Why Andrew Yang Puts People and Families Before Profits, Even Better Than Bernie! | TaraElla News | #YangGang

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.

During the recent MSNBC Atlanta debates, Andrew Yang highlighted something that mainstream politicians, progressive and conservative alike, tend to avoid looking at: the fact that not every parent wants to work, that having two working parents may not be the natural wish of every family. Of course, the majority of families have two working parents nowadays, and many families are just fine with it. But still, not every family is. Some have their own special circumstances, which make having two working parents a difficult thing, or at least not the optimal choice.

The trouble is, it is very difficult for families to survive on one income these days, unless they are very wealthy. Let's ignore for a while the fact that women had unequal opportunities back in the 1950s. Back in those days, most families were single income, and they did pretty well. The fact that the average family can't choose that anymore nowadays means that the average family is worse off, more economically deprived, compared to back in the 1950s. And with all the advancement in productivity we have had since then, and all the extra hours that people tend to work nowadays, this just ain't right! It certainly isn't what classical liberal thinkers like Adam Smith or America's founding fathers intended. The fact that no other politician, left-wing or right-wing, would talk about this, shows how the whole establishment simply bends to the will of the corporate establishment, even when they clearly treat the average worker very unfairly. Andrew Yang, being a real outsider, has become the perfect candidate to expose this hypocrisy.

Looking in hindsight, Bernie Sanders probably did more than anyone else to kick start a much needed conversation about economic justice. I think we really need to thank him for doing this. But I think Andrew Yang does it even better, because he relates all of this back to the challenges faced by families, the fundamental building block of our social fabric. This is what makes Yang the most relatable candidate on the debate stage. The fact is, we all know at least subconsciously that, if families suffer, so does all of society. If families suffer, the social fabric is inevitably torn, and the resulting low social trust means that traditional liberal values won't be able to thrive. That's why even the dysfunction in things like free speech have a partially economic cause. Complaining about things like how our Enlightenment civilizational values are being eroded by postmodernism without looking at how families are suffering is ultimately useless, because you are not curing one of the most important root causes of the problem.

The fact that establishment politicians would put corporate profits before the health of families is literally equivalent to deciding to sacrifice the whole future of humanity at the alter of profits. This is why it's important that we have someone like Yang to challenge these spineless establishment people.

Is There A Communitarian Revival Under Way? | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.

During the past year, the campaigns of 2020 candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have given me a lot of hope for the future of humanity, where no such hope had existed before. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating. Now, you may ask, while it may be a good idea to start having a UBI and to end all the terrible wars, there are still many other issues that deserve our attention, right? True. But it's also true that Yang and Gabbard, even with their respective signature policies, are far from single-issue candidates. Instead, both have a platform and a message that add up to much more than just a bunch of policies.

Let's start with Andrew Yang's UBI. He isn't suggesting that the government give out free money because it sounds good. Rather, his policy is based in care for the social fabric. Yang is worried that jobs are being automated away, and people are struggling economically. As a result, families are under pressure, birth rates are falling, and there's an opioid crisis. The UBI is a solution that will help fix at least the material side of this problem, which will go a long way towards fixing things. Other parts of the Yang platform, for example providing free marriage counselling, also aim to help repair the social fabric and create stronger families and communities.

Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard is clearly interested in building strong communities. She focuses on what's best for everyone, and has made a point of avoiding divisive ideological labels throughout her campaign. She talks to people on both the left and the right of the economic spectrum, and has been on good terms with people across the political spectrum. She explains her policies based on how they could benefit people and communities, rather than by any sort of divisive angle. In fact, she has repeatedly refused to answer deliberately divisive questions from the media, including on the debate stage. I really respect this refusal to give in to the media's attempt to divide people.

And last but not least, both Yang and Gabbard have a broad tent approach when it comes to building support. There should be no Hillary-style divisive declarations that some people are 'deplorables'. While this cycle no candidate has been as bad as Hillary as yet, elements of her divisive approach can be seen in several candidates, unfortunately. With the Yang and Gabbard approach, everyone is welcome, regardless of identity or political philosophy, as it should be, because community building should be an inclusive exercise.

