(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Oops!...it happened again [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-07-22
We begin today across the Pacific Pond with Martin Fackler of The New York Times and his analysis of Japan’s National Diet elections where the Liberal Democratic Party (a right-of-center political party) are without a majority in both chambers of Japan’s parliament for the first time in decades.
The defeat, which rendered the Liberal Democrats a minority in both houses of the Diet, the country’s Parliament, could herald the end of an era for the broad-tent conservative group that has been the country’s dominant political force for 70 years. But while the party has faced would-be usurpers before, this time was different, because the challengers came from the nationalist right, which the Liberal Democrats had long controlled. [...] The new nationalist parties have warned of unrestrained immigration and what they describe as excessive gender equality, but analysts say they have succeeded in large part because they tapped into the frustrations of working-age people living in a rapidly graying society. The new parties have succeeded by giving voice to younger voters who feel they are burdened with taxes to pay for the retirement of their parents’ generation, while policies protecting special interests block them from more entrepreneurial efforts to improve their lives. For this reason, many analysts say Sunday’s parliamentary election results have left a new question hanging over Japan’s political landscape: Do these new parties represent a short-lived protest vote, or a more long-lasting political realignment driven by demographic pressures and a frustration with a leadership class seen as out of touch with younger voters?
More analysis of the Japanese elections from Jio Kamata of The Diplomat explaining why (mostly) Japanese youth made a rightward, nationalist turn in the elections.
Two parties with populist characteristics won big in this election: the Democratic Party For the People (DPFP) and Sanseito, which became the top two proportional ballot vote-getters after the LDP. The DPFP expanded its seats by 13; Sanseito added 14 to its upper house tally. While the parties differ in the degree of elite skepticism – the DPFP suggests that elites are too stubborn to experiment with fiscal policy, while Sanseito indulges in conspiracy theories – both succeeded in capitalizing on the public’s fear and anger during this election cycle. The DPFP’s ongoing pledge to “raise take-home pay” resonated strongly amid persistent inflation, largely driven by the weakening yen. Sanseito has singlehandedly elevated the issue of “foreigners” – using demagoguery but striking a chord with public concern over the rise in foreign tourists and workers in the country, absent a national debate – onto the political agenda, forcing the LDP to scramble for a solution that had been low on their priority list. So, what are the factors which contributed to the rise of populism in Japan? According to Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, populism is caused when established parties act in ways that reinforce the stereotypes that elites are corrupt and unresponsive. On the issue of corruption, the LDP is still struggling to overcome the tainted image left by the political slush fund scandal, which had an overwhelming impact on last year’s lower house election. The electoral loss forced the ruling coalition into minority government status, making it impossible for the LDP to enact meaningful policy to quell the populist irritation and show the public that they are responding to their demands. [...] In effect, by enabling the rise of the two populist-style parties the electorate called out the LDP’s “irresponsibility.”
Martin Fritz of DW looks at the possible futures for Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.
For now, Ishiba has vowed to hang on as prime minister, despite the second election debacle in nine months. His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost a snap election last October, making it a minority party ruling with a coalition. Ishiba has said he would "humbly accept" the result and "continue to take responsibility for national affairs." However, Ishiba's continuation as prime minister no longer depends on him alone. A strengthened opposition could topple him at any time with a vote of no confidence, even if these parties are not united enough to forge a governing coalition themselves. Ishiba also faces the threat of a rebellion within the LDP, which has governed Japan almost continuously for 70 years and has always controlled at least one chamber of parliament.
There are similarities here to the rightward turn taking place across the globe. Electoral disinformation was a problem, for example. The cost-of-living issue seems to have been the biggest. Given Fackler’s mention of “excessive gender equality” as an issue, there may have been a gender gap (even though there was a record number of female candidates elected to the upper House...from all parties). There are some differences; I’ve been reading about the acute nature of the aging population of Japan for over 20 years now; I’m a little surprised that it took this long to show itself in japan’s elections (I remember this Reuters story from 2016, for example).
