Adam Schiff says Trump ‘doesn’t give a shit about what’s good for our country’ – live | US news

The signers are law professors and other academics from universities across the country, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan and many others. The open letter was published online Friday by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

‘There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,’ the group of professors wrote. ‘His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.’

Source link

Joe Biden Refuses to Voluntarily Testify at Impeachment Proceedings

Joe Biden ruled out the possibility that he would voluntarily testify in the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, saying to do so would “divert” away from the issue at hand.

“No, I’m not going to let them take their eye off the ball,” the former vice president told reporters when asked about the possibility on his “No Malarkey” bus tour in Iowa. “The president is the one who has committed impeachable crimes, and I’m not going to let him divert from that. I’m not going to let anyone divert from that.”

Biden’s refusal sets up the likelihood that he would need to be subpoenaed to appear before Congress, especially if the impeachment inquiry proceeds to a trial in the Senate. Some Republicans, like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), have already signaled it would be inappropriate for the impeachment inquiry, let alone a trial, to progress without the testimonies of both the former vice president and his youngest son, Hunter. As such, Senate Republicans have begun looking into the Obama-era White House and Hunter Biden’s wheeling and dealing in Ukraine, which has taken center stage in the inquiry.

The former vice president, for his part, has responded to calls that he and his son testify by lashing out at the Republicans, like Graham.

“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Biden said last month when asked about the senator’s efforts around impeachment. “I say Lindsey, I just—I’m just embarrassed by what you’re doing, for you. I mean, my Lord.”

Biden’s refusal to testify also underscores just how central he and his son are to the Democrats’ case for impeaching Trump. The controversy started when Trump suggested the Ukrainian government investigate how Hunter Biden was able to secure a seat on the board of directors of Burisma Holdings. The younger Biden was appointed to the Ukraine-based natural gas company’s board in 2014, despite having no background in either the energy industry or eastern Europe. More troubling was the fact that Hunter Biden’s appointment seemed to coincide with his father being tapped to lead the Obama administration’s policy towards in Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden’s background in investment banking, lobbying, and hedge fund management paled in comparison to that of current and past members of Burisma’s board.

Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting leaders in the West to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month that Hunter Biden was tapped to join the company’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Burisma’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, under suspicion of money laundering.

A Ukrainian official with strong ties to Zlochevsky admitted in October the only reason that Hunter Biden secured the appointment was to “protect” the company from foreign scrutiny.

It is in the context of Burisma and Zlochevsky’s legal troubles that Joe Biden’s political influence has raised the most red flags. The former vice president has particularly drawn questions over his conduct in demanding the Ukrainian government fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in 2016.

Joe Biden, who has publicly bragged about the firing, reportedly threatened to withhold more than one billion dollars in U.S. aid if the Ukrainian government did not remove Shokin. He has claimed the demand came from then-President Barack Obama, who had allegedly lost faith in the prosecutor’s ability to tackle corruption.

Unofficially, though, it was known that Shokin was investigating both Burisma and Zlochevsky for public corruption. It is uncertain if the probe extended to Hunter Biden, although Shokin has recently admitted that prior to his ouster, he was warned to back off the matter. Regardless of what occurred, Shokin’s successor, who is now himself being investigated for public corruption, dropped the investigation into Burisma.

Congressional Republicans have cited the shadowy timeline of events and the appearance of conflicting interests when arguing for Hunter and Joe Biden to testify before the impeachment proceedings.

“I believe that Hunter Biden’s association on that board doesn’t pass the smell test,” Graham told reporters last month. “If a Republican was in the same boat they would be eaten alive by the media.”

Source link

Did the queen ‘scold’ Princess Anne for not greeting Trump? Many sure think so

LONDON – So much in a shrug, and a side-eyed glance.

Forget NATO. Brits were obsessing Wednesday on a viral snip of video that appeared – appeared, mind you – to show Queen Elizabeth II seeming to chastise her daughter, Princess Anne, at the moment the monarch was greeting President Donald Trump and the first lady at a reception at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday night.

