logo
It could be that some New Hampshire Republicans just need to do a little more reading

It could be that some New Hampshire Republicans just need to do a little more reading

Yahoo21-05-2025

"The far right now dominating the American Republican Party is selling an idea of liberty that in practice amounts to unfettered freedom but only for the like-minded." (Getty Images)
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about why Democratic politicians struggle so much to connect with working-class voters. That's for the party leaders and candidates to figure out. But it's entirely possible that Fyodor Dostoyevsky partially diagnosed the problem almost 150 years ago, when he wrote in 'The Brothers Karamazov': 'The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.'
Recent Republican success winning over the working class is a little easier to understand considering America's Puritan roots. The right has long made political hay by convincing millions of voters that the degradation of society is most evident not in corrupt fiscal policies but in expressions of human sexuality. Every legislative session has its examples, and this year one of them is a book banning bill now headed to the governor's desk.
House Bill 324 is touted by conservatives as 'parental rights' legislation meant to keep certain books out of the hands of impressionable young people. It reads: 'This bill prohibits material that is obscene or harmful to minors in schools and creates a procedure for removal and cause of action.'
'Obscene,' of course, always refers to sexuality and not the cherished Americana of extreme violence. And, importantly, it does not encompass the most glaring national obscenity: economic inequality.
Whether or not you buy the Republican argument that HB 324 targets only 'flat-out pornography' in schools — which seems unlikely because that's already covered under New Hampshire's existing obscenity laws — author Jodi Picoult is correct in her assessment of the bill's true intent and the price we all pay for censorship: 'These parents will tell you that the books are exposing kids to topics that are salacious or revolutionary. What kids are really being exposed to are lives and mindsets different from their own, which creates compassion and empathy.'
The bottom line is that what Republican New Hampshire lawmakers — and many conservative parents — don't like is LGBTQ themes in literature. Why? Because they are convinced that the four horsemen of the American apocalypse will ride into town dressed in drag. But the riders they should worry about have always been with us, gulping the rarefied air of Pullman palace cars and private jet cabins.
The American right's fixation on sexuality is bad enough on its own, but it is downright confounding when coupled with Republican-backed efforts that exacerbate economic inequality. Only one of those things is an existential threat to the American experiment, and I promise you it's not Picoult's 'Nineteen Minutes.'
HB 324 is an unnecessary bill that exists only to scratch the Republican itch to crush content it deems symbolic of Western decline. But the real threats to society are found elsewhere.
For example, consider New Hampshire Republicans' myopic repeal of the Interest and Dividends Tax, an action undertaken in service to the state's economic elite. That move should be constantly discussed and dissected in this state, especially now as lawmakers work at cutting hundreds of millions from the next state budget. But conservatives would rather fish in libraries for words and themes to be offended by. Meanwhile, those with the least in New Hampshire are on the threshold of fresh harm from the right's cold budget priorities.
If you want more evidence of this dynamic, consider the 'big beautiful bill' now in the works in Washington, D.C. Once again, a few will win and the struggling many will lose. But the trick to sneaking garbage like that through is to make people look for threats in the wrong places. Immigrants, diversity programs, books with titles like 'Gender Queer.' Republican voters are made to believe that those are the issues pulling at America's seams and not the obvious culprit: the 1 percent's scorched-earth pursuit of limitless wealth.
Riding shotgun with all of this is the rot of hypocrisy. The far right now dominating the American Republican Party is selling an idea of liberty that in practice amounts to unfettered freedom but only for the like-minded. That is why the party so consistently defends bigots and punches down on the vulnerable. You can see evidence of this in the always-uneven Republican application of 'local control.' How is HB 324 in alignment with local control? How are any of the laws targeting transgender rights in alignment?
Well, they're not, because 'local control' isn't a Republican principle. It's a label applied or removed as a matter of philosophical convenience.
The New Hampshire Legislature's latest go at book banning is unsurprising, considering the puritanical forces as old as the nation itself that continue to influence conservative ideology. But if they're as concerned about the degradation of society as they say, one can only hope that they'll realize before it's too late that the call is coming from inside their house.
Because sexual content in a novel isn't going to be America's undoing, but the continuation of policies that increase the nation's already obscene levels of economic inequality almost certainly will.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet

Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on

‘MAGA Will Not Sell Out to Ketamine': In the Trump-Musk Breakup, the MAGA Faithful Is Sticking With Trump
‘MAGA Will Not Sell Out to Ketamine': In the Trump-Musk Breakup, the MAGA Faithful Is Sticking With Trump

