Some examples of helicopter liberalism
Free Beacon - Bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will weigh and measure children in daycare as part of a study mandated by First Lady Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act... Aside from assessing how healthy the food in daycare is, the USDA will also check the weight and height of roughly 3,000 children...The study is required by section 223 of Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama and passed in 2010. The main aspect of the law implemented new standards for school lunches.
Students are unhappy about their “chickpea sliders” and whole grain pizza, mandated by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama. The USDA has a 33-page guide—complete with flow charts—telling schools how they can meet the whole grain requirements.
Fox NYC - Health officials in New York City are cutting the amount of juice that can be served in day care centers and raising the age of children who can drink it. In new rules published this week, the Health Code limits the amount of juice a child can drink a day at 4 ounces. The old rules allowed 6 ounces a day. Children must now also be 2-years-old to be served juice. The old rules allowed children as young as 8-months old to be served juice. The city cites USDA recommendations that the majority of a child's recommended fruit servings should come from whole fruit.
The new rules also cut the amount of educational TV viewing for children from 60 minutes a day to 30. Also, children under the age of 2 are not allowed any TV viewing time.
The rules also require that children not be allowed to remain sedentary or to sit passively for more than 30 minutes at a time except during nap time.
Christian Science Monitor - During a town hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio President Barack Obama floated the idea of making voting in America compulsory.
The shift in liberalism
David Callahan, American Prospect, 2010 - The wealthy have long occupied an awkward place in liberal politics. Since the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a movement that purports to speak for the common person has occasionally relied on fabulously rich candidates and backers. Yet something new has happened in recent years: The wealthy have become more than episodic allies of the left; they are now central players in progressivism.
Back in 1990, rich liberals were still something of a novelty. A small and predictable cast of donors gave money to progressive causes and candidates...These donors were outliers. The Forbes 400 was dominated by industries that leaned solidly right, and affluent voters were still largely Republican. California's prosperity in the 1970s famously helped fuel the rise of the new right and Ronald Reagan's career. In 1988, George H.W. Bush -- a Northeastern Republican from old money -- won a majority of America's wealthiest counties.
That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance. In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees...
Affluent voters have tacked left, too. Barack Obama won eight out of 10 of the wealthiest U.S. counties in 2008, and this was no onetime fluke. John Kerry won most of those same counties in 2004. Meanwhile, many of the wealthiest congressional districts routinely re-elect strong liberals, such as Henry Waxman of Los Angeles and Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan's Upper East Side.
Traditional class alignments have not disappeared by any means. Obama won his largest margins among the poorest voters, and organizers from labor, community groups, and other broad-based organizations still provide much of the day-to-day muscle for progressive politics. That has been especially clear over the past year, in the battles over health care and financial reform.
But if people power remains a key driver of progressive advances, the overall trend of the past 20 years is that the wealthy have become steadily more pivotal to liberal politics while the left's social movements have stalled. For instance, just 7.2 percent of private industry workers now belong to unions, down from 11.9 percent in 1990...
Affluent donors and voters have often led the charge to push the Democratic Party to the left on social issues, like abortion and gender equality, as well as on the environment.
Especially notable in recent years has been the role of wealthy gay donors in demanding that Democrats stand up in favor of gay rights. At times, rich liberals have also pushed Democrats left on national security. One reason candidate Obama raked in big early money was that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq.
The picture looks quite different on economic issues. Many among the putatively liberal rich don't care much for unions or regulation and believe fervently in free trade. Worst of all, a Democratic Party neutered by Wall Street money supported the deregulation that led to the 2008 meltdown. Obama's close ties to the financial sector, which contributed heavily to his presidential bid, help to explain why Obama picked a centrist economic team and has taken a tepid approach to reform. Most of the energy for reining in Wall Street has come not from the White House but from the Democratic base.
Free Beacon - Bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will weigh and measure children in daycare as part of a study mandated by First Lady Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act... Aside from assessing how healthy the food in daycare is, the USDA will also check the weight and height of roughly 3,000 children...The study is required by section 223 of Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama and passed in 2010. The main aspect of the law implemented new standards for school lunches.
Students are unhappy about their “chickpea sliders” and whole grain pizza, mandated by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama. The USDA has a 33-page guide—complete with flow charts—telling schools how they can meet the whole grain requirements.
Fox NYC - Health officials in New York City are cutting the amount of juice that can be served in day care centers and raising the age of children who can drink it. In new rules published this week, the Health Code limits the amount of juice a child can drink a day at 4 ounces. The old rules allowed 6 ounces a day. Children must now also be 2-years-old to be served juice. The old rules allowed children as young as 8-months old to be served juice. The city cites USDA recommendations that the majority of a child's recommended fruit servings should come from whole fruit.
The new rules also cut the amount of educational TV viewing for children from 60 minutes a day to 30. Also, children under the age of 2 are not allowed any TV viewing time.
The rules also require that children not be allowed to remain sedentary or to sit passively for more than 30 minutes at a time except during nap time.
Christian Science Monitor - During a town hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio President Barack Obama floated the idea of making voting in America compulsory.
The shift in liberalism
David Callahan, American Prospect, 2010 - The wealthy have long occupied an awkward place in liberal politics. Since the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a movement that purports to speak for the common person has occasionally relied on fabulously rich candidates and backers. Yet something new has happened in recent years: The wealthy have become more than episodic allies of the left; they are now central players in progressivism.
Back in 1990, rich liberals were still something of a novelty. A small and predictable cast of donors gave money to progressive causes and candidates...These donors were outliers. The Forbes 400 was dominated by industries that leaned solidly right, and affluent voters were still largely Republican. California's prosperity in the 1970s famously helped fuel the rise of the new right and Ronald Reagan's career. In 1988, George H.W. Bush -- a Northeastern Republican from old money -- won a majority of America's wealthiest counties.
That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance. In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees...
Affluent voters have tacked left, too. Barack Obama won eight out of 10 of the wealthiest U.S. counties in 2008, and this was no onetime fluke. John Kerry won most of those same counties in 2004. Meanwhile, many of the wealthiest congressional districts routinely re-elect strong liberals, such as Henry Waxman of Los Angeles and Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan's Upper East Side.
Traditional class alignments have not disappeared by any means. Obama won his largest margins among the poorest voters, and organizers from labor, community groups, and other broad-based organizations still provide much of the day-to-day muscle for progressive politics. That has been especially clear over the past year, in the battles over health care and financial reform.
But if people power remains a key driver of progressive advances, the overall trend of the past 20 years is that the wealthy have become steadily more pivotal to liberal politics while the left's social movements have stalled. For instance, just 7.2 percent of private industry workers now belong to unions, down from 11.9 percent in 1990...
Affluent donors and voters have often led the charge to push the Democratic Party to the left on social issues, like abortion and gender equality, as well as on the environment.
Especially notable in recent years has been the role of wealthy gay donors in demanding that Democrats stand up in favor of gay rights. At times, rich liberals have also pushed Democrats left on national security. One reason candidate Obama raked in big early money was that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq.
The picture looks quite different on economic issues. Many among the putatively liberal rich don't care much for unions or regulation and believe fervently in free trade. Worst of all, a Democratic Party neutered by Wall Street money supported the deregulation that led to the 2008 meltdown. Obama's close ties to the financial sector, which contributed heavily to his presidential bid, help to explain why Obama picked a centrist economic team and has taken a tepid approach to reform. Most of the energy for reining in Wall Street has come not from the White House but from the Democratic base.
No comments:
Post a Comment