#Machine Vision Michigan
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
markreadtrack-auburnhills · 1 month ago
Text
Unleashing Efficiency: The Rise of Industrial Automation Software Solutions
In the age of digital transformation, industrial sectors across the globe are undergoing a fundamental shift. One of the most significant developments driving this evolution is the rise of Industrial Automation Software Solutions. These intelligent systems are redefining how industries operate, streamline processes, and respond to real-time data — all while reducing human error and maximizing productivity.
Industrial automation is no longer just a competitive advantage; it’s quickly becoming a necessity for modern manufacturing, logistics, energy, and production-based businesses. At the core of this transformation lies powerful software designed to integrate machinery, manage workflows, and monitor operations with precision and efficiency.
One of the key strengths of Industrial Automation Software Solutions is their ability to centralize control over complex industrial processes. From programmable logic controllers (PLCs) to supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, this software enables seamless communication between machines, sensors, and operators. The result is a smarter, more connected operation that can adapt quickly to changing demands.
Beyond basic automation, these solutions offer deep analytics capabilities. Using machine learning and AI, the software can detect patterns, predict equipment failures, and recommend proactive maintenance — ultimately helping businesses avoid costly downtime. This predictive approach not only increases reliability but also extends the lifespan of expensive equipment.
Flexibility is another crucial advantage. Most modern Industrial Automation Software Solutions are highly customizable and scalable, allowing companies to tailor systems to their unique needs and expand functionality as they grow. Whether an organization is automating a single production line or an entire facility, the right software can be scaled appropriately without significant disruptions.
In today’s globalized economy, remote access and cloud integration are more important than ever. Many automation platforms now offer web-based dashboards and mobile apps, giving managers and technicians the ability to monitor and control systems from virtually anywhere. This level of accessibility promotes faster response times and better decision-making, even across multiple locations.
Security, too, has become a top priority. As more industrial systems connect to the internet, they become more vulnerable to cyber threats. Industrial Automation Software Solutions are now being developed with robust cybersecurity features, including encrypted communication, multi-layered access control, and real-time threat monitoring.
These solutions also play a key role in sustainability efforts. By optimizing energy usage, reducing waste, and ensuring consistent product quality, industrial automation supports greener operations. Businesses not only improve efficiency but also meet environmental standards more effectively.
As industries continue to adopt smart technologies and prepare for Industry 4.0, the demand for reliable and intelligent automation software is set to grow exponentially. Investing in Industrial Automation Software Solutions is no longer just about keeping up with competitors — it's about laying the foundation for a resilient, future-ready operation.
Whether it's enhancing productivity, improving safety, or driving innovation, automation software is reshaping what’s possible in the industrial world. The future of manufacturing and production isn’t just automated — it’s intelligent, adaptive, and incredibly powerful.
Tumblr media
0 notes
allenbloom · 4 months ago
Text
Short film review (or smth)
This is requested by no one else besides the voices in my head.
I love horror, and I came across one of those videos of "top underrated things in this genre", so I ended up watching a lot of short horror films. Sadly i don't have the og reel because I wrote the names down, but if anyone finds it, feel free to let me know!
I ended up watching some twice, giving special attention the ones I didn't really like the first time, just to analyze how it made me feel. All of the movies will be linked in case you want to watch them too! Just click on the title uwu
The pretty thing (2018): I'm actually giving them kudos for having a scene in the dark in which I could see. The creature is quite good and the music really sells the mood, however I feel like the storyline can be a little too predictable, which in the end took away from the whole experience, also the last shot with the creature made me laugh a little (/pos).
Double Vision (2024): The photography in this one is absolutely insane, it has a really good setup and the composition of nearly every single shot feels like art; everything in the sound design, from the night sounds, the buzzing of the machines, everything lures you in like a moth to a flame. It felt a little too short for my taste, I felt like with a few more minutes to tell the whole story, it could have had an even better resolution, all things considered, Isabelle Kiser did an amazing job.
Mama Agnes (2023): Short and sweet, it has a simple set up that's easy to believe and touches upon a fear many of us may have had, it feels like it excels at keeping it simple and eerie despite the well lit scenes and the welcoming home in which the story takes place.
Possibly in Michigan (1983): I'm a sucker for both horror and musicals, and this one excels at both, it feels like everyone who ever tried to do analog media related to horror watched this first, even on the first watch it felt so iconic and well produced. This is what fever dreams are made of.
Don't look back (2024): Usually I'm a sucker for Japanese horror, however I couldn't quite get in the same wavelength as this one, I felt like it was trying to say something, but the words wouldn't be as loud as they needed. The photography seems nice enough, but the acting and delivery of some of the scenes were not was I was looking forward to.
Polaroid (2017): Actually couldn't find this one anywhere, there's another horror movie by the same name, so if anyone happens to find the short film I'd really like to give it a watch.
My house walk-through (2016): Insane from beginning to end, all you get is just footage and subtitles, yet the atmosphere is so intense, it feels like the person who directed and wrote this short film knew from the beginning what their vision was. Also as a bonus, if you want to kill the magic, there's a making of, which is absolutely amazing.
Vicious (2019): The camera work is really good, the actresses sell it, everything looks well executed, however I feel like overall the work lacked direction, there's obviously a story they are trying to tell, but I find it hard to get involved with it.
So, with all of that said, I ranked them as:
Possibly in Michigan
My house walk-through
Double Vision
Mama Agnes
Vicious
The pretty thing
Don't look back
Thanks for reading! If you have any other recommendations, I'd love to watch them.
2 notes · View notes
cerastes · 2 years ago
Note
Any tips for dealing with Intercept the Redguns? Need to complete this mission in at least one NG cycle for the funny oscillator but horde battles in all games just kinda fry my brain.
It's a hard one until you realize it's not a horde and instead is a lot of enemies in very deliberate set ups. Then it's easy to break up into small segments and do it pretty comprehensively.
I like to separate the map in sections: The map is a huge circle with big chunks of debris in the center, making a sort-of-but-not-really donut, right? Ok, let's separate the map into Center, Inner Ring, Outer Ring.
Center is where the debris is. Inner Ring is the circle immediately surrounding the Center. Outer Ring is the circle in the edge.
The areas that need most of our attention are the Outer Ring and the Center. These are areas where cannonfire will come from, making the Inner Ring particularly risky since you'll be sandwiched between the cannoneers. However, the Inner Ring is the most optimal place to actually fight in. So, the game plan is simple:
Start the mission by rushing Center, kill the snipers (we'll call the cannoneers this from now on), and then comb the Outer Ring to kill those snipers. After you make sure all snipers are down, then start mopping up the MTs that actually pursue you around, without fear of getting sucker punched by cannonfire. Any time there's reinforcements, repeat this process, prioritizing the part of the Outer Ring you're closest to at the moment, moving onto the Center again, and then clearing the reminder of the snipers from there. The Center snipers tend to be less dangerous because they are surrounded by debris, which limits their field of vision to some degree, unlike the Outer Ring snipers, who have a clear shot practically everywhere.
When a Tetrapod appears, deal with snipers that pose an immediate risk first, then kill the Tetra, and then mop up the snipers.
Once Michigan appears, again, deal with the snipers that pose an immediate threat, and then engage him. You ideally clear a few machine gun MTs first so they don't potshot at your ACS while fighting Michigan, especially since Liger Tail is equipped with a minigun and cannons that can max out your ACS easily with MT support. Michigan comes with Pulse Protection, so keep that in mind. Focus Michigan until he's dead, and if you take long enough for more reinforcements to arrive, switch to killing snipers first, and then Michigan. Ideally you kill him before the next Tetrapod arrives, but if you don't, then you'll have to do a little bit of running around. If you have good burst, kill the Tetrapod, otherwise, adjust accordingly to your fighting style. You have enough time to kill Michigan, though.
And that's that, the main issue is the fact that if you don't kill the snipers first, they can deal a lot of damage with stagger in the worst of moments and get you finished off. Without them, it's a lot more manageable.
25 notes · View notes
rushikesh-d · 2 months ago
Text
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Size, Analyzing Trends and Projected Outlook for 2025-2032
Tumblr media
Fortune Business Insights released the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Trends Study, a comprehensive analysis of the market that spans more than 150+ pages and describes the product and industry scope as well as the market prognosis and status for 2025-2032. The marketization process is being accelerated by the market study's segmentation by important regions. The market is currently expanding its reach.
The Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market is experiencing robust growth driven by the expanding globally. The Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market is poised for substantial growth as manufacturers across various industries embrace automation to enhance productivity, quality, and agility in their production processes. Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market leverage robotics, machine vision, and advanced control technologies to streamline assembly tasks, reduce labor costs, and minimize errors. With increasing demand for customized products, shorter product lifecycles, and labor shortages, there is a growing need for flexible and scalable automation solutions. As technology advances and automation becomes more accessible, the adoption of automated assembly systems is expected to accelerate, driving market growth and innovation in manufacturing.
The global alternative fuel vehicles market size was USD 293.45 billion in 2020. The global impact of novel coronavirus disease 2019 has been unprecedented and staggering, with alternative fuel vehicles witnessing a positive impact on demand across all regions amid the COVID-19 crisis. Based on our analysis, the global market will exhibit a stellar growth of 25.6% in 2020. The market is projected to grow from USD 330.45 billion in 2021 to USD 1,681.80 billion by 2028, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 26.2% during the forecast period.
Get Sample PDF Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/102518
Major Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Manufacturers covered in the market report include:
LIST OF KEY COMPANIES PROFILED:
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan)
Toyota Motor Corporation (Aichi, Japan)
Nissan Motor Corporation (Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan)
Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany)
Tesla (California, U.S.)
BYD Company Ltd. (Shenzhen, China)
Ford Motor Company (Michigan, U.S.)
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION. (Tokyo, Japan)
SHELL International B.V. (Hague, Netherlands)
JAGUAR LAND ROVER AUTOMOTIVE PLC (Coventry, U.K.)
Rising fossil fuel prices such as gasoline & diesel and heavy dependence on foreign countries to import fossil fuels significantly increase the pressure on the emerging economies worldwide, resulting in a boost in demand for AFVs. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in November 2020, Brent crude oil prices averaged USD 43 per barrel, increasing significantly to an average price of USD 67 per barrel in March 2021 (One barrel contains 42 gallons). This increase in crude oil prices significantly affected the prices of petroleum products such as fossil fuels.
Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share, and growth rate of the following regions:
The Middle East and Africa (South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Egypt, etc.)
North America (United States, Mexico & Canada)
South America (Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, etc.)
Europe (Turkey, Spain, Turkey, Netherlands Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.)
Asia-Pacific (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia).
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Research Objectives:
- Focuses on the key manufacturers, to define, pronounce and examine the value, sales volume, market share, market competition landscape, SWOT analysis, and development plans in the next few years.
- To share comprehensive information about the key factors influencing the growth of the market (opportunities, drivers, growth potential, industry-specific challenges and risks).
- To analyze the with respect to individual future prospects, growth trends and their involvement to the total market.
- To analyze reasonable developments such as agreements, expansions new product launches, and acquisitions in the market.
- To deliberately profile the key players and systematically examine their growth strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
► What is the current market scenario?
► What was the historical demand scenario, and forecast outlook from 2025 to 2032?
► What are the key market dynamics influencing growth in the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market?
► Who are the prominent players in the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market?
► What is the consumer perspective in the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market?
► What are the key demand-side and supply-side trends in the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market?
► What are the largest and the fastest-growing geographies?
