he calls "a dam against progressivism" by declaring that Slovakia has legal precedence on "national identity" issues, such as family and gender. Critics of populist Prime Minister Fico, including some legal experts, fear the amendment will threaten Slovakia's commitments to European Union laws and international treaties. Fico has taken an increasingly anti-liberal stance in rights issues, building on his pro-Russian and pro-Hungarian international policy position. He has promoted closer relations with Russia and China and criticised sanctions on Moscow and the EU's military aid for Ukraine. The amendment states that only male and female will be recognised as genders, and that school curriculums must respect the constitution, including its cultural and ethical positions. It will also tighten adoption rules. "The Slovak Republic maintains sovereignty above all in issues of national identity," the amendments say, in particular on cultural and ethical issues. A report accompanying the bill states it is fully in line with EU law, including the issues of precedence of European law. Some opposition lawmakers however, as well as a group of lawyers including five former judges of the constitutional court, warn it could have far-reaching consequences. "The proposed amendment is contradictory to the commitments resulting from European Union law and international law and creates a legal basis to diverge from values of the European Union and the Council of Europe," the group said. "The amendment would weaken or even preclude enforcement of international law and European Union law in Slovakia," it said, adding that it included vague language, creating legal uncertainty and room for extensive interpretation. Fico's fractious leftist and nationalist coalition has a thin majority dependent on independents, but the amendment has won backing from the opposition conservative Christian Democrats as well as two members of the opposition Slovensko party. This may be enough for the amendment to reach the required 90 votes in the 150-seat parliament when it comes before lawmakers in the next days. "This is not a defence of identity or sovereignty, this is a conscious and deceitful act aimed at severing Slovakia from the system and structure of international protection of human rights," Amnesty International said in a statement. "The proposal threatens all people in Slovakia, but above all the most vulnerable - children, women, the poor, who are exposed to discrimination or inequality based on age or gender identity." Fico's government has accused liberal protesters of planning a coup, changed laws to tighten rules for non-governmental organisations, increased control over public broadcasters, and attacked independent media as foreign agents.
The Guardian
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US universities are moving to the right. Will it help them escape Trump's wrath?
In 2018, a teaching hospital at Harvard took down 30 portraits of distinguished doctors and researchers affiliated with the hospital. The portraits reinforced a perception that 'white men are in charge', a professor of medicine told the Boston Globe, and were relegated to less prominent areas of the hospital. Some students and faculty welcomed the decision, or were indifferent. Others were disconcerted. They saw the portraits' removal as the impulsive reflex of a university whose political atmosphere, already liberal leaning, seemed to continually lurch further left. In the years following, a series of fierce political winds – the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements; expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; the Israel-Gaza war – buffeted Harvard, and each gale seemed to strengthen progressivism's hold on campus. Harvard began asking academic job applicants to file statements describing their commitment to 'diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging' in higher education. Opponents criticized the statements as political litmus tests. 'Over the last couple of decades, at Harvard and other elite institutions of higher ed, there has been kind of an ideological intensification in one direction,' said Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of the Harvard medical school faculty and a well-known critic of what he describes as leftwing conformity in academia. That ideological intensification is most pronounced in humanities and social science fields, he said, where 'it's quite a dominant reality'. Yet now – with a few years of distance from the ideological tumult that began around 2011, which some critics and observers dubbed 'the great awokening' – the situation feels very different. The Trump administration is pursuing an unprecedented pressure campaign on Harvard, on the grounds that it discriminates against white people and tolerates antisemitism. The university's federal funding is in question, as is its ability to enroll foreign students and make basic decisions about its own management. While many faculty and students at Harvard may still affiliate with the left, their power and influence feel pale in comparison with just a short time ago. The irony of Trump's attack is that Harvard and other universities – keen to appease critics who have accused them in recent years of liberal bias, tolerating antisemitism and being too soft on disruptive student activists – were already angling for an ideological re-alignment. As a result, these universities are now in an odd and paradoxical situation: trying to resist the Trump administration's project of ideological subjugation while at the same time quietly continuing their efforts to sand down their leftwing edges. It's a tricky dance, and it may not satisfy the Trumpist right. The problem is that 'in general, Harvard needs the government much more than the government needs Harvard', the political scientist Harvey Mansfield, who retired from teaching two years ago, said. Mansfield was for decades Harvard's best-known conservative. 'The Trump administration,' Mansfield added, 'has been rather creative in finding ways to torture its victim.' Harvard receives some $9bn in federal funding that is frozen or under review. In contrast to Columbia, which quickly capitulated to the government's demands, including that the university take over control of an academic department from its faculty, Harvard has tried to remain unbowed. It has sued the government, arguing that the Trump administration's actions threaten Harvard's academic freedom and violate federal procedures. Among other things, the Trump administration has demanded that Harvard cease all race- and gender-based affirmative action in hiring and admissions; take measures to screen out foreign students 'hostile to American values'; 'shutter' all DEI programs; and end recognition of several pro-Palestinian campus groups that the Trump administration has accused of antisemitism. The administration's attacks on universities have often emphasized the idea that they are centers of leftwing indoctrination. While it may or may not be the case that universities are incubators of a 'woke-mind virus', as Elon Musk and others have suggested, studies of the political makeup of the American professoriate do support the idea that it is disproportionately left-leaning. A 2016 study of voter affiliation at '40 leading US universities' found that in humanities and social science fields, such as history, economics, journalism and psychology, professors who were registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by almost 12 to one. A 2022 survey by the Harvard Crimson found that 80% of