The queen was hosting Trump and other world leaders, who are in London for a NATO leaders summit, when an exchange between her and her daughter was caught on camera.

The tabloids went a little nuts.

The Mirror headline: “Princess Anne’s incredible reaction after ‘scolding’ from Queen for not greeting Trump.”

While the Sun went with, “HEIR-RAISING: Princess Anne shrugs as The Queen ‘scolds her during Trump greeting.’ ”

The Daily Express saw her majesty and daughter “having a silent argument” and the Mail Online said “Queen ‘directs’ Anne while welcoming Trump to Buckingham Palace.”

But what did the short video clip show?

It was all a bit of a Rorschach test, that allowed viewers to interpret as they like.

Some saw Anne loath to meet Trump – and that view was trending on British Twitter, as posters poured on the love for Anne for dissing the unpopular American president.

Others saw the Notorious Q at work – “side-eyeing” her only daughter Anne to get in line, like a naughty corgi.

In the video, shared widely on social media, the Trumps walk forward to approach the queen, who is standing next to her eldest son, Prince Charles, and his wife, Camilla. Trump exchanges a few words with the queen, who smiles back, and then he shakes Camilla’s hand; Melania then greets Charles and Camilla.

Bit of a snore, so far.

Handbag, check. Hat, check. Gloves, check. Protocol, check.

But then, the queen, 93, turns her head toward Anne, 69, who is nearby but not in the receiving line.

Mum shoots… a look.

Daughter flashes another look back at her mother and shrugs her shoulders.

She appears to say, “What?”

The footage quickly went viral.

David Lammy, a Labour Party politician and outspoken critic of the Trump family, tweeted the video and said, “Princess Anne’s shrug when it appears she is asked by the Queen to greet Donald Trump speaks for the nation.”

Many agreed with Lammy’s take. They thought they saw something political. One poster on Twitter wrote, “Anne is like ‘nahhh thanks!’ ”

Others called Lammy a “wally” (a silly or inept person) and said it showed nothing of the sort.

Richard Fitzwilliams, a royal commentator, told the Sun Online he was “fascinated” by the video clip.

He defended Anne and said she would not have been expected to be part of the reception line beside the queen or Charles and Camilla.

Meaning, there was nothing really to see here – nobody was dissing anyone.

The Mail Online found a body-language expert, Judi James, who told the tabloid, “the Queen appeared to ‘wave’ to her daughter, as if signalling she should come over and join the conversation, or continue the procession.

“In response, Princess Anne simply shrugged toward her mother. James speculated she might have been indicating that she could not move on until the Trumps had gone ahead.

“Anne’s open-armed shrug to her mother suggests she’s staying put, but more through helplessness than stubbornness, which could imply the Trumps needed to move along before she could take her place,” the body-language reader told the newspaper.

The royals were out in force on Tuesday night, doing their thing, sprinkling royal star dust on an event in as grand a setting as they come.

However, there was no sign of Prince Andrew, the queen’s second son, who announced he was stepping back from royal duties following his disastrous interview on the BBC about his links to Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender.

Nor were Prince Harry or his wife, Meghan, anywhere about – the couple had earlier announced they were taking a weeks-long break for family time.

But the queen is the star of the show, and nobody works a room like her. The queen has, with very few exceptions, steered clear of politics during her long reign and has won praise from political rivals.

After his state visit in June, Trump called the queen a “great, great woman.” When then-President Barack Obama was in Britain for the queen’s 90th birthday, he described her as “truly, one of my favourite people.”

During a recent televised debate, the leaders of Britain’s two main political parties were asked about the monarchy in the wake of the scandal with Andrew. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, said it needed “a bit of improvement.”

Choosing his words carefully, Johnson said “the institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach.”