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘MAGA Will Not Sell Out to Ketamine': In the Trump-Musk Breakup, the MAGA Faithful Is Sticking With Trump

People had a lot of worries at Butterworth's on Thursday night. In the hours after the near-apocalyptic online showdown between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, a palpable angst permeated the fashionable MAGA bistro on Capitol Hill. As the Velvet Underground crooned 'Oh! Sweet Nuthin'' over the sound system, patrons let loose with their anxieties: Was the gas station erectile dysfunction drug 'Rhino Dick' safe? Would the guy from The Heritage Foundation ever stop stealing their beef tallow-soaked french fries? These were the pressing concerns for this far-right crowd. But Elon Musk's online attacks on Donald Trump? Those were mere trifles at the Trumpist haunt where lamb tartare, not cheeseburgers, is on the menu. In the hours after the Musk-Trump feud blew up online, with the tech billionaire bashing the Republican spending bill, suggesting Trump should be impeached and tying him to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, those criticisms barely registered. As the denizens of Butterworth saw things, the kerfuffle was simply the temper tantrum of a disgruntled administration official who'd run afoul of a popular president. And Trump's counter attacks dismissing the world's richest man as 'going CRAZY'? Now that was gospel. At a night in which MAGA personalities congregated to greet the British Ambassador, Lord Mandelson for the unveiling of a plaque in his honor at the restaurant, the spat was little more than a sideshow. Still, the men and women bumping up to the bar all had their opinions. Raheem Kassam, the longtime ally of Nigel Farage, who is a part owner of the restaurant, waved off Musk's Twitter spree as the rantings of a mega donor disappointed that he could not bend the Republican Party to his will. 'The Tea Party sold out to Koch,' said Kassam. 'MAGA will not sell out to ketamine,' in a reference to first, the billionaire Koch brothers and second, Musk's admitted use of the anesthetic. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief for Breitbart and longtime conservative media powerhouse, opined biblically, 'Pride cometh, before the fall. Elon Musk got too big for his britches. This was destined to happen. It's better now than later. President Trump is going to win, as he always does.' One key theme last night: For all his wealth, Elon Musk has never run for office. Donald Trump was on the ballot, not the billionaire. As conservative influencer C.J. Pearson noted, 'The reason I'm in this movement is because of President Trump. And the person that was on the ballot was President Trump. The American people voted overwhelmingly for him — not for Elon Musk.' Pearson added of those defending the tech mogul, 'I think it's unfortunate to see people who are so desperate for validation from someone like Elon Musk, they're betraying the very person who made them who they are.' As one Trump administration appointee, who asked not to be identified because they were there for drinks, not work, put it starkly, 'This is Elon's insurrection. He's disloyal.' Not everyone there was willing to go quite that far. Mandelson, the evening's honoree, had witnessed titanic personality clashes across the pond, notably, the decades-long drama between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He dismissed the Trump-Musk drama as 'a small earthquake.' He added as a careful diplomatic caveat, 'I don't really follow it because I'm not on social media. So I have no idea what they're saying to each other.' Natalie Winters, the hard right media personality on Steve Bannon's War Room, coyly responded 'I'll let the men handle that one.' Another administration appointee, who asked not to be identified so they could speak freely, noted that Musk represented a different libertarian element on the right than the more populist aspects of Trump's party. Both, the appointee said, have a place in the GOP. 'It was a very valid conversation.' However, the appointee noted that Trump had not run his campaign on what the billionaire wanted. Musk, they said, would have few defenders. 'People want careers in politics and when they see the writing on the wall,' the appointee said, 'they see the writing on the wall.' Outside the Capitol Hill restaurant, Musk did not find a sympathetic audience from other members of the right, either. After former top White House aide Steve Bannon suggested that the South African born billionaire should be deported, one administration official, who asked not to be identified so they could speak frankly, told POLITICO Magazine, 'Elon should be careful. Trump could easily drug test him based on erratic behavior and nationalize SpaceX.' Other Beltway Republicans merely groaned at the additional work that this online drama created. "A lot of staffers are having to explain what Ketamine is to their bosses this week," one said. But inside Butterworth's on Thursday, all of that was irrelevant. For the blazer-and-slacks crowd at the bar, all that really mattered was that the Guinness taps were flowing for a steady pour and a solid drink.

Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun

A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store