faculty there identified as 'liberal' or 'very liberal'; only 1% identified as 'conservative', and none as 'very conservative'. In a letter last month to the US Department of Education, Harvard's president, Alan Garber, objected to the 'claim that Harvard is a partisan institution'. Yet he also acknowledged a 'need for greater intellectual diversity on campus' and indicated, without elaborating, that the university was taking 'initiatives to make Harvard a more pluralistic and welcoming place'. Last year, before Trump was again elected president, Harvard already appeared to be trying to change course. The school's Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced that instead of 'diversity statements', applicants would submit statements on their 'efforts to strengthen academic communities'. The university also convened a working group to study 'open inquiry' on campus. The group's report, released last October, found that 45% of students and 51% of teaching faculty were reluctant to discuss charged topics in class. More recently, in the face of Trump administration pressure, Harvard and other universities have walked back DEI efforts. Harvard recently renamed its diversity office the 'office for community and campus life' and said that it would no longer fund 'affinity celebrations', which are optional graduation events for identity-based groups, after the federal government said it would cut funding because of them. Harvard's most aggressive moves, however, have been its efforts to suppress sentiment viewed as being anti-Israel. In January, following a legal settlement with a group of students who accused the university of tolerating antisemitism, Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, despite opposition by people – including the author of the definition – who argue it is too easily used against critics of Israel. In March, the university dismissed the leaders of the school's Center for Middle Eastern Studies as well as suspended the Harvard Divinity School's 'Religion, Conflict, and Peace' Initiative. Critics had accused both of promoting one-sided views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Other colleges and universities have taken similar tacks. Last year, Muhlenberg college, in Pennsylvania, fired Maura Finkelstein, an anthropologist known for her stridently anti-Zionist views, on the grounds that her perspective discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students. Universities broadly have taken restrictive measures to prevent a resurgence of widespread pro-Palestinian protests. The Atlantic recently speculated that Harvard and other universities, spurred by the political climate, may engage in a kind of 'affirmative action' for conservatives. Johns Hopkins announced a project this April, in collaboration with the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, to 'increase heterodox faculty across the university'. It is unclear if academia's efforts to move right will make much difference. When it comes to higher education, the Trumpian right has not generally seemed forgiving of the ideological indulgences of the recent past. Despite Columbia's capitulation and Harvard's concessions, the government has not shown many signs that it is going to moderate its aggression. The University of Florida recently un-hired Santa Ono, an academic who was formerly the president of the University of Michigan, because conservatives disapproved of his past support for diversity efforts. Ono's efforts to distance himself from his own decisions made no difference. Reforms and compromises may not be enough to satisfy officials whose ultimate goal may look less like reform and more like retribution.
Fox News
28-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
AOC fundraises on trying to abolish ICE amid Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration
Republicans are ripping progressive New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for renewing her call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a recent fundraising email. "I believe that ICE, an agency that was just formed in 2003 during the Patriot Act era, is a rogue agency that should not exist," Ocasio-Cortez said in a fundraising email obtained by Fox News Digital. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Republicans' campaign arm, criticized the potential 2028 presidential candidate in an X post for fundraising on wanting to abolish ICE, a progressive rallying cry that rejects President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. "House Democrat Minority Leader AOC is doubling down on their party's most extreme, unhinged agenda, while the rest of her party is bending their knee to the radical wing. At this rate, the Democrat platform in 2026 will be a fever dream of defunding the police, wide open borders, and far-left hellscapes," NRCC Spokesman Mike Marinella told Fox News Digital in a statement. "Why are you considered to be extreme?" Ocasio-Cortez asked in the fundraising email. It's a strategy often deployed by the progressive New Yorker, according to a Fox News Digital review of Ocasio-Cortez's campaign emails. Ocasio-Cortez says she is considered "extreme" because she supports Medicare for All, champions the Green New Deal, challenges Democratic Party leadership, believes in "democratic socialism," is funded by small-dollar donations and believes ICE should "not exist." The potential 2028 candidate was at the forefront of the "abolish ICE" movement, a rejection of Trump's immigration policies in his first administration, during her 2018 congressional campaign when she unseated longtime Democrat incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley. While older, moderate Democrats haven't been as vocal about abolishing ICE, another young progressive, who has faced heat within his party for a plan to primary challenge older Democratic incumbents in safe blue districts who are "asleep at the wheel," DNC vice chair David Hogg, has also called to "abolish ICE." "We must acknowledge the terrifying moment that we are in right now, and that what we are hearing and seeing with our own eyes is, in fact, happening. We are watching as our neighbors, students and friends are being fired, targeted and disappeared. It is real. People we love are being targeted and harassed for being LGBTQ. Our co-workers, U.S. citizens and immigrants alike are being disappeared off the street by men in vans with no uniform," Ocasio-Cortez told a crowd in Montana on Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Fighting Oligarchy" Tour. Ocasio-Cortez has an ongoing feud with Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, as the New York congresswoman instructs her constituents how to impede ICE arrests. Ocasio-Cortez is facing a potential Department of Justice probe for a webinar she hosted in February on how to handle ICE agents. The Trump administration has led a robust crackdown on illegal immigration since returning to the White House this year. During the first 100 days of Trump's second term, ICE arrested 66,463 illegal immigrants and removed 65,682, according to ICE. The agency said three in four of those arrests of illegal immigrants involved someone accused of committing a crime. The Fox News Voter Analysis in 2024 found that 52% of voters said Trump was the better candidate to handle immigration, while just 36% said Harris. Additionally, it was a top issue for voters, with 20% saying it was the most important issue facing the country. Ocasio-Cortez, Homan, DHS and the DCCC did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.