Anne is known as the queen’s most down-to-earth child, she notably didn’t give her children royal titles

Anne is the queen and Prince Philip’s second child and only daughter. She is the first royal to have competed in the Olympics – taking part in equestrian events – and her daughter, Zara Tindall, won a silver medal in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

As fans of “The Crown” television series will know, Anne is known as the queen’s most down-to-earth child – she notably didn’t give her children royal titles. She is often dubbed the “hardest-working royal” by the British press for taking part in more royal “engagements” than any other member of the royal family.

Anne was seen in another video clip from Tuesday that has also gone viral.

In a hot mic moment, a conversation was picked up between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron. The group appeared to be joking about Trump, who turned photo calls into impromptu news conferences earlier that day.

Trudeau can be heard saying, “he was late because he takes a 40-minute news conference off the top,” and later said, “you just watched his team’s jaws drop to the floor.”

Anne then chimes in, but it’s unclear exactly what she said.

Source link

Trade war: France hits back over US tariff threat on cheese and champagne – business live | Business

US President Donald J. Trump landing at London’s Stansted Airport last night

US President Donald J. Trump landing at London’s Stansted Airport last night Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and business.

So much for the season of goodwill! Donald Trump has spooked the financial markets again, with a fresh flurry of tariffs that further escalate his trade war war.

Overnight, the Trump administration on Monday proposed new tariffs up to $2.4bn of French goods. Prized exports, including champagne, cheese, handbags, porcelain, cheeses and yoghurt would incur a new levy of up to 100%.

This swingeing move is a retaliation against France’s new digital services tax, which Washington says unfairly discriminated against American technology companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer declared that the move:

“sends a clear signal that the United States will take action against digital tax regimes that discriminate or otherwise impose undue burdens on US companies.”

The move casts a shadow over today’s meeting of NATO leaders in London, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the military alliance.

The attack on French exporters came just hours after Trump announced he was raising tariffs on steel and aluminium from Brazil and Argentina, in retaliation for their currencies falling to record lows.

That knocked stocks across the globe, with European stock markets suffering their worst day in two months on Monday. Wall Street also suffered, with the Dow losing almost 1%.

The selloff is now spreading to Asia, where Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 has slumped by over 2%.

Hopes that Trump might secure a trade deal with China had driven markets higher in recent weeks; investors are now worrying that America could take a more belligerent approach. Tariffs restrict trade and drag on global growth, so any escalation is bad news for the global economy.

Jasper Lawler of London Capital Group says Trump’s latest barrage of tariffs has surprised the markets.

The US placing steel and aluminium tariffs on Argentina and Brazil caught markets off guard. Traders have had US-China trade tunnel vision. As Americans would say, this came out of left field.

The new tariffs in South America are a reminder that with Trump as US President, a phase one trade deal with China doesn’t mean global trade just resets to the old status quo.

As I type, France is vowing to hit back, so it could be a tense day….



December 3, 2019



December 3, 2019

The agenda

  • 9.30am GMT: UK construction PMI for November: Expected to rise to 44.5, from 44.5, showing another contraction

Source link

Furious China Denounces U.S. Bills in Support of Hong Kong Protesters

President Donald Trump’s signing of bills on Hong Kong human rights drew a furious reaction from China’s Communist regime on Thursday, with the U.S. ambassador in Beijing summoned to face a warning the move has been denounced by “all Chinese people” and the U.S. should ready for a “stern” response.

Trump signed the bills, which were approved by near unanimous consent in the House and Senate, in a show of support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrators, as Breitbart News reported.

“I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong,” Trump said in a statement. “They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all.”

The law, which confirms the U.S. backing pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong, further escalates tensions between Beijing and the U.S. and elicited a spirited denunciation from China.

“This is a pure interference in China’s internal affairs,” China’s ministry of foreign affairs said on Thursday, hours after the bill was passed into law. “This bill, which has been denounced by all Chinese people, including Hong Kong compatriots, is full of prejudice and arrogance. It treats Hong Kong with intimidation and threats.