Maybe the youth of Japan and the youth of other countries (France, Argentina, the U.S. to a lesser extent, for example) are sick and tired of being sick and tired and they are willing to reach for anything, however ill-informed they may be about their choices.
Jon Allsop of Columbia Journalism Review thinks that the MSM coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein story has gone MAGAmedia-lite.
..I’d argue that the MSM, on the whole, has never sounded as much like MAGA media as it has this past fortnight; as one unnamed reporter put it to New York’s Charlotte Klein last week, “Perhaps for the first time, the mainstream media and far-right media are sort of rowing in the same direction,” at least when it comes to calling for Trump to release more records. I offer this observation—which is, admittedly, a general one—in the spirit of nuanced analysis more than outright condemnation; conspiracy theories have become so wired into mainstream American political culture that they are now unavoidable objects for the media attached to that culture, and Epstein’s case, with its panoply of genuinely dark and weird details, has always been a potent gateway drug. Nonetheless—and again, this is a general observation, albeit one informed by the truly destabilizing experience of mainlining Epstein journalism in recent days—I can’t avoid the conclusion that some of it has slipped all too eagerly from covering the conspiracy theories around him into indulging them (if, often, only implicitly). I find myself agreeing with a column that Ben Smith, of Semafor, published last night, in which he wrote that the Epstein story “brings out two of the worst traits in journalists and—to really point fingers here—in our audiences. First, the human tendency to fill in gaps with wild theories that flatter our prejudices; second, the bias toward what’s new over what’s known.” (The “larger Epstein belief system,” Smith added, “is QAnon for people who went to college.”) And I heartily cosign his conclusion: that “those of us trying to stay sane ought to keep in mind the distinction between evidence and speculation, fantasy and reality.”
The Atlantic’s latest Washington Post refugee Paul Farhi documents how the tacky shoe salesman is winning his war on the media.
..In his first six months in office, he has been on a winning streak in his campaign to punish and diminish the press. His dispute with the Journal, after all, hijacked the news cycle from another Trump “victory”: eliminating federal support for public broadcasting. Early Friday morning, Congress voted to cancel $1.1 billion in subsidies for NPR, PBS, and their affiliated stations, marking the first time Congress has cut off public broadcasters since its funding began nearly 60 years ago. Trump had pushed for the defunding, repeatedly asserting that NPR and PBS offered “biased and partisan news coverage.” Republicans in Congress apparently agreed. “The independent press in the United States is facing what media outlets in too many other countries with aspiring autocrats have confronted,” the former Washington Post editor Marty Baron told me on Thursday. He compared Trump’s “repressive measures” to those of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán: “The playbook is to demean, demonize, marginalize, and economically debilitate” independent reporting. Ever since he launched his presidential campaign in 2015, Trump has fulminated against “the fake news.” But only in his second term has Trump gone beyond such rhetoric to wage a multifront war on media freedom with all of the tools at his disposal: executive actions, lawsuits, a loyal regulatory bureaucracy, a compliant Republican majority in Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court. Each of his actions has been extraordinary in its own right; collectively, they represent a slow-motion demolition of the Fourth Estate. The principal question isn’t just whether anyone can stop Trump, but whether anyone in power really wants to.
Paul Krugman examines the rage of the Silicon Valley tech bros.
Silicon Valley used to be generally pro-Democratic. So did the Biden administration mishandle its relationship by starting to impose some regulation on the industry? I don’t think so. The actual regulations imposed during the Biden years wouldn’t have significantly reduced industry profits and were weaker than those in Europe. But the industry was right to see them as a harbinger of more regulation to come, because the public, which used to have a highly favorable view of tech and its leaders, had lost faith. [...] The Biden administration made some efforts to regulate tech. In part this reflected a perception that the big players had turned their focus from innovation to exploiting their locked in customer bases — a process memorably described by Cory Doctorow as enshittification. In part it represented growing awareness of the psychological and social harm often associated with internet use. And like Wall Street tycoons a decade or so earlier, tech bros responded with rage. Was this rage performative, a warning to politicians who might be tempted to support regulation? Or was it genuine outrage at the idea that anyone might criticize their brilliance and benevolence? Yes.