It's been quite a while since politicians cared about families, communities and the social fabric. I'm very happy to see Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard bring that back. Perhaps in 2020, we can make a new start on that front. Like how Bernie brought issues of economic justice to the forefront in 2016, perhaps next year can be the start of a politics for strong families and communities.

Can Pete Buttigieg Bring Back Communitarian Ideals? | TaraElla News

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.

Some people keep asking me why I have Mayor Pete Buttigieg in my top 3 2020 candidates. After all, I'm not exactly the demographic that many people think would like Mayor Pete. While I'm an urban person and I think I am highly educated by most people's standards, I'm not exactly into the cultural values of this demographic, as my regular audience would know. Moreover, earlier polls have shown that Mayor Pete's support overlaps with that of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, my two least liked candidates remaining in the race. So why would I take interest in Mayor Pete?

I guess it all boils down to one word: community. From what I see, Mayor Pete is very interested in bringing back the idea of strong communities, and re-strengthening the social fabric across society. In fact, this is something all three of my favorite 2020 candidates have in common. Yang, Gabbard and Mayor Pete all want to see a strengthening of the social fabric and the institutions that form the pillars of a healthy community, and I think it's a breath of fresh air that's desperately needed. In recent years, many politicians have been thinking of both economic and social issues as a zero-sum game, as if one side had to lose in order for the other side to win. They have far too often been thinking about society as made up of elements in conflict, rather than being made up of elements that can work together to produce a better whole. In more technical terms, they have been too close the conflict school of sociology, and too far away from the consensus school. I think it's time the pendulum swung back to consensus and community.

In fact, not too long ago, there was a whole movement dedicated to building strong communities above all. Back in the 1980 and 90s, communitarianism was a big theme, both in elite academia and across both sides of politics. While conservative communitarians stressed the cultural importance of insitutions like family, progressive communitarians stressed the importance of good social and economic policy to support such institutions. Like most things communitarian, the two sides could be brought together to make an even better whole. While the culture wars and international conflicts of the past two decades have eroded these ideals, I think 2020 would be a good time to start over.

What I like most about Mayor Pete is that he practices the way of consensus over conflict. He refuses to support pointless boycotts, and instead prefers to use reason and civility to win over people in arguments. This is a quality we desperately need in our leaders during this rough time in history.

Bernie Movement is Unfriendly to Traditional Values? | TaraElla Report S5 E3

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my modern conservative friend Allison, who, if you remember, has been Bernie curious since earlier this year. While she's still Bernie curious, she's now a bit more into Tulsi Gabbard, because of the differences she perceives in the cultures of their respective support bases. While I also prefer Tulsi over Bernie, making that decision over their fanbases is something I personally don't agree with. However, it could be something that's affecting campaigns out there, so let's hear what she's got to say, with an open mind.

Allison: I call myself a modern conservative because, while I believe in having a strong social fabric and strong families, I don't necessarily think what is conventionally considered conservative politics is the best solution for those things. I am willing to look around for solutions from across the political spectrum. Earlier this year, I became Bernie curious after his excellent Fox News Town Hall. I found that many of Bernie's policies would do much good to strengthen families, and take the economic stress off the most important institution of society. However, I'm also a bit torn about Bernie, because I've also had some lingering discomfort about parts of Bernie's fan base, who are deeply into some ideas I disagree with. On the other hand, Tulsi has much of the same policies as Bernie, but her support base seems to share the values I cherish more often, and I'm liking it more, to be honest.

TaraElla: Normally, when I look at which candidates are worthy of my support, I don't consider who their fans are. I simply don't think it's an important thing. So why would you think this would matter at all?

Allison: I know it's a bit weird to decide who to support based on other people, but I guess being comfortable in a movement also counts for many people, and I'm more comfortable being in a movement with people who openly cherish the things I cherish. Things like a revival of a strong social fabric, caring about local communities and families, and being grounded in the issues that affect people in the here and now, rather than being absorbed in theoretical ideas.

TaraElla: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, I also prefer Tulsi over Bernie, but for different reasons. But I certainly don't think it's useful to judge a candidate by their fan base. I think every candidate has problematic people in their fanbases anyway. Still, I think it's an interesting perspective you've given, and I certainly think that people out there should consider whether more people are thinking like that, and if this has any effect on the popularity of campaigns.