“Such an act will make Chinese people, including Hong Kong compatriots, understand the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the U.S.,” the ministry added in comments repeated across Chinese state media. “The U.S. plot is doomed to fail.”

Kurt Zindulka

Beijing summoned U.S. ambassador Terry Branstad for the second time in a week to demand Washington stop interfering in China’s internal affairs. China also promised it would retaliate with “firm countermeasures”

Asked what those countermeasures would be, Geng Shuang, spokesman for the ministry simply said: “What is due to come will eventually come.”

Trump also signed a second bill passed by Congress, banning the export to the Hong Kong police of crowd-control munitions, such as teargas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and stun guns.

“I signed these bills out of respect for president Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong. They are being enacted in the hope that leaders and representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all,” Trump confirmed a statement on Wednesday.

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 allows the United States to level sanctions on individuals who carry out human rights violations in Hong Kong, which has been rocked by mass protests for more than five months.

The legislation also requires the State Department’s annual certification to Congress that Hong Kong is “upholding the rule of law and protecting rights” before continuing the city’s special relationship with the U.S.

Hong Kong, a former British colony that was granted special autonomy when China took control in 1997, has been rocked by six months of sometimes violent pro-democracy demonstrations, as Breitbart News has reported extensively from the outset.

AP and AFP contributed to this report

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: [email protected]

Source link

Senators Seek ‘Suspicious Activity Reports’ on Ukraine, Hunter Biden

Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the United States Treasury to inquire about “suspicious activity reports” related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his employment with Ukrainian energy empire Burisma.

Reuters reported on the November 15 letter sent by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to Ken Blanco, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network:

The letter, seen by Reuters on Friday, seeks “suspicious activity reports,” or documents that financial institutions file with the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network when a case of money laundering or fraud is suspected.

It was unclear if any such reports exist regarding Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son. There letter gave no evidence that Hunter Biden engaged in suspicious activity that would have been covered by such reports.

The agency does not comment on the reports, a spokesman said. Fincen, as the network is known, collects more than 2 million such reports each year, and they are tipsheets that make no findings on whether illegal activity has occurred.

The letter is part of an effort in Congress to defend President Donald Trump for what Republicans say is a partisan effort by Democrats to make a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky where the Bidens’ Ukrainian dealings were discussed an impeachable offense.

The lawmakers set a Dec. 5 deadline for Treasury to respond to the request.

Reuters noted in its report that Hunter Biden served on the board of directors for Burisima, which has been investigated for corruption. The younger Biden served on the board while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States.

“In the letter, the senators said Burisma was paying Hunter Biden as much as $50,000 a month and their panels were investigating ‘potentially improper actions by the Obama administration with respect to Burisma Holdings and Ukraine,’” Reuters reported.

In the final paragraph of the Reuters report, another investigation is revealed: Grassley and Johnson have asked the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration for records of a 2016 White House meeting between Obama administration officials, representatives of the Ukrainian government, and officials from the Democratic National Committee.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

Source link

Impeachment hearings: Fiona Hill rejects Republicans' ‘fictional narrative’ Ukraine meddled in US election – live

Military aid was withheld by Trump to express dissatisfaction or increase pressure, state department aide Holmes testifies

  • In this defining moment for America, support the Guardian’s independent journalism. Make a contribution

5.20pm GMT

5.02pm GMT

A further line from the House speaker’s news conference:

Pelosi on charges the impeachment is not bipartisan: “Republicans are in denial about the facts. if they don’t want to honor their oath of office, I don’t think we should be characterized as partisan.”