Ari Shaw writes for Foreign Affairs about the global threat to LGBTQ+ rights posed by authoritarian challenges to democratic institutions.
LGBTQ rights endure when they are written into or otherwise grounded in national constitutions; culturally normalized across partisan lines; upheld through strong, independent judiciaries; supported by civil society organizations that operate freely; and reinforced by regional or international human rights structures. Ultimately, the stronger a country’s liberal democratic institutions, the better protected the rights of LGBTQ people become.[...] Threats to democratic institutions and threats to LGBTQ rights are mutually reinforcing, generating a vicious cycle that strengthens authoritarian control. Illiberal leaders deliberately exploit divisions over LGBTQ issues to consolidate political power, tapping into popular anxieties about changing social norms to build electoral coalitions and maintain public support. They proceed to undermine independent courts, free media, and civil society organizations—sometimes using their moral opposition to LGBTQ rights as justification. When democratic safeguards are weakened, LGBTQ rights lose their protection from further attack. Ensuring that LGBTQ people can live in safety and with equal opportunity therefore requires not only defending their rights but also addressing the crisis of democracy that renders them vulnerable. [...] The Trump administration, for instance, terminated $25 million in foreign assistance programs that included initiatives to support LGBTQ entrepreneurs and provide access to financial tools for LGBTQ people in rural communities—inclusive development practices that contribute to economic growth. President Joe Biden had appointed a special envoy in the U.S. State Department to focus on the human rights of LGBTQ people; in the current administration, not only does that position no longer exist, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also proposed a restructuring of the State Department that would diminish the role of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. This bureau administers the Global Equality Fund, one of the largest funders of LGBTQ rights advocacy worldwide, and works with U.S. embassies to bring concerns about discriminatory laws or violence to the attention of foreign governments. Under Biden, American diplomats provided political support for local organizations devoted to such advocacy; the Trump administration has banned Pride flags from flying at U.S. embassies and consulates. Furthermore, the United States has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, which has helped advance protections against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Finally today and on a very sad and shocking note, Brian Broome of MSNBC takes a personal look at the impact of “The Cosby Show” character, Theo Huxtable.
Malcolm Jamal-Warner, the actor that played Theo Huxtable for all eight seasons of “The Cosby Show”, died Sunday by accidental drowning at the age of 54.
I had very little in common with Theo Huxtable. The only son of Cliff and Clair Huxtable on “The Cosby Show” lived in the big, diverse city of New York, while I languished in a small, racist Ohio town. Theo had a good relationship with his parents, while mine were so busy working, they barely had time to acknowledge me in passing. Theo’s family had money; my family was poor. Theo had Black friends (who can forget Cockroach?), whereas I spent my time trying desperately to get white people to like me. And perhaps most crucially, Theo was straight and I was gay — which meant my male peers essentially shunned me for my perceived “girliness.” Malcolm-Jamal Warner, the actor who played Theo, died tragically on Sunday while swimming during a family vacation, drowning after a current pulled him deeper into the sea. He was 54 and leaves behind a wife and a daughter. Warner’s acting career continued over the decades after “The Cosby Show” went off the air, but to many Black boys like me who grew up in the 1980s and the 1990s, the character he brought to life as Theo will always be his most iconic role. [...] ...Theo Huxtable didn’t need to be validated by anyone. He had depth and growth. He wasn’t the “best friend,” the comic relief, the criminal with a heart of gold — or just the plain old criminal. He was goofy, irresponsible, willful, mischievous and lovable. In short, a teenager. And for all our differences, those were qualities we shared.
Everyone have the best possible day that you possibly can!
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/22/2334543/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-Oops-it-happened-again?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