► Which segment dominated and which segment is expected to grow fastest?
► What was the COVID-19 impact on the Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market?
FIVE FORCES & PESTLE ANALYSIS:
In order to better understand market conditions five forces analysis is conducted that includes the Bargaining power of buyers, Bargaining power of suppliers, Threat of new entrants, Threat of substitutes, and Threat of rivalry.
Political (Political policy and stability as well as trade, fiscal, and taxation policies)
Economical (Interest rates, employment or unemployment rates, raw material costs, and foreign exchange rates)
Social (Changing family demographics, education levels, cultural trends, attitude changes, and changes in lifestyles)
Technological (Changes in digital or mobile technology, automation, research, and development)
Legal (Employment legislation, consumer law, health, and safety, international as well as trade regulation and restrictions)
Environmental (Climate, recycling procedures, carbon footprint, waste disposal, and sustainability)
Points Covered in Table of Content of Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market:
Chapter 01 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market for Automotive Executive Summary
Chapter 02 - Market Overview
Chapter 03 - Key Success Factors
Chapter 04 - Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market - Pricing Analysis
Chapter 05 - Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Background or History
Chapter 06 - Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Segmentation (e.g. Type, Application)
Chapter 07 - Key and Emerging Countries Analysis Worldwide Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market.
Chapter 08 - Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Structure & worth Analysis
Chapter 09 - Global Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Competitive Analysis & Challenges
Chapter 10 - Assumptions and Acronyms
Chapter 11 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles Market Research Methodology
About Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ delivers accurate data and innovative corporate analysis, helping organizations of all sizes make appropriate decisions. We tailor novel solutions for our clients, assisting them to address various challenges distinct to their businesses. Our aim is to empower them with holistic market intelligence, providing a granular overview of the market they are operating in.
Contact Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ Pvt. Ltd.
US:+18339092966
UK: +448085020280
APAC: +91 744 740 1245
0 notes
uniquejellyfishqueen · 6 months ago
Text
1984 will turn 76 on 6/8/2025
7+6=13
It was published on 6/8/1949
The 1949 NFL Draft was on 12/21/1949 but also was preceded by a secret meeting on 11/15/1948
11/15/1948 - 6/8/1949
205 days
6 months and 24 days
29 weeks and 2 days (13)
6/18/1949 - 12/21/1949
196 days
6 months and 13 days
28 weeks
28 Days Later was released on 11/1/2002 and was 113 minutes long. (This was released 1 year 1 month and 21 days after 9/11.)
The virus is called the Rage Virus.
Rage Against the Machine debut studio album was released on 11/3/1992
And the lead single “Killing in the Name” was released on 11/2/1992.
132… 13/2…. 2/13
SR 132
SR 132 was commissioned in 1923 on the same route as it currently follows, between New Richmond and Owensville. The highway between New Richmond and Batavia was paved in 1927. In 1937 the route was extended north to Clarksville. The section of road between SR 131 and Clarksville was paved in 1942. The final section to be paved was between Owensville and SR 131, and it was paved in 1946
Oval pill with 132 on it is Metformin.
231 is the mirrored number
It is the area code for the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. It was created in June 1999 by a split of the 616 area code. (6/16 is 4 days before 6/20….)
28 Weeks Later (sequel to above) released in London on 4/26/2007. It released in the US, Canada, Ireland, and UK on 5/11/2007. It was 99 minutes long.
28 Years Later is scheduled for release on 6/20/2025….
28 years from the last release would be 2035… its only 2025 right now, does this make us 10 years ahead? Or 10 years behind?
Right after the attacks, though, many media companies began censoring art deemed insensitive or anti-American, for fear of offending or upsetting the traumatized nation. One such entity was media corporation Clear Channel Communications (now iHeartMedia), who, three days (3 days is 72 hours) after the attack, sent a memo to its 1,100+ radio stations with a list of songs that they deemed “lyrically questionable” and insensitive to play following the 9/11 attacks. The reasons for Clear Channel putting some of these songs on their memorandum are pretty obvious — the entire Rage Against The Machine catalog, for example, was most likely banned because their music was overly critical of America.
(This could cause a Rage Virus)
6/20 is National Daylight Day
* 1782 - The Great Seal of the United States is adopted by the U.S. Congress
* 1787 - At the Federal Convention, Oliver Ellsworth moves to call the government the 'United States'
* 1819 - The U.S. vessel SS Savannah is the first steam-propelled vessel to cross the Atlantic and arrive in Liverpool, UK
* 1837 - Queen Victoria succeeds to the British throne
* 1840 - Samuel Morse obtains the patent for the telegraph
* 1863 - West Virginia is admitted as the 35th U.S. State
* 1877 - The first commercial telephone service is installed by Alexander Graham Bell in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
* 1893 - Lizzie Borden is acquitted of the murders of her father and stepmother
* 1944 - The first man made object to reach outer space is the experimental MW 18014 V-2 rocket that reaches an altitude of 176 km
* 1950 - Joe DiMaggio has his 2,000 hit
* 1954 - Van Halen bass player Michael Anthony is born in Chicago, Illinois.
* 1975 - The film Jaws is released in the U.S. and becomes the highest grossing film
* 1975 - Neil Young releases Tonight's the Night
* 1975 - John Travolta makes his film debut as a Satanist in the horror flick The Devil's Rain, starring William Shatner. Just two years later, Travolta struts his stuff in Saturday Night Fever.
* 1978 - Foreigner releases Double Vision
* 1983 - Grace Potter is born in Waitsfield, Vermont. While attending St. Lawrence University in New York in 2002, she meets drummer Matt Burr during a campus open-mic in and they form a rock band that evolves into Grace Potter And The Nocturnals
* 1984 - Dave Kingman of the Oakland A's hits his 3rd grand slam and 14th lifetime
* 1990 - The Asteroid Eureka is discovered
* 1995 - Michael Jackson's ninth album, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, is released. MTV becomes "MJTV" for a week to celebrate
* 2003 - Lionel Richie receives a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on his 54th birthday
* 2004 - Paul McCartney performs his 3,000th live show in Russia
* 2010 - The film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter sees its theatrical release in the United States, notable in the music world for having "Powerless" by Linkin Park playing over the end credits.
* 2013 - LeBron James for the second straight year is named the NBA finals MVP
* 2014 - The BBC screens the documentary Billy Joel: The Bridge To Russia about his 1987 tour in the Soviet Union.
1/23/2025 - 6/20/2025
148 days (13)
4 months 28 days (14)
21 weeks 1 day (211….112)
4/28/23 #14 N1/3 Atlanta, Georgia
The Other Side
Coney Island
*this show was 42 days after she played Tim McGraw on N1 of the Tour on 3/17/23.
*where 6/23 came into my brain I have no idea, but it somehow makes sense.
6/23/23 #36 N1/2 Minneapolis
8 Paper Rings
If This Was A Movie
6/23/24 #106 N3/3 London round 1
Gracie Abrams Us
OOTW
Is It Over Now
Clean
“Ten months sober, I must admit
Just because you're clean, don't mean you don't miss it
Ten months older, I won't give in
Now that I'm clean, I'm never gonna risk it”
10 months from 6/23/2024 is 4/23/2025
1/23/25 - 4/23/25
90 days
3 months
12 weeks 6 days
12/6 was #147 N1/3 Vancouver
12 Haunted
14 Wonderland
8 Never Grow Up
12 The Best Day
Add the right and left side of the tracks you get 3/16
12/6/24 - 3/16/25
100 days
3 months 10 days
14 weeks and 2 days
2/14…. Valentine’s Day which is 22 days from the lover cardigan drop on 1/23/25.
0 notes
marketingaiblogs · 6 months ago
Text
Top Skills You Need to Master AI Robotics in 2025
As artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics continue to evolve, the demand for skilled professionals in this field has skyrocketed. Whether you're an aspiring AI robotics engineer or looking to enhance your current skill set, mastering the right skills can propel you to the forefront of this cutting-edge industry. Here's a comprehensive guide to the top skills you need to excel in AI robotics in 2025.
Tumblr media
1. Programming Proficiency
Programming is the cornerstone of AI and robotics. Poficiency in languages like Python, C++, and Java is essential. Python, in particular, is widely used in AI due to its simplicity and a vast array of libraries like TensorFlow, PyTorch, and OpenCV. Mastering these languages allows you to develop algorithms, manage data, and create machine learning models effectively.
Key Areas to Focus On:
Object-oriented programming
Algorithms and data structures
Real-time programming for robotics
Recommended Courses:
"Python for Everybody" by University of Michigan (Coursera)
"Programming for AI and Robotics" by AI Certs
"C++ for Robotics" by Udemy
2. Machine Learning and Deep Learning
AI robotics relies heavily on machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques to enable robots to learn from data and make decisions. Understanding supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning can give you a competitive edge.
Recommended Tools and Frameworks:
TensorFlow
PyTorch
Scikit-learn
Learning Resources:
"Machine Learning Specialization" by Andrew Ng (Coursera)
"Deep Learning with TensorFlow" by AI Certs
"Deep Learning A-Z" by Udemy
Tumblr media
Explore AICERT’s wide range of AI Robotics certifications, and don’t forget to use the code NEWUSERS25 for a 25% discount on all courses. Click here to start your journey into AI Robotics today!
“Have questions or are ready to take the next step in your AI certification journey? Reach out to us at AI CERTs — our team is here to guide you every step of the way!”
3. Computer Vision
Robots often rely on computer vision to perceive and interpret their surroundings. Skills in computer vision involve working with image processing, feature extraction, and object detection techniques.
Key Technologies:
OpenCV
YOLO (You Only Look Once)
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)
Recommended Courses:
"Computer Vision Basics" by University at Buffalo (Coursera)
"Applied Computer Vision with OpenCV" by AI Certs
"Mastering YOLO for Real-World Applications" by Edureka
4. Robotics Process Automation (RPA)
RPA involves automating repetitive tasks using robots. Proficiency in RPA tools like UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and Blue Prism is a valuable skill for integrating AI with robotics.
Applications:
Automating assembly lines
Streamlining back-office operations
Optimizing logistics
Recommended Courses:
"RPA Developer Training" by UiPath Academy
"Robotic Process Automation Certification" by AI Certs
"RPA for Beginners" by Simplilearn
5. Mathematics and Statistical Analysis
A strong foundation in mathematics is critical for understanding algorithms and optimizing models. Key areas include linear algebra, calculus, and probability.
Practical Use Cases:
Calculating robot kinematics and dynamics
Designing neural network architectures
Analyzing model performance using statistical metrics
Recommended Courses:
"Mathematics for Machine Learning" by Imperial College London (Coursera)
"Statistics and Probability for AI" by AI Certs
"Advanced Math for Data Science" by Udemy
6. Data Engineering and Big Data Analysis
AI robotics thrives on data. The ability to collect, clean, and analyze data is crucial. Understanding big data tools like Hadoop, Spark, and SQL will help you handle large datasets effectively.
Focus Areas:
Data preprocessing
Feature selection and extraction
Handling structured and unstructured data
Recommended Courses:
"Big Data Engineering" by IBM (Coursera)
"Data Science and Big Data Foundations" by AI Certs
"Apache Spark for Data Engineers" by Pluralsight
7. Embedded Systems and Hardware Skills
Robots are not just about software; they also require sophisticated hardware. Knowledge of embedded systems, microcontrollers (like Arduino and Raspberry Pi), and sensors can significantly enhance your skill set.
Hands-On Experience:
Building and programming microcontroller-based robots
Integrating sensors for real-time data collection
Optimizing hardware-software interaction
Recommended Courses:
"Introduction to Embedded Systems" by University of Texas (edX)
"Arduino and Robotics Bootcamp" by AI Certs
"Raspberry Pi for Beginners" by Udemy
8. Natural Language Processing (NLP)
As robots become more interactive, NLP is crucial for enabling machines to understand and process human language. Skills in NLP empower you to work on projects like voice assistants and conversational robots.
Popular Tools:
NLTK (Natural Language Toolkit)
spaCy
Hugging Face Transformers
Recommended Courses:
"Natural Language Processing Specialization" by deeplearning.ai (Coursera)
"AI-Driven NLP Solutions" by AI Certs
"NLP Fundamentals" by Simplilearn
9. Soft Skills and Collaboration
In addition to technical expertise, soft skills play a pivotal role in AI robotics. Problem-solving, critical thinking, and teamwork are essential when working in multidisciplinary teams.
Why It Matters:
Collaboration with designers, engineers, and business strategists ensures the success of robotics projects.
Recommended Resources:
"Critical Thinking Masterclass" by LinkedIn Learning
"Team Collaboration for AI Projects" by AI Certs
"Problem-Solving Techniques" by edX
Tumblr media
10. Ethics and Compliance in AI Robotics
As AI becomes more pervasive, ethical considerations and compliance are gaining importance. Familiarity with AI ethics, data privacy laws, and responsible AI practices can set you apart as a forward-thinking professional.
Key Principles:
Ensuring transparency and fairness in AI models
Addressing bias and discrimination in algorithms
Adhering to regulations like GDPR and AI Act
Recommended Courses:
"AI Ethics and Responsible AI" by University of Helsinki (Elements of AI)
"Ethics in AI Systems" by AI Certs
"AI Compliance Fundamentals" by Coursera
Final Thoughts
Mastering AI robotics in 2025 requires a blend of technical, analytical, and interpersonal skills. By staying updated with the latest tools and technologies and honing your expertise in these areas, you can position yourself as a leader in this transformative field. Start building your skills today, and be part of the future-shaping industries worldwide.
0 notes
fortunerobotic · 8 months ago
Text
Future Robotics Course USA
With uses ranging from manufacturing and healthcare to autonomous vehicles and space exploration, the robotics business is a rapidly expanding field. As companies look to automate procedures, increase productivity, and tackle challenging problems, there is a growing need for qualified robotics specialists. You may acquire the technical know-how and innovative problem-solving skills required to succeed in this fast-paced industry by signing up for a robotics course.
Top Universities Offering Robotics Courses in the USA
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Stanford University
University of Michigan
Georgia Institute of Technology
What Do Robotics Courses Cover?
Mechanical Design: Constructing and evaluating robotic systems.
Control systems are used to precisely program robots to carry out predetermined duties.
Artificial intelligence: Giving machines the ability to learn and adjust on their own.
Perception and Sensing: navigating environments with the use of sensors and vision systems.
Improving cooperation between humans and robots is known as human-robot interaction.
Career Opportunities in Robotics
A robotics engineer designs and constructs sophisticated robotic systems.
AI specialist: creating clever algorithms for robots that operate on their own.
Automation Consultant: Using robotics to streamline procedures.
Research Scientist: Developing robotics technologies through innovation in university or industry.
Startup Founder: Starting your own robotics business to address practical issues.
The USA is at the forefront of robotics education and invention, and the sector has an endless future. A robotics education in the USA can put you on the right track for success, regardless of your goals: creating innovative robotic systems, participating in cutting-edge research, or founding the next tech company.
To know more, click here.
0 notes
markreadtrack-auburnhills · 3 months ago
Text
Empowering Auburn Hills with Advanced Industrial Automation Solutions – A Mark Read Track Initiative
Auburn Hills, Michigan – a city known for its innovation, manufacturing excellence, and technological growth – is fast becoming a hub for industrial automation. As local manufacturers continue to adapt to Industry 4.0 standards, the need for advanced, integrated, and scalable automation solutions is more pressing than ever. That’s where Mark Read Track steps in, offering cutting-edge Industrial Automation Solutions in Auburn Hills designed to revolutionize how industries operate.
Mark Read Track is an established leader in the field of automation, bridging the gap between traditional processes and digital transformation. With years of experience and a dedicated team of engineers and developers, the company is committed to delivering tailored automation systems that address real manufacturing challenges. From small-scale workshops to large-scale production plants, Mark Read Track delivers measurable impact through automation.
Their Industrial Automation Solutions in Auburn Hills include a comprehensive suite of services such as system integration, PLC programming, HMI development, SCADA implementation, and data-driven analytics. These services are not just about reducing manual labor; they’re about optimizing productivity, ensuring consistency, and preparing businesses for the future of manufacturing.
One of the key differentiators of Mark Read Track is its ability to customize automation systems based on specific industry needs. Automotive manufacturing, electronics, packaging, and food processing industries in Auburn Hills have already begun leveraging their solutions to gain real-time operational insights, reduce errors, and enhance machine efficiency.
At the heart of their strategy lies smart data integration. By connecting machines, sensors, and control systems, Mark Read Track enables manufacturers to make informed decisions in real-time. This not only cuts down on unplanned downtime but also leads to improved product quality and operational safety.
Moreover, Mark Read Track focuses on scalability. As businesses grow, their automation systems should grow with them. That’s why the company builds flexible platforms that can easily be updated, expanded, and integrated with new technologies. This approach ensures long-term value and adaptability in an ever-evolving industrial landscape.
Cybersecurity is another priority. As industrial environments become more digitized, the threat of cyberattacks rises. Mark Read Track incorporates robust security protocols into its automation systems to safeguard data, machinery, and intellectual property.
For companies in Auburn Hills looking to transition from traditional setups to smart manufacturing, Mark Read Track offers not just solutions, but partnerships. Their team works closely with clients from initial consultation through deployment and after-sales support to ensure every system performs at its best.
In an era where efficiency, speed, and precision define competitiveness, Industrial Automation Solutions in Auburn Hills are no longer optional—they are essential. And with Mark Read Track leading the charge, businesses in Auburn Hills can be confident they are embracing innovation with the right partner by their side.
Tumblr media
0 notes
beststudyabroadconsultants · 9 months ago
Text
Best Universities for PhD in Computer Science in the USA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Application Dates: Typically December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: Approximately $53,790 per year (tuition).
Available Courses: AI, machine learning, robotics, computer vision, and cybersecurity.
Stanford University
Application Dates: Usually early December for Fall admission.
Cost: Around $57,861 per year (tuition).
Available Courses: AI, natural language processing, human-computer interaction, and software engineering.
Carnegie Mellon University
Application Dates: Generally December 8 for Fall admission.
Cost: Approximately $50,100 per year (tuition).
Available Courses: Machine learning, computer graphics, databases, and algorithm design.
University of California, Berkeley
Application Dates: Typically December 2 for Fall admission.
Cost: About $14,226 (in-state) and $29,346 (out-of-state) per year (tuition).
Available Courses: AI, data science, networking, and software engineering.
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
Application Dates: Usually December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: Approximately $60,864 per year (tuition).
Available Courses: Algorithms, machine learning, computational neuroscience, and robotics.
University of Washington
Application Dates: Typically December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: About $30,000 (in-state) and $56,000 (out-of-state) per year (tuition).
Available Courses: AI, computer systems, data science, and human-computer interaction.
Harvard University
Application Dates: Generally December 1 for Fall admission.
Cost: Approximately $52,000 per year (tuition).
Available Courses: Theoretical computer science, machine learning, and programming languages.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Application Dates: Typically December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: About $15,000 (in-state) and $30,000 (out-of-state) per year (tuition).
Available Courses: Artificial intelligence, computer vision, and software engineering.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Application Dates: Generally December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: Approximately $10,258 (in-state) and $31,370 (out-of-state) per year (tuition).
Available Courses: Cyber-physical systems, machine learning, and data analytics.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Application Dates: Typically December 15 for Fall admission.
Cost: About $24,000 (in-state) and $51,000 (out-of-state) per year (tuition).
Available Courses: AI, computer networks, and software development.
Conclusion
Choosing the right university for a PhD in Computer Science in the USA involves considering application dates, costs, and the specific courses offered. Each of these institutions provides a unique environment and set of opportunities that can significantly impact your academic and professional future. Be sure to check each university's website for the most current information regarding applications and tuition.
1 note · View note
everythingaboutlife · 9 months ago
Text
How Whirlpool Became a Global Home Appliance Leader
Origin and Founders’ Story Whirlpool Corporation, a name synonymous with home appliances, traces its roots back to November 11, 1911. It was founded by Louis Upton, an insurance salesman, and his uncle, Emory Upton, who owned a machine shop. The duo started the Upton Machine Company in Benton Harbor, Michigan, with a vision to revolutionize household chores. Their first product was an electric…
0 notes
companyknowledgenews · 10 months ago
Text
How Republicans Stopped Talking About ‘Neighborhood,’ And Why Democrats Should Make That Term Their Own - Notice Today Web https://www.merchant-business.com/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own/?feed_id=212238&_unique_id=66f4914f85c2b #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run by Democrats and they have very similar policies. It’s just insane. But you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot, you get mugged, you get raped. … We have these cities that are great cities where people are afraid to live in America.”This is, of course, a ludicrous caricature, as numerous bread-fetching city dwellers could attest. Yet to understand the significance of this seething anti-cities rhetoric — both its political potency and the unique opportunity it presents for Democrats — requires a brief look at a deep-seated tension in how conservatives have talked about urban areas across recent decades.For more than a century, the Republican Party’s conservative wing has run against cities. Early in the twentieth century, their animus was rooted in nativism and religion. They mobilized small-town Protestant voters by attacking heavily Catholic cities as beholden to popery, demon rum, and corrupt Irish machines. Several generations later, during Richard Nixon’s ascent, the party’s right wing roused white voter antipathy toward escalating urban crime and civil uprisings, both supposedly fostered by the federal War on Poverty.In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, leading conservative politicians and intellectuals modified Nixon’s rhetoric, adding elements aimed at corralling new urban and urban-adjacent Republican voters. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan explicitly placed the social functions played by local neighborhoods at the heart of his urban commentary. Tender odes to the beauties of the human-scale city neighborhood — paired with condemnation of government programs for undermining community self-help capacities — infused national GOP communications output. Crucially, this often lent the party’s outreach efforts a pro-urban veneer. Propelled partly by this neighborhoods appeal, Reagan attracted key support from traditionally Democratic “white-ethnic” inhabitants of older city and suburban areas.But this component of Republican rhetoric eventually evaporated. In recent years, Donald Trump and his allies have moved hard in the other direction, portraying urban areas solely as dangerous alien enclaves and as menaces to the “American Dream” anchored in the suburbs. In refusing any reference to neighborhood ties and social virtues, the MAGA compulsion toward urban demonization concedes rhetorical ground that Democrats can occupy to their advantage. Right now, we believe, Democrats should assertively bring neighborhoods back into the conversation, but this time fully on their own terms.By crafting an unabashedly progressive vision for the importance of urban neighborhoods to national health, they can draw upon the deep-seated affection many Americans have for their local communities and environments. At the same time, Democrats can potentially forge bridges to a segment of small-town and rural voters for whom neighborhood ties also play an emotionally resonant role. But to do this, they need to know something about how this term once percolated through, and now has vanished from, their GOP opponents’ political worldview.Google News Reagan’s Urban Rhetoric: Yoking Neighborhoods to the Conservative AgendaIt’s seldom remembered today how thoroughly discussions of urban neighborhoods permeated American political campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Over the postwar decades, U.S. cities had been badly battered by social forces and policy choices that left large swaths of the urban fabric in tatters. What anxious 1960s commentators discussed as an “urban crisis” had come by the 1970s to seem a permanent state of affairs.Yet amid the urban gloom of the 1970s, a countervailing force took shape: a diffuse yet powerful grassroots movement dedicated to bolstering the redeeming social ties and lifeways that urban neighborhoods still offered. Known simply as the neighborhood movement, this activist upsurge adopted an anti-technocratic ethos and a populist rhetoric. Participants portrayed neighborhoods as “the little guys,” facing off against the vast, neighborhood-destroying machinery of profit-hungry corporations, indifferent city halls, and a disdainful cosmopolitan media. Meanwhile, the authenticity, local relationships, and plucky self-advocacy of historic urban communities became fodder for innumerable newspaper features, from the style and real-estate sections to the city and national political pages.While most of the movement’s national leaders leaned in a progressive direction, the movement didn’t sit easily on the Left-Right spectrum. In some guises, local affiliates showed the influence of the counterculture, Black or Chicano nationalism, or the labor movement. In other guises, activists wielded the language of neighborhood stability and values to oppose initiatives such as school integration, scatter-site public housing, or disruptions to what 1976 presidential candidate Jimmy Carter — in a much-pilloried gaffe — called the “ethnic purity” of a community. The movement was always an ideological crazy quilt. Yet it fostered an upsurge of grassroots organizing that percolated through the nation’s older cities.By the time Ronald Reagan embarked on his 1980 White House bid, the word neighborhood had taken on a central role in national politics — one that would only grow that year. At the campaign’s outset, Reagan strategists were highly attuned to the slow-motion splintering of the New Deal coalition. Several came to believe that a domestic focus not solely on workplace and economic issues, but rather on the sanctity of local residential environments, could accelerate the coalition’s final demise.Indeed, the 1980 Reagan neighborhood strategy was designed to win over a specific chunk of voters within the larger group that would later be dubbed “Reagan Democrats.” The targeted voters here were mostly white, generally lower-middle class, culturally conservative, disproportionately though not exclusively Catholic, suspicious of federal antipoverty and racial justice initiatives, but still rooted in either older city districts or blue-collar inner-ring suburbs rather than the burgeoning suburban periphery.Moreover, to a substantial segment of these voters, neighborhood wasn’t simply a warm and fuzzy word evoking friendly sidewalk greetings and block-party cookouts. At this moment, to speak of defending neighborhoods from outside meddling — even when done in apparently race-neutral terms — often had a powerful racial charge. “Neighborhood schools,” after all, had been the rallying cry of white urban opposition to busing and redistricting for school integration.To create an urban rhetoric based around local community life, Reagan’s team had to take the protean language of the diverse neighborhood movement and bend it to their political agenda. This movement’s language was not automatically conservative; it had to be made to resonate in that fashion. This task was taken on by two key campaign speechwriters and strategists, who sought to hitch the term neighborhood to bigger conservative ideological goals.On the libertarian side was John McClaughry, who had become enamored by the “Small Is Beautiful” philosophy motivating the previous decade’s enthusiasm for experiments in grassroots institution building. Though generally understood as an outgrowth of the 1960s counterculture, McClaughry thought, these impulses could be harnessed to promote an anti-statist economic vision.
This was especially true when applied to urban neighborhoods, where government could be portrayed as the great disrupter of organic forms of human-scale organization.Meanwhile, a conservative cultural component was refined by William F. Gavin, an advocate for a sharp-elbowed urban Republicanism that would be at home in blue-collar Catholic neighborhoods like his boyhood haunts in Jersey City. Neighborhood loyalties could become an even more potent national electoral force, Gavin insisted, when leftist activist movements were saddled with the blame for the decomposition of local traditions and lifeways.The outcome in 1980 was a candidate with no real experience in traditional urban neighborhoods — and no apparent affection for the struggling cities of which they were a part — who sang their praises in almost romantic terms. This Reaganite theme first emerged in 1978, in a syndicated radio address where the future candidate gauzily pronounced: “The neighborhood scale is a human scale — a place where the real spirit of a community can develop. Many neighborhoods are rich in tradition and memories. And in many, there is a mixture of generations and functions, so that activity is continuous. This in turn works to keep crime down when, as one urban planning critic described it, there are ‘eyes on the street,’ eyes of grandparents and shopkeepers who watch the passing parade.”And what was to blame for neighborhood decline, in this telling? Virtually every public program — good, bad, or indifferent — that had touched the nation’s urban fabric. As Reagan continued: “Building codes, zoning laws, highway construction, urban renewal, federal mortgage insurance, the so-called Model Cities program, forced school busing — these and other factors have often combined to depress the value of neighborhoods and undercut the fullness of their life.”These themes offered one anchor for the GOP’s 1980 appeals. It was Gavin who devised Reagan’s resonant five-word campaign slogan: “Family, Work, Neighborhood, Peace, Freedom.” The rallying cry covered giant banners at the Republican National Convention and infused the candidate’s speeches. The appearance of “neighborhood” on that list was no accident. As Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin later explained, each word was aimed at a coveted bloc of swing voters — with neighborhood meant to especially woo white, blue-collar voters, particularly Catholics. The ensuing adoption of neighborhood symbols was so thoroughgoing that Harry Boyte, a noted left-wing organizer and scholar, would remark in astonishment: “From the campaign rhetoric, one might have wondered whether Reagan had spent recent years involved in some neighborhood renewal project or seeking to get the local savings and loan to give more loans to the community.”Surprising some observers, Reagan won slightly more votes in urban counties than did his Democratic opponent, President Jimmy Carter. While it’s difficult to tell what role the neighborhood theme played in that outcome, staffers were confident that it helped. By this time, however, the neighborhood movement was already waning in strength as an organized political force. This decline was evident four years later by the comparative absence of “neighborhood” talk from both Reagan’s and Walter Mondale’s presidential campaigns.But as the 1980s dawned, the Reaganite adaptation of the neighborhood movement’s basic social vocabulary had accomplished at least two things. First, it meant that Republican talk about older cities did not appear entirely hostile and aggressive. The party’s essentially anti-urban policy aspirations were sprinkled over with praise for a specific type of urban social organization recognizable to voters. The story this conveyed to many voters and journalists was that — despite planned GOP slashes to a host of programs crucial to beleaguered municipalities — Republicans admired and sought to augment the urban environments that mattered to everyday people.Second, these invocations
turned neighborhood itself into a contested political term, one that couldn’t be fully owned by the Democrats. This was true even though congressional Democrats, in their 1970s legislative output, had been far more supportive of pro-neighborhood regulations, such as anti-redlining laws, favored by the nation’s leading networks of neighborhood organizations. Now, if Democrats wanted to center pro-neighborhood initiatives in their rhetoric about urban issues, they would need to fight Republicans over that term’s very meaning and importance. As it turned out, this wasn’t a fight that many Democrats of the 1980s were interested in mounting.Google News Trump’s Urban Rhetoric: The Enemy WithinThe current Republican presidential candidate’s political stance toward cities was also forged during the 1980s, but it was one shorn of the paeans to neighborhoods that Reagan crafted so skillfully. Its contours are best captured by Donald Trump’s intervention in the well-known Central Park jogger case of 1989, referenced by Kamala Harris in the recent presidential debate.In April of that year, a white female investment banker was raped and left for dead in New York’s Central Park. Trump, then known as a real-estate developer, reportedly spent $85,000 on ads in four New York newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and the execution of five teenaged defendants — four African American and one Hispanic — collectively known as the Central Park Five. After charging that “roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods,” Trump wrote, “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer.” The teens were found guilty and sentenced to prison.Thirteen years later, however, DNA evidence and another man’s confession compelled the New York Supreme Court to vacate the convictions. In 2014, the freed prisoners were awarded about $40 million in civil damages. By then, Trump was flirting with runs for political office. Asked if his confrontational style would harm his political prospects, Trump referred to the exonerated Central Park Five. Far from apologizing for calling for the execution of innocent men, Trump boasted that his stance on the case “will help me. I think people are tired of ‘politically correct.’”For 35 years, Donald Trump has based his political appeal partly on blaming liberal politicians for urban neighborhoods becoming cauldrons of chaos and crime. In some ways, Trump’s rhetoric resembles Reagan’s. When Reagan visited the South Bronx during the 1980 campaign, he famously remarked that he had “not seen anything that looked like this since London after the blitz.” Like Trump, Reagan blamed failed federal policies and recommended tax incentives and private business as the way to revive urban neighborhoods. And like Trump, Reagan supported a get-tough, law-and-order approach to crime.Trump has sought to paint city neighborhoods as burning hellholes, alienating the same urban voters the GOP once courted. (TPM Illustration/Getty Images/Hieronymus Bosch)The similarities, however, end there. In Reagan’s rhetoric, cities had a chance for redemption: if they embraced small government, neighborhoods would thrive again, people would look out for each other, and neighborhoods would become safe and prosperous once more. Trump, on the other hand, sees little room for redemption. Cities are the enemy. You do not redeem your enemies, you defeat them.Trump is often viewed as totally lacking in verbal discipline, meandering aimlessly between vindictive tirades and self-important bluster. But from 2016 to the present his talk about cities and neighborhoods has demonstrated remarkable consistency. Across the nine years of speeches, press conferences, and tweets that we examined, Trump has hammered home the same message time and time again: cities are enemy territory.Consider the following quote (odd even by Trump’s standards) from a 2016 meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board where he questioned the need to fund military alliances like NATO.
“So I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.” Note how Trump segues almost effortlessly from discussing international military commitments to supposed urban decay at home.The central metaphor Trump uses when talking about cities is “war.” Normally, war occurs between sovereign nations. For Trump, however, the war is within our nation. War requires two sides that are clearly differentiated and physically distinct. For Trump, the two sides are cities and suburbs. In the cities, as Trump tells it, you will find one of America’s enemies: foreigners who presumably look different from native-born Americans. They have infiltrated urban neighborhoods, in his telling, fueling a conflict between alien cities and native suburbs.To understand Trump’s view of cities and urban neighborhoods, you also need to understand how he views suburbs. Suburbs, in his speeches, are home to the “real” America. They are where the “American Dream,” a phrase Trump turns to repeatedly, is realized. For Trump, the American Dream is not about participating in community structures and projects but about the pursuit of material wealth, primarily through the ownership and defense of single-family homes.By contrast, cities are the American nightmare, the place where the American Dream dies. Trump uses terms such as “living hell,” “total decay,” “violent mayhem,” and “a disaster” to describe cities. Cities are foreign outposts within American society. In this view, the hordes of “illegal aliens” invading the southern border have taken over city neighborhoods. During the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Trump called Chicago “a war zone that’s worse than Afghanistan.”Under this view, sanctuary cities — whose policies, according to Trump, “force prisons and jails to release criminal aliens directly into your neighborhoods” — are the archenemy. As he boasted at a 2017 rally: “We are cracking down strongly on sanctuary cities that shield criminal aliens. And in order to stop the drugs, gangs, and traffickers, we are building a wall on the southern border.”And this war metaphor is not just talk. In 2020, Trump repeatedly mulled sending federal troops into cities to confront racial justice protests. In August 2022, shortly before announcing his third White House run, Trump returned to that theme, contemplating sending the National Guard into cities: “In places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law, such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops,” he said.Such talk has policy implications, too. Trump repeatedly attacked the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which required local governments to develop plans to promote greater integration. While laudable, AFFH has few mechanisms to compel local governments to act. That did not stop Trump, however, from charging that AFFH will “abolish the suburbs.” As Trump tweeted in 2020: “The ‘suburban housewife’ will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low-income housing invaded their neighborhoods.”In short, Trump views cities as enemy territory. If he could, it seems, Trump would build a wall around cities to protect the suburbs. Trump does at times talk about “saving” cities, frequently touting his Opportunity Zone program, which cut taxes for investors in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, the Opportunity Zone program is a boondoggle for wealthy investors and has generated few benefits for residents of economically marginalized communities. In any case, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about how cities need to be contained and ultimately repressed drowns out any discussion of policies to help neighborhoods.Google News Trump’s Rhetorical Retreat:
An Opportunity for the DemocratsUndoubtedly, Trump has won political support by stoking suburban fears of urban crime and neighborhood decline. His “get tough” approach to policing has surely won him votes. Many citizens are afraid. Some cities do have higher levels of crime than suburbs. Many central-city neighborhoods face overwhelming challenges. Meanwhile, television and social media exaggerate urban dangers.Every rhetorical strength, however, has a weakness. Trump’s strategy is a glaring vulnerability that Democrats can exploit. The key is not to focus exclusively on attacking his fortress of lies and exaggerations, but rather to seize the rhetorical ground on urban neighborhoods that Republicans have abandoned and then to imbue it with progressive principles.One explanation of Trump’s extreme anti-city rhetoric may be that, unlike Reagan, he has conceded the urban vote to the Democrats. As noted earlier, in 1980 Reagan won more votes than Jimmy Carter in urban counties. Forty years later, however, Biden won twice as many urban-county votes as Trump (nearly 31 million to just over 16 million).The urban rhetoric of presidential candidates, however, cannot be understood in isolation from the broader story they are telling about the nation. Reagan always had a sunny, optimistic narrative. In his 1989 Farewell Address he talked about a “shining city on a hill,” “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. … And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” Even though Reagan and Trump share a faith in unfettered markets, tax cuts for the rich, and hostility to federal social programs, the contrast in their language could not be more striking.(TPM Illustration/Getty Images)Trump’s neighborhood rhetoric reflects a much darker vision of the nation than Reagan’s. His political appeal is based on activating fears about people who look and speak differently from his target voters. Trump gins up his political base by stoking anxiety about dangerous “others,” a category that includes immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, but also residents of central cities. In this view, outsiders (abetted by liberal politicians) are driving American society into chaos and decline. Only he, Donald Trump, can save God-fearing native-born Americans from being pushed aside and humiliated in their own country.It is tempting to respond by countering Trump’s rhetoric with facts: immigrants are not criminals and rapists (in fact, they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans); cities are not cauldrons of chaos (in fact, crime is down); and suburbs are not uniformly bastions of the American Dream (in fact, many inner-ring suburbs are struggling). Yet if exasperated pro-city commentators end solely by debunking Trump’s anti-cities invective, this may only reinforce Trump’s rhetorical framing (“don’t think of an elephant!”). Facts never trump (pun intended) emotional rhetoric. Democrats need an alternative urban rhetoric that draws from the deep progressive traditions in American politics.In recent decades, centrist Democrats have utilized a pro-urban rhetoric, but it is a thin rhetoric rooted in a technocratic vision of cities as centers of the new knowledge economy. Journalists and academics are fond of pointing out that urban areas voting heavily Democratic are the most productive and innovative in the American economy. This is true, but such an appeal just underscores the difference between cities and the rest of the country. We need a rhetoric that does not divide cities from the rest of the nation but unites them in a common project.Given its positive emotional resonance, the word “neighborhood” could sit at the center of that rhetoric. Reagan cannily linked Americans’ affection for strong neighborhoods to his small-government, free-market agenda. Trump’s inability to comprehend the positive resonance of urban neighborhoods has created a rhetorical vacuum that Democrats can fill to their advantage.
Democrats can broaden their political appeal by drawing on Americans’ attachment to local communities. But it should not be an appeal to the homogeneous tightknit European-ethnic neighborhood that Reagan and Carter fought over and that Trump has updated with his defense of fortified, predominantly white suburban subdivisions.Today’s urban neighborhoods are much more diverse, containing not only different races and ethnicities but different lifestyles and family types. Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods foster face-to-face encounters in shared public spaces that nurture tolerance and a sense of interdependence. They cultivate community without conformity. Strong neighborhoods help people to get along at the same time that they help them to get ahead. They help to reconcile the longstanding tension in American life between individualism and community.For several key voter groups, this kind of place-based appeal could have meaningful resonance. For instance, in the highly scrutinized Blue Wall states, many neighborhoods — whether in major metropolises or in smaller cities like Erie, Lansing, and Racine — are still suffering from legacies of industrial job loss, which massively destabilized everyday local environments and institutions. In the same states, the prospects and perils facing individual neighborhoods are of concern for many urban and inner-ring suburban Black and Latino voters, especially given how neighborhood health often correlates with opportunities for economic mobility. Responding explicitly to those concerns could counteract minor but real erosion among these two traditionally Democratic voter blocs.In short, engaging voters on why neighborhoods matter, paired with policies explicitly crafted to nourish fragile communities at the most local scale, can help Democrats expand majorities among current coalition partners while making small but useful inroads in economically precarious Republican-leaning regions.Besides appealing to specific places and demographics, the language of neighborhood can resonate more broadly with many Americans who yearn for strong and diverse communities. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention contained seeds of a robust language about the crucial role neighborhoods can play in enhancing freedom and equity. In his acceptance speech, vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz used the term “neighbor(s)” seven times. “That family down the road,” Walz said, “they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do. They may not love like you do. But they’re your neighbors. And you look out for them. And they look out for you. Everybody belongs. And everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” At their best, Walz suggested, neighborhoods support the freedom to live as one chooses while also instilling a shared sense of community responsibility: again, community without conformity.In a powerful DNC address earlier in the week, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia invoked the language of neighborhoods for similar purposes: “I need my neighbors’ children to be okay so that my children will be okay. I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay. … I need American children on both sides of the track to be okay.” We should reject the GOP’s zero-sum vision, Warnock was suggesting, that helping disadvantaged neighborhoods threatens the well-being of those doing somewhat better. Strong neighborhoods support shared prosperity.Such invocations of mutual responsibility and intertwined futures played little part in the Republican anti-statist appropriation of neighborhood themes during Reagan’s ascent. Today, Donald Trump’s dystopian portrayals of cities demonstrate that he is temperamentally incapable of even hollow gestures toward the support that strong neighborhoods can, and often do, offer urban inhabitants up and down the class ladder.The opportunity for Democrats is clear: their MAGA opponents have vacated the public discourse over what neighborhoods mean for modern American life. Just as Democrats
with their defense of diverse families have redefined what it means to be “pro-family,” they also need to reframe what it means to be pro-neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse can be successful neighborhoods. They exist in suburbs and small towns as well as big cities.Many neighborhoods are struggling, however. An appeal to the importance of neighborhoods needs to be more than just talk. Democrats should emphasize that strong neighborhoods are too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Neighborhoods need help from government. The expansion of social insurance and safety-net programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and childcare subsidies is crucial for the health of economically precarious neighborhoods, but this is not enough.Many of the policies of the Biden-Harris administration, as well as Harris’s more recent housing policy proposals, can rightly be framed as pro-neighborhood. Addressing housing affordability will help to stabilize neighborhoods, as will programs like the eviction moratorium during COVID. The federal government can support the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement by encouraging communities to eliminate exclusionary zoning. A diverse neighborhood policy agenda could include increased funding for community development block grants that target fiscally stressed communities, stronger enforcement of anti-redlining laws, more funding for home repair, increased support for grassroots community development corporations — and much more.Whatever policy choices might ensue, placing neighborhoods closer to the center of their vision for our national future will allow Democrats to move beyond cold neoliberal defenses of the American city, while aligning themselves with daily relationships that many voters experience as vital and deeply meaningful.“This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral���”Source Link: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/g512cb2fd9d9e5a4d12339bc06eed4a73defbbe72601f1945998ccfbe769decf5dc56ed8e2c784545e11c2439e26bc476_64.jpeg This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run … Read More
0 notes
bravecompanynews · 10 months ago
Text
How Republicans Stopped Talking About ‘Neighborhood,’ And Why Democrats Should Make That Term Their Own - Notice Today Web - #GLOBAL https://www.merchant-business.com/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own/?feed_id=212237&_unique_id=66f4914e3fa08 This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run by Democrats and they have very similar policies. It’s just insane. But you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot, you get mugged, you get raped. … We have these cities that are great cities where people are afraid to live in America.”This is, of course, a ludicrous caricature, as numerous bread-fetching city dwellers could attest. Yet to understand the significance of this seething anti-cities rhetoric — both its political potency and the unique opportunity it presents for Democrats — requires a brief look at a deep-seated tension in how conservatives have talked about urban areas across recent decades.For more than a century, the Republican Party’s conservative wing has run against cities. Early in the twentieth century, their animus was rooted in nativism and religion. They mobilized small-town Protestant voters by attacking heavily Catholic cities as beholden to popery, demon rum, and corrupt Irish machines. Several generations later, during Richard Nixon’s ascent, the party’s right wing roused white voter antipathy toward escalating urban crime and civil uprisings, both supposedly fostered by the federal War on Poverty.In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, leading conservative politicians and intellectuals modified Nixon’s rhetoric, adding elements aimed at corralling new urban and urban-adjacent Republican voters. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan explicitly placed the social functions played by local neighborhoods at the heart of his urban commentary. Tender odes to the beauties of the human-scale city neighborhood — paired with condemnation of government programs for undermining community self-help capacities — infused national GOP communications output. Crucially, this often lent the party’s outreach efforts a pro-urban veneer. Propelled partly by this neighborhoods appeal, Reagan attracted key support from traditionally Democratic “white-ethnic” inhabitants of older city and suburban areas.But this component of Republican rhetoric eventually evaporated. In recent years, Donald Trump and his allies have moved hard in the other direction, portraying urban areas solely as dangerous alien enclaves and as menaces to the “American Dream” anchored in the suburbs. In refusing any reference to neighborhood ties and social virtues, the MAGA compulsion toward urban demonization concedes rhetorical ground that Democrats can occupy to their advantage. Right now, we believe, Democrats should assertively bring neighborhoods back into the conversation, but this time fully on their own terms.By crafting an unabashedly progressive vision for the importance of urban neighborhoods to national health, they can draw upon the deep-seated affection many Americans have for their local communities and environments. At the same time, Democrats can potentially forge bridges to a segment of small-town and rural voters for whom neighborhood ties also play an emotionally resonant role. But to do this, they need to know something about how this term once percolated through, and now has vanished from, their GOP opponents’ political worldview.Google News Reagan’s Urban Rhetoric: Yoking Neighborhoods to the Conservative AgendaIt’s seldom remembered today how thoroughly discussions of urban neighborhoods permeated American political campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Over the postwar decades, U.S. cities had been badly battered by social forces and policy choices that left large swaths of the urban fabric in tatters. What anxious 1960s commentators discussed as an “urban crisis” had come by the 1970s to seem a permanent state of affairs.Yet amid the urban gloom of the 1970s, a countervailing force took shape: a diffuse yet powerful grassroots movement dedicated to bolstering the redeeming social ties and lifeways that urban neighborhoods still offered. Known simply as the neighborhood movement, this activist upsurge adopted an anti-technocratic ethos and a populist rhetoric. Participants portrayed neighborhoods as “the little guys,” facing off against the vast, neighborhood-destroying machinery of profit-hungry corporations, indifferent city halls, and a disdainful cosmopolitan media. Meanwhile, the authenticity, local relationships, and plucky self-advocacy of historic urban communities became fodder for innumerable newspaper features, from the style and real-estate sections to the city and national political pages.While most of the movement’s national leaders leaned in a progressive direction, the movement didn’t sit easily on the Left-Right spectrum. In some guises, local affiliates showed the influence of the counterculture, Black or Chicano nationalism, or the labor movement. In other guises, activists wielded the language of neighborhood stability and values to oppose initiatives such as school integration, scatter-site public housing, or disruptions to what 1976 presidential candidate Jimmy Carter — in a much-pilloried gaffe — called the “ethnic purity” of a community. The movement was always an ideological crazy quilt. Yet it fostered an upsurge of grassroots organizing that percolated through the nation’s older cities.By the time Ronald Reagan embarked on his 1980 White House bid, the word neighborhood had taken on a central role in national politics — one that would only grow that year. At the campaign’s outset, Reagan strategists were highly attuned to the slow-motion splintering of the New Deal coalition. Several came to believe that a domestic focus not solely on workplace and economic issues, but rather on the sanctity of local residential environments, could accelerate the coalition’s final demise.Indeed, the 1980 Reagan neighborhood strategy was designed to win over a specific chunk of voters within the larger group that would later be dubbed “Reagan Democrats.” The targeted voters here were mostly white, generally lower-middle class, culturally conservative, disproportionately though not exclusively Catholic, suspicious of federal antipoverty and racial justice initiatives, but still rooted in either older city districts or blue-collar inner-ring suburbs rather than the burgeoning suburban periphery.Moreover, to a substantial segment of these voters, neighborhood wasn’t simply a warm and fuzzy word evoking friendly sidewalk greetings and block-party cookouts. At this moment, to speak of defending neighborhoods from outside meddling — even when done in apparently race-neutral terms — often had a powerful racial charge. “Neighborhood schools,” after all, had been the rallying cry of white urban opposition to busing and redistricting for school integration.To create an urban rhetoric based around local community life, Reagan’s team had to take the protean language of the diverse neighborhood movement and bend it to their political agenda. This movement’s language was not automatically conservative; it had to be made to resonate in that fashion. This task was taken on by two key campaign speechwriters and strategists, who sought to hitch the term neighborhood to bigger conservative ideological goals.On the libertarian side was John McClaughry, who had become enamored by the “Small Is Beautiful” philosophy motivating the previous decade’s enthusiasm for experiments in grassroots institution building. Though generally understood as an outgrowth of the 1960s counterculture, McClaughry thought, these impulses could be harnessed to promote an anti-statist economic vision.
This was especially true when applied to urban neighborhoods, where government could be portrayed as the great disrupter of organic forms of human-scale organization.Meanwhile, a conservative cultural component was refined by William F. Gavin, an advocate for a sharp-elbowed urban Republicanism that would be at home in blue-collar Catholic neighborhoods like his boyhood haunts in Jersey City. Neighborhood loyalties could become an even more potent national electoral force, Gavin insisted, when leftist activist movements were saddled with the blame for the decomposition of local traditions and lifeways.The outcome in 1980 was a candidate with no real experience in traditional urban neighborhoods — and no apparent affection for the struggling cities of which they were a part — who sang their praises in almost romantic terms. This Reaganite theme first emerged in 1978, in a syndicated radio address where the future candidate gauzily pronounced: “The neighborhood scale is a human scale — a place where the real spirit of a community can develop. Many neighborhoods are rich in tradition and memories. And in many, there is a mixture of generations and functions, so that activity is continuous. This in turn works to keep crime down when, as one urban planning critic described it, there are ‘eyes on the street,’ eyes of grandparents and shopkeepers who watch the passing parade.”And what was to blame for neighborhood decline, in this telling? Virtually every public program — good, bad, or indifferent — that had touched the nation’s urban fabric. As Reagan continued: “Building codes, zoning laws, highway construction, urban renewal, federal mortgage insurance, the so-called Model Cities program, forced school busing — these and other factors have often combined to depress the value of neighborhoods and undercut the fullness of their life.”These themes offered one anchor for the GOP’s 1980 appeals. It was Gavin who devised Reagan’s resonant five-word campaign slogan: “Family, Work, Neighborhood, Peace, Freedom.” The rallying cry covered giant banners at the Republican National Convention and infused the candidate’s speeches. The appearance of “neighborhood” on that list was no accident. As Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin later explained, each word was aimed at a coveted bloc of swing voters — with neighborhood meant to especially woo white, blue-collar voters, particularly Catholics. The ensuing adoption of neighborhood symbols was so thoroughgoing that Harry Boyte, a noted left-wing organizer and scholar, would remark in astonishment: “From the campaign rhetoric, one might have wondered whether Reagan had spent recent years involved in some neighborhood renewal project or seeking to get the local savings and loan to give more loans to the community.”Surprising some observers, Reagan won slightly more votes in urban counties than did his Democratic opponent, President Jimmy Carter. While it’s difficult to tell what role the neighborhood theme played in that outcome, staffers were confident that it helped. By this time, however, the neighborhood movement was already waning in strength as an organized political force. This decline was evident four years later by the comparative absence of “neighborhood” talk from both Reagan’s and Walter Mondale’s presidential campaigns.But as the 1980s dawned, the Reaganite adaptation of the neighborhood movement’s basic social vocabulary had accomplished at least two things. First, it meant that Republican talk about older cities did not appear entirely hostile and aggressive. The party’s essentially anti-urban policy aspirations were sprinkled over with praise for a specific type of urban social organization recognizable to voters. The story this conveyed to many voters and journalists was that — despite planned GOP slashes to a host of programs crucial to beleaguered municipalities — Republicans admired and sought to augment the urban environments that mattered to everyday people.Second, these invocations
turned neighborhood itself into a contested political term, one that couldn’t be fully owned by the Democrats. This was true even though congressional Democrats, in their 1970s legislative output, had been far more supportive of pro-neighborhood regulations, such as anti-redlining laws, favored by the nation’s leading networks of neighborhood organizations. Now, if Democrats wanted to center pro-neighborhood initiatives in their rhetoric about urban issues, they would need to fight Republicans over that term’s very meaning and importance. As it turned out, this wasn’t a fight that many Democrats of the 1980s were interested in mounting.Google News Trump’s Urban Rhetoric: The Enemy WithinThe current Republican presidential candidate’s political stance toward cities was also forged during the 1980s, but it was one shorn of the paeans to neighborhoods that Reagan crafted so skillfully. Its contours are best captured by Donald Trump’s intervention in the well-known Central Park jogger case of 1989, referenced by Kamala Harris in the recent presidential debate.In April of that year, a white female investment banker was raped and left for dead in New York’s Central Park. Trump, then known as a real-estate developer, reportedly spent $85,000 on ads in four New York newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and the execution of five teenaged defendants — four African American and one Hispanic — collectively known as the Central Park Five. After charging that “roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods,” Trump wrote, “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer.” The teens were found guilty and sentenced to prison.Thirteen years later, however, DNA evidence and another man’s confession compelled the New York Supreme Court to vacate the convictions. In 2014, the freed prisoners were awarded about $40 million in civil damages. By then, Trump was flirting with runs for political office. Asked if his confrontational style would harm his political prospects, Trump referred to the exonerated Central Park Five. Far from apologizing for calling for the execution of innocent men, Trump boasted that his stance on the case “will help me. I think people are tired of ‘politically correct.’”For 35 years, Donald Trump has based his political appeal partly on blaming liberal politicians for urban neighborhoods becoming cauldrons of chaos and crime. In some ways, Trump’s rhetoric resembles Reagan’s. When Reagan visited the South Bronx during the 1980 campaign, he famously remarked that he had “not seen anything that looked like this since London after the blitz.” Like Trump, Reagan blamed failed federal policies and recommended tax incentives and private business as the way to revive urban neighborhoods. And like Trump, Reagan supported a get-tough, law-and-order approach to crime.Trump has sought to paint city neighborhoods as burning hellholes, alienating the same urban voters the GOP once courted. (TPM Illustration/Getty Images/Hieronymus Bosch)The similarities, however, end there. In Reagan’s rhetoric, cities had a chance for redemption: if they embraced small government, neighborhoods would thrive again, people would look out for each other, and neighborhoods would become safe and prosperous once more. Trump, on the other hand, sees little room for redemption. Cities are the enemy. You do not redeem your enemies, you defeat them.Trump is often viewed as totally lacking in verbal discipline, meandering aimlessly between vindictive tirades and self-important bluster. But from 2016 to the present his talk about cities and neighborhoods has demonstrated remarkable consistency. Across the nine years of speeches, press conferences, and tweets that we examined, Trump has hammered home the same message time and time again: cities are enemy territory.Consider the following quote (odd even by Trump’s standards) from a 2016 meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board where he questioned the need to fund military alliances like NATO.
“So I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.” Note how Trump segues almost effortlessly from discussing international military commitments to supposed urban decay at home.The central metaphor Trump uses when talking about cities is “war.” Normally, war occurs between sovereign nations. For Trump, however, the war is within our nation. War requires two sides that are clearly differentiated and physically distinct. For Trump, the two sides are cities and suburbs. In the cities, as Trump tells it, you will find one of America’s enemies: foreigners who presumably look different from native-born Americans. They have infiltrated urban neighborhoods, in his telling, fueling a conflict between alien cities and native suburbs.To understand Trump’s view of cities and urban neighborhoods, you also need to understand how he views suburbs. Suburbs, in his speeches, are home to the “real” America. They are where the “American Dream,” a phrase Trump turns to repeatedly, is realized. For Trump, the American Dream is not about participating in community structures and projects but about the pursuit of material wealth, primarily through the ownership and defense of single-family homes.By contrast, cities are the American nightmare, the place where the American Dream dies. Trump uses terms such as “living hell,” “total decay,” “violent mayhem,” and “a disaster” to describe cities. Cities are foreign outposts within American society. In this view, the hordes of “illegal aliens” invading the southern border have taken over city neighborhoods. During the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Trump called Chicago “a war zone that’s worse than Afghanistan.”Under this view, sanctuary cities — whose policies, according to Trump, “force prisons and jails to release criminal aliens directly into your neighborhoods” — are the archenemy. As he boasted at a 2017 rally: “We are cracking down strongly on sanctuary cities that shield criminal aliens. And in order to stop the drugs, gangs, and traffickers, we are building a wall on the southern border.”And this war metaphor is not just talk. In 2020, Trump repeatedly mulled sending federal troops into cities to confront racial justice protests. In August 2022, shortly before announcing his third White House run, Trump returned to that theme, contemplating sending the National Guard into cities: “In places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law, such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops,” he said.Such talk has policy implications, too. Trump repeatedly attacked the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which required local governments to develop plans to promote greater integration. While laudable, AFFH has few mechanisms to compel local governments to act. That did not stop Trump, however, from charging that AFFH will “abolish the suburbs.” As Trump tweeted in 2020: “The ‘suburban housewife’ will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low-income housing invaded their neighborhoods.”In short, Trump views cities as enemy territory. If he could, it seems, Trump would build a wall around cities to protect the suburbs. Trump does at times talk about “saving” cities, frequently touting his Opportunity Zone program, which cut taxes for investors in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, the Opportunity Zone program is a boondoggle for wealthy investors and has generated few benefits for residents of economically marginalized communities. In any case, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about how cities need to be contained and ultimately repressed drowns out any discussion of policies to help neighborhoods.Google News Trump’s Rhetorical Retreat:
An Opportunity for the DemocratsUndoubtedly, Trump has won political support by stoking suburban fears of urban crime and neighborhood decline. His “get tough” approach to policing has surely won him votes. Many citizens are afraid. Some cities do have higher levels of crime than suburbs. Many central-city neighborhoods face overwhelming challenges. Meanwhile, television and social media exaggerate urban dangers.Every rhetorical strength, however, has a weakness. Trump’s strategy is a glaring vulnerability that Democrats can exploit. The key is not to focus exclusively on attacking his fortress of lies and exaggerations, but rather to seize the rhetorical ground on urban neighborhoods that Republicans have abandoned and then to imbue it with progressive principles.One explanation of Trump’s extreme anti-city rhetoric may be that, unlike Reagan, he has conceded the urban vote to the Democrats. As noted earlier, in 1980 Reagan won more votes than Jimmy Carter in urban counties. Forty years later, however, Biden won twice as many urban-county votes as Trump (nearly 31 million to just over 16 million).The urban rhetoric of presidential candidates, however, cannot be understood in isolation from the broader story they are telling about the nation. Reagan always had a sunny, optimistic narrative. In his 1989 Farewell Address he talked about a “shining city on a hill,” “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. … And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” Even though Reagan and Trump share a faith in unfettered markets, tax cuts for the rich, and hostility to federal social programs, the contrast in their language could not be more striking.(TPM Illustration/Getty Images)Trump’s neighborhood rhetoric reflects a much darker vision of the nation than Reagan’s. His political appeal is based on activating fears about people who look and speak differently from his target voters. Trump gins up his political base by stoking anxiety about dangerous “others,” a category that includes immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, but also residents of central cities. In this view, outsiders (abetted by liberal politicians) are driving American society into chaos and decline. Only he, Donald Trump, can save God-fearing native-born Americans from being pushed aside and humiliated in their own country.It is tempting to respond by countering Trump’s rhetoric with facts: immigrants are not criminals and rapists (in fact, they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans); cities are not cauldrons of chaos (in fact, crime is down); and suburbs are not uniformly bastions of the American Dream (in fact, many inner-ring suburbs are struggling). Yet if exasperated pro-city commentators end solely by debunking Trump’s anti-cities invective, this may only reinforce Trump’s rhetorical framing (“don’t think of an elephant!”). Facts never trump (pun intended) emotional rhetoric. Democrats need an alternative urban rhetoric that draws from the deep progressive traditions in American politics.In recent decades, centrist Democrats have utilized a pro-urban rhetoric, but it is a thin rhetoric rooted in a technocratic vision of cities as centers of the new knowledge economy. Journalists and academics are fond of pointing out that urban areas voting heavily Democratic are the most productive and innovative in the American economy. This is true, but such an appeal just underscores the difference between cities and the rest of the country. We need a rhetoric that does not divide cities from the rest of the nation but unites them in a common project.Given its positive emotional resonance, the word “neighborhood” could sit at the center of that rhetoric. Reagan cannily linked Americans’ affection for strong neighborhoods to his small-government, free-market agenda. Trump’s inability to comprehend the positive resonance of urban neighborhoods has created a rhetorical vacuum that Democrats can fill to their advantage.
Democrats can broaden their political appeal by drawing on Americans’ attachment to local communities. But it should not be an appeal to the homogeneous tightknit European-ethnic neighborhood that Reagan and Carter fought over and that Trump has updated with his defense of fortified, predominantly white suburban subdivisions.Today’s urban neighborhoods are much more diverse, containing not only different races and ethnicities but different lifestyles and family types. Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods foster face-to-face encounters in shared public spaces that nurture tolerance and a sense of interdependence. They cultivate community without conformity. Strong neighborhoods help people to get along at the same time that they help them to get ahead. They help to reconcile the longstanding tension in American life between individualism and community.For several key voter groups, this kind of place-based appeal could have meaningful resonance. For instance, in the highly scrutinized Blue Wall states, many neighborhoods — whether in major metropolises or in smaller cities like Erie, Lansing, and Racine — are still suffering from legacies of industrial job loss, which massively destabilized everyday local environments and institutions. In the same states, the prospects and perils facing individual neighborhoods are of concern for many urban and inner-ring suburban Black and Latino voters, especially given how neighborhood health often correlates with opportunities for economic mobility. Responding explicitly to those concerns could counteract minor but real erosion among these two traditionally Democratic voter blocs.In short, engaging voters on why neighborhoods matter, paired with policies explicitly crafted to nourish fragile communities at the most local scale, can help Democrats expand majorities among current coalition partners while making small but useful inroads in economically precarious Republican-leaning regions.Besides appealing to specific places and demographics, the language of neighborhood can resonate more broadly with many Americans who yearn for strong and diverse communities. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention contained seeds of a robust language about the crucial role neighborhoods can play in enhancing freedom and equity. In his acceptance speech, vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz used the term “neighbor(s)” seven times. “That family down the road,” Walz said, “they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do. They may not love like you do. But they’re your neighbors. And you look out for them. And they look out for you. Everybody belongs. And everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” At their best, Walz suggested, neighborhoods support the freedom to live as one chooses while also instilling a shared sense of community responsibility: again, community without conformity.In a powerful DNC address earlier in the week, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia invoked the language of neighborhoods for similar purposes: “I need my neighbors’ children to be okay so that my children will be okay. I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay. … I need American children on both sides of the track to be okay.” We should reject the GOP’s zero-sum vision, Warnock was suggesting, that helping disadvantaged neighborhoods threatens the well-being of those doing somewhat better. Strong neighborhoods support shared prosperity.Such invocations of mutual responsibility and intertwined futures played little part in the Republican anti-statist appropriation of neighborhood themes during Reagan’s ascent. Today, Donald Trump’s dystopian portrayals of cities demonstrate that he is temperamentally incapable of even hollow gestures toward the support that strong neighborhoods can, and often do, offer urban inhabitants up and down the class ladder.The opportunity for Democrats is clear: their MAGA opponents have vacated the public discourse over what neighborhoods mean for modern American life. Just as Democrats
with their defense of diverse families have redefined what it means to be “pro-family,” they also need to reframe what it means to be pro-neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse can be successful neighborhoods. They exist in suburbs and small towns as well as big cities.Many neighborhoods are struggling, however. An appeal to the importance of neighborhoods needs to be more than just talk. Democrats should emphasize that strong neighborhoods are too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Neighborhoods need help from government. The expansion of social insurance and safety-net programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and childcare subsidies is crucial for the health of economically precarious neighborhoods, but this is not enough.Many of the policies of the Biden-Harris administration, as well as Harris’s more recent housing policy proposals, can rightly be framed as pro-neighborhood. Addressing housing affordability will help to stabilize neighborhoods, as will programs like the eviction moratorium during COVID. The federal government can support the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement by encouraging communities to eliminate exclusionary zoning. A diverse neighborhood policy agenda could include increased funding for community development block grants that target fiscally stressed communities, stronger enforcement of anti-redlining laws, more funding for home repair, increased support for grassroots community development corporations — and much more.Whatever policy choices might ensue, placing neighborhoods closer to the center of their vision for our national future will allow Democrats to move beyond cold neoliberal defenses of the American city, while aligning themselves with daily relationships that many voters experience as vital and deeply meaningful.“This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral…”Source Link: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/g512cb2fd9d9e5a4d12339bc06eed4a73defbbe72601f1945998ccfbe769decf5dc56ed8e2c784545e11c2439e26bc476_64.jpeg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL
0 notes
rushikesh-d · 2 months ago
Text
Automotive Logistics Market Size, Analyzing Trends and Projected Outlook for 2025-2032
Tumblr media
Fortune Business Insights released the Global Automotive Logistics Market Trends Study, a comprehensive analysis of the market that spans more than 150+ pages and describes the product and industry scope as well as the market prognosis and status for 2025-2032. The marketization process is being accelerated by the market study's segmentation by important regions. The market is currently expanding its reach.
The Automotive Logistics Market is experiencing robust growth driven by the expanding globally. The Automotive Logistics Market is poised for substantial growth as manufacturers across various industries embrace automation to enhance productivity, quality, and agility in their production processes. Automotive Logistics Market leverage robotics, machine vision, and advanced control technologies to streamline assembly tasks, reduce labor costs, and minimize errors. With increasing demand for customized products, shorter product lifecycles, and labor shortages, there is a growing need for flexible and scalable automation solutions. As technology advances and automation becomes more accessible, the adoption of automated assembly systems is expected to accelerate, driving market growth and innovation in manufacturing. Automotive Logistics Market is expected to grow from USD 262.06 billion in 2021 to USD 393.71 billion in 2028, grow at a CAGR of 6.0% in the 2021-2028 period. The rise in CAGR is attributable to this market’s demand and growth, returning to pre-pandemic levels once the pandemic is over.
Get Sample PDF Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/105662
Major Automotive Logistics Market Manufacturers covered in the market report include:
DB Schenker (Essen, Germany)
BLG LOGISTICS GROUP AG & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)
CEVA Logistics (Baar, Switzerland)
Kuehne+Nagel (Feusisberg, Switzerland)
Expeditors International (Washington, U.S.)
DSV (Hedehusene, Denmark)
XPO Logistics, Inc. (Connecticut, United States)
Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany)
SINOTRANS Limited (Beijing, China)
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Minnesota, United States)
GEFCO (Paris, France)
Ryder System, Inc. (Florida, U.S.)
Schnellecke group ag & co. Kg (Wolfsburg, Germany)
Penske Automotive Group, Inc. (Michigan, U.S.)
Others
By increasing operational efficiency, fewer trucks will be required. For instance, NVD, an Irish vehicle distributor, optimized its logistical process with intelligent solutions. NVD has shortened customer lead times and doubled its productivity as they can now load 8-10 cars on a truck within 45 minutes. In comparison, more than 3 hours are consumed in this process across Eastern European facilities. Hence, the increasing efficiency in FVL will drive the market growth rate over the forecast period.
Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share, and growth rate of the following regions:
The Middle East and Africa (South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Egypt, etc.)
North America (United States, Mexico & Canada)
South America (Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, etc.)
Europe (Turkey, Spain, Turkey, Netherlands Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.)
Asia-Pacific (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia).
Automotive Logistics Market Research Objectives:
- Focuses on the key manufacturers, to define, pronounce and examine the value, sales volume, market share, market competition landscape, SWOT analysis, and development plans in the next few years.
- To share comprehensive information about the key factors influencing the growth of the market (opportunities, drivers, growth potential, industry-specific challenges and risks).
- To analyze the with respect to individual future prospects, growth trends and their involvement to the total market.
- To analyze reasonable developments such as agreements, expansions new product launches, and acquisitions in the market.
- To deliberately profile the key players and systematically examine their growth strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
► What is the current market scenario?
► What was the historical demand scenario, and forecast outlook from 2025 to 2032?
► What are the key market dynamics influencing growth in the Global Automotive Logistics Market?
► Who are the prominent players in the Global Automotive Logistics Market?
► What is the consumer perspective in the Global Automotive Logistics Market?
► What are the key demand-side and supply-side trends in the Global Automotive Logistics Market?
► What are the largest and the fastest-growing geographies?
► Which segment dominated and which segment is expected to grow fastest?
► What was the COVID-19 impact on the Global Automotive Logistics Market?
FIVE FORCES & PESTLE ANALYSIS:
In order to better understand market conditions five forces analysis is conducted that includes the Bargaining power of buyers, Bargaining power of suppliers, Threat of new entrants, Threat of substitutes, and Threat of rivalry.
Political (Political policy and stability as well as trade, fiscal, and taxation policies)
Economical (Interest rates, employment or unemployment rates, raw material costs, and foreign exchange rates)
Social (Changing family demographics, education levels, cultural trends, attitude changes, and changes in lifestyles)
Technological (Changes in digital or mobile technology, automation, research, and development)
Legal (Employment legislation, consumer law, health, and safety, international as well as trade regulation and restrictions)
Environmental (Climate, recycling procedures, carbon footprint, waste disposal, and sustainability)
Points Covered in Table of Content of Global Automotive Logistics Market:
Chapter 01 - Automotive Logistics Market for Automotive Executive Summary
Chapter 02 - Market Overview
Chapter 03 - Key Success Factors
Chapter 04 - Global Automotive Logistics Market - Pricing Analysis
Chapter 05 - Global Automotive Logistics Market Background or History
Chapter 06 - Global Automotive Logistics Market Segmentation (e.g. Type, Application)
Chapter 07 - Key and Emerging Countries Analysis Worldwide Automotive Logistics Market.
Chapter 08 - Global Automotive Logistics Market Structure & worth Analysis
Chapter 09 - Global Automotive Logistics Market Competitive Analysis & Challenges
Chapter 10 - Assumptions and Acronyms
Chapter 11 - Automotive Logistics Market Research Methodology
About Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ delivers accurate data and innovative corporate analysis, helping organizations of all sizes make appropriate decisions. We tailor novel solutions for our clients, assisting them to address various challenges distinct to their businesses. Our aim is to empower them with holistic market intelligence, providing a granular overview of the market they are operating in.
Contact Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ Pvt. Ltd.
US:+18339092966
UK: +448085020280
APAC: +91 744 740 1245
0 notes
boldcompanynews · 10 months ago
Text
How Republicans Stopped Talking About ‘Neighborhood,’ And Why Democrats Should Make That Term Their Own - Notice Today Web - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own/?feed_id=212236&_unique_id=66f4914cd0f4f This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run by Democrats and they have very similar policies. It’s just insane. But you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot, you get mugged, you get raped. … We have these cities that are great cities where people are afraid to live in America.”This is, of course, a ludicrous caricature, as numerous bread-fetching city dwellers could attest. Yet to understand the significance of this seething anti-cities rhetoric — both its political potency and the unique opportunity it presents for Democrats — requires a brief look at a deep-seated tension in how conservatives have talked about urban areas across recent decades.For more than a century, the Republican Party’s conservative wing has run against cities. Early in the twentieth century, their animus was rooted in nativism and religion. They mobilized small-town Protestant voters by attacking heavily Catholic cities as beholden to popery, demon rum, and corrupt Irish machines. Several generations later, during Richard Nixon’s ascent, the party’s right wing roused white voter antipathy toward escalating urban crime and civil uprisings, both supposedly fostered by the federal War on Poverty.In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, leading conservative politicians and intellectuals modified Nixon’s rhetoric, adding elements aimed at corralling new urban and urban-adjacent Republican voters. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan explicitly placed the social functions played by local neighborhoods at the heart of his urban commentary. Tender odes to the beauties of the human-scale city neighborhood — paired with condemnation of government programs for undermining community self-help capacities — infused national GOP communications output. Crucially, this often lent the party’s outreach efforts a pro-urban veneer. Propelled partly by this neighborhoods appeal, Reagan attracted key support from traditionally Democratic “white-ethnic” inhabitants of older city and suburban areas.But this component of Republican rhetoric eventually evaporated. In recent years, Donald Trump and his allies have moved hard in the other direction, portraying urban areas solely as dangerous alien enclaves and as menaces to the “American Dream” anchored in the suburbs. In refusing any reference to neighborhood ties and social virtues, the MAGA compulsion toward urban demonization concedes rhetorical ground that Democrats can occupy to their advantage. Right now, we believe, Democrats should assertively bring neighborhoods back into the conversation, but this time fully on their own terms.By crafting an unabashedly progressive vision for the importance of urban neighborhoods to national health, they can draw upon the deep-seated affection many Americans have for their local communities and environments. At the same time, Democrats can potentially forge bridges to a segment of small-town and rural voters for whom neighborhood ties also play an emotionally resonant role. But to do this, they need to know something about how this term once percolated through, and now has vanished from, their GOP opponents’ political worldview.Google News Reagan’s Urban Rhetoric: Yoking Neighborhoods to the Conservative AgendaIt’s seldom remembered today how thoroughly discussions of urban neighborhoods permeated American political campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Over the postwar decades, U.S. cities had been badly battered by social forces and policy choices that left large swaths of the urban fabric in tatters. What anxious 1960s commentators discussed as an “urban crisis” had come by the 1970s to seem a permanent state of affairs.Yet amid the urban gloom of the 1970s, a countervailing force took shape: a diffuse yet powerful grassroots movement dedicated to bolstering the redeeming social ties and lifeways that urban neighborhoods still offered. Known simply as the neighborhood movement, this activist upsurge adopted an anti-technocratic ethos and a populist rhetoric. Participants portrayed neighborhoods as “the little guys,” facing off against the vast, neighborhood-destroying machinery of profit-hungry corporations, indifferent city halls, and a disdainful cosmopolitan media. Meanwhile, the authenticity, local relationships, and plucky self-advocacy of historic urban communities became fodder for innumerable newspaper features, from the style and real-estate sections to the city and national political pages.While most of the movement’s national leaders leaned in a progressive direction, the movement didn’t sit easily on the Left-Right spectrum. In some guises, local affiliates showed the influence of the counterculture, Black or Chicano nationalism, or the labor movement. In other guises, activists wielded the language of neighborhood stability and values to oppose initiatives such as school integration, scatter-site public housing, or disruptions to what 1976 presidential candidate Jimmy Carter — in a much-pilloried gaffe — called the “ethnic purity” of a community. The movement was always an ideological crazy quilt. Yet it fostered an upsurge of grassroots organizing that percolated through the nation’s older cities.By the time Ronald Reagan embarked on his 1980 White House bid, the word neighborhood had taken on a central role in national politics — one that would only grow that year. At the campaign’s outset, Reagan strategists were highly attuned to the slow-motion splintering of the New Deal coalition. Several came to believe that a domestic focus not solely on workplace and economic issues, but rather on the sanctity of local residential environments, could accelerate the coalition’s final demise.Indeed, the 1980 Reagan neighborhood strategy was designed to win over a specific chunk of voters within the larger group that would later be dubbed “Reagan Democrats.” The targeted voters here were mostly white, generally lower-middle class, culturally conservative, disproportionately though not exclusively Catholic, suspicious of federal antipoverty and racial justice initiatives, but still rooted in either older city districts or blue-collar inner-ring suburbs rather than the burgeoning suburban periphery.Moreover, to a substantial segment of these voters, neighborhood wasn’t simply a warm and fuzzy word evoking friendly sidewalk greetings and block-party cookouts. At this moment, to speak of defending neighborhoods from outside meddling — even when done in apparently race-neutral terms — often had a powerful racial charge. “Neighborhood schools,” after all, had been the rallying cry of white urban opposition to busing and redistricting for school integration.To create an urban rhetoric based around local community life, Reagan’s team had to take the protean language of the diverse neighborhood movement and bend it to their political agenda. This movement’s language was not automatically conservative; it had to be made to resonate in that fashion. This task was taken on by two key campaign speechwriters and strategists, who sought to hitch the term neighborhood to bigger conservative ideological goals.On the libertarian side was John McClaughry, who had become enamored by the “Small Is Beautiful” philosophy motivating the previous decade’s enthusiasm for experiments in grassroots institution building. Though generally understood as an outgrowth of the 1960s counterculture, McClaughry thought, these impulses could be harnessed to promote an anti-statist economic vision.
This was especially true when applied to urban neighborhoods, where government could be portrayed as the great disrupter of organic forms of human-scale organization.Meanwhile, a conservative cultural component was refined by William F. Gavin, an advocate for a sharp-elbowed urban Republicanism that would be at home in blue-collar Catholic neighborhoods like his boyhood haunts in Jersey City. Neighborhood loyalties could become an even more potent national electoral force, Gavin insisted, when leftist activist movements were saddled with the blame for the decomposition of local traditions and lifeways.The outcome in 1980 was a candidate with no real experience in traditional urban neighborhoods — and no apparent affection for the struggling cities of which they were a part — who sang their praises in almost romantic terms. This Reaganite theme first emerged in 1978, in a syndicated radio address where the future candidate gauzily pronounced: “The neighborhood scale is a human scale — a place where the real spirit of a community can develop. Many neighborhoods are rich in tradition and memories. And in many, there is a mixture of generations and functions, so that activity is continuous. This in turn works to keep crime down when, as one urban planning critic described it, there are ‘eyes on the street,’ eyes of grandparents and shopkeepers who watch the passing parade.”And what was to blame for neighborhood decline, in this telling? Virtually every public program — good, bad, or indifferent — that had touched the nation’s urban fabric. As Reagan continued: “Building codes, zoning laws, highway construction, urban renewal, federal mortgage insurance, the so-called Model Cities program, forced school busing — these and other factors have often combined to depress the value of neighborhoods and undercut the fullness of their life.”These themes offered one anchor for the GOP’s 1980 appeals. It was Gavin who devised Reagan’s resonant five-word campaign slogan: “Family, Work, Neighborhood, Peace, Freedom.” The rallying cry covered giant banners at the Republican National Convention and infused the candidate’s speeches. The appearance of “neighborhood” on that list was no accident. As Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin later explained, each word was aimed at a coveted bloc of swing voters — with neighborhood meant to especially woo white, blue-collar voters, particularly Catholics. The ensuing adoption of neighborhood symbols was so thoroughgoing that Harry Boyte, a noted left-wing organizer and scholar, would remark in astonishment: “From the campaign rhetoric, one might have wondered whether Reagan had spent recent years involved in some neighborhood renewal project or seeking to get the local savings and loan to give more loans to the community.”Surprising some observers, Reagan won slightly more votes in urban counties than did his Democratic opponent, President Jimmy Carter. While it’s difficult to tell what role the neighborhood theme played in that outcome, staffers were confident that it helped. By this time, however, the neighborhood movement was already waning in strength as an organized political force. This decline was evident four years later by the comparative absence of “neighborhood” talk from both Reagan’s and Walter Mondale’s presidential campaigns.But as the 1980s dawned, the Reaganite adaptation of the neighborhood movement’s basic social vocabulary had accomplished at least two things. First, it meant that Republican talk about older cities did not appear entirely hostile and aggressive. The party’s essentially anti-urban policy aspirations were sprinkled over with praise for a specific type of urban social organization recognizable to voters. The story this conveyed to many voters and journalists was that — despite planned GOP slashes to a host of programs crucial to beleaguered municipalities — Republicans admired and sought to augment the urban environments that mattered to everyday people.Second, these invocations
turned neighborhood itself into a contested political term, one that couldn’t