Continue reading…

Source link

European Central Bank warns of growing risks to global financial stability – business live | Business

Alibaba raises up to £10bn in Hong Kong share offering

Prosus hits back after and Just Eat try to go forward with merger

Risks to global financial stability have increased, according to the European Central Bank

Source link

To the Brink of Democracy and an Unholy Alliance with the US

With the installation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the second of the (self-declared) oldest democracies of the world, has, alongside political developments in the United States, reached a tipping point. The political system(s), and most importantly the traditional principle of the division of powers, of both will have to demonstrate their resilience against anti-democratic leaders. If this principle fails to show its working order and effectiveness, then democratic politics and the recognition of the rule of law in the US and the UK are seriously endangered. There can be no doubt that Johnson and his cabinet suffer from democratic illegitimacy: a handful of people, namely the party members of the Conservatives and Conservative Members of Parliament at Westminster, have voted for a new Prime Minister, while the nation’s electorate has been ignored. The counterargument that Johnson’s legitimacy derives from the mandate of the Conservatives’ win in the 2017 general election is, however, an invalid argument as the electorate mandated, and arguable rightly so, a prime minister (Theresa May) who promoted and pursued a very different agenda to Johnson. This is what received a public mandate, not Johnson.

As a consequence, Johnson’s premiership resembles a democratically illegitimate coup d’état by an elitist minority, now established with power over life-impacting decisions on future generations – namely the outcome of Brexit. New elections to receive a mandate, or not, would be the only democratically acceptable way forward. New elections to receive democratic legitimacy applies to Johnson as this demand similarly would have applied to Gordon Brown’s succession of Tony Blair in 2007. But Johnson would not be Johnson if he called for new elections as this would exhibit uncharacteristic honesty and democratic attitudes. As an alternative example in a comparative perspective, the then spiritual brother of Margaret Thatcher, the previous German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (1982-1998), launched a similar change of government (although through a confidence vote, not party leadership change), but immediately announced new elections after his toppling of the previous government in 1983.

This points to the question of honesty in politics; and this brings us back to the reference to the US. With Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, the US and the UK, two Western nations that pride themselves as the oldest democracies worldwide, have two supreme political leaders who have a proven record of public naughtiness with regard to their uneven and erratic tempers, their disrespectful language and misbehaviour towards their likewise erratically chosen enemies (often in public through social media), their ignorance or dismissal of their fellow citizens’ sentiments and fair-mindedness; and whose behaviour is influenced, if not determined by egomania. Thus, the question arises inevitably: how could it come to this? One might probably have to admit that politicians have always twisted their arguments, even lied, have always pursued bipartisan ideologies, and have always needed a strong ego to sustain and be successful in political competition. This is very likely true. But what causes dismay and disgrace is the blatant and unashamed impertinence with which the Trumps and Johnsons of this world present their divisive ideologies time and again. (It is noteworthy that Trump has been the first well-wisher to Johnson, via Twitter, of course, in his typically gauche language, calling him a ‘good man’ and a ‘very good guy’).

But also this has been the case in history, one might say: there have always been nasty politicians, and the inversion of democratic values and political ethics into activist, thoughtless, and aggressive battle-cries is not only what we know from political literature, but also from history. (The analogy to fascism of Trump’s stirring-up rants during his rallies, for example, is not (yet) what Johnson does, but one does not need to stretch the imagination too far to imagine Johnson acting like this). However, the crucial point is: even if there are historic precedents of politicians acting and speaking like Trump and Johnson, this only raises suspicions of how far down politics has declined the UK and the US to have two supreme leaders who relentlessly violate democratic public goods and political ethics, foremost of which is their complete lack of respect for plurality, equality, law, and honesty.

Likewise, this points to another conclusion. There is no doubt that there are millions of decent people in the UK and the US who are offended and disgusted by the likes of Johnson and Trump. But the fact that such men have risen to the highest leadership raises, too, the question of the moral fabric of societies which create the conditions for them to rise to power. Just one simple question: We would be unlikely to accept a person who constantly lies and cheats in our circle of friends, but society has made it possible that they become installed as national leaders. As potential friends we would not grant them enough credibility to be trustworthy and we would turn around and tell them to leave a dinner party. But what do we do when such people occupy national executives and heavily influence our, and our children’s future? The founder of investigative journalism, the US journalist Walter Lippmann, in the 1920s stated that a society which cannot detect lies is not fit for freedom. Hence, are we fit for freedom?

Parts of British and American society appear to be sleepwalking into Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: amusing themselves so to not realise their loss of freedom. And there is a sheer endless number of trivial daily amusements in the modern, image-flooded, technological world. So, we have to be on our toes and relentlessly vigilant to master the challenge of our times: namely to work for the cultivation of public mores which would not allow the likes of Trump and Johnson to hijack politics. Such mores, i.e., foremost respect for plurality, equality, law, and honesty, would link the public mandate of leadership with esteem and decency which it has lost. Some may say that this was never the case, however, we should not forget about the differences between, for instance Jimmy Carter or John McCain and Donald Trump, or Boris Johnson’s record of dishonesty and amateurishness as Mayor of London and before. Loud activism seems to render politics ill-founded and desultory. But we as people should not accept this. We deserve better. But we have to get involved and make our disagreements and discomfort heard. We need to detect and unveil the twists and tweaks of their politics; and we must use all legal means to fight for our freedom and future which is threatened by egocentric and ill-prepared demagogues whose only skills are outrage and noisy political behaviour. However, to not sleepwalk like Huxley’s protagonists and not amusing ourselves to death (i.e., losing freedom) without noticing it, we need a further awareness because Trump’s and Johnson’s lies are creating deeper labyrinths. Their language is ‘gaslighting’, i.e. psychologically manipulative and distorting our perception of reality, reminding us of the eponymous 1944-movie with Ingrid Bergmann. To not have our political perception of what is ‘honest’ and ‘dishonest’, ‘democratic’ and ‘undemocratic’, ‘respectful’ and ‘disrespectful’ destroyed and inverted, and to not get used to regard politics as per se evil and selfish, but to uphold certain standards of public life and mandate, we must cultivate our awareness and sharpness observing and critically commenting on politics; and not only amusing ourselves while drifting into the dystopia of a brave new world.

Coming back to Lippmann’s warning: It emphasises another indispensable condition for freedom to detect lies, namely to the value of education. Education is here understood not as specialised education in a particular subject, discipline, or profession, but as the cultivation of general knowledge and of political and ethical judgement, parallel to the German concept of “Bildung”. In other words, this skill of political judgment and knowledge would theoretically allow every individual to scrutinise the knowledge claims made by politicians. It would allow to check those claims for evidence, consistency, and factual truth. It would thus detect lies or “gaslighting”. This is a crucial target for primary, secondary, and HE in order to build and save democracy; and every democracy that really wants to be one should aspire this critical skill in its people. Many conclusions for the educational system and the national curriculum follow-on from this which to develop I do not have time here. But critical issues touch upon questions of student fees, elitism, social mobility through education, and curriculum development. The neo-liberalisation and the development of education into a market commodity seem detrimental to Lippmann’s plea and the conditions of its realization. Indeed, and this is last point I wish to make, there is seems to be a silent, but ever stronger and harmful complicity between the neo-liberalisation of education and authoritarian government – that is authoritarian precisely as it abolishes a critical civil society.

This aspect becomes visible through the application of a Foucauldian perspective on the relation between power and knowledge and would suggest that knowledge is organised in such a way that it produces a certain kind of society to make a certain kind of power organisation and execution possible. When applying this to the power of capitalist market ideology, then knowledge would be organised so that it produces a non-reflective, non-critical consumer: in large, a consumer society which does not critically explore politics, government, elections, public morality, the limits of law and ethics, but is complacent in superficial happiness, with money-making, and consumerism. Such critique of modern, industrial society is not new – we know such critique since the 1960s with Herbert Marcuse’s One-dimensional Man – but such critique receives novel topicality through the current overwhelming degree of political disenchantment and retreat into the private sphere. In this vein, it would be important research to study comparatively the structure, content, and historical developments of national curricula in the UK, the US, and elsewhere in order to determine and assess this ‘soft skill’, so-to-speak, of democracy and the future of democratic society.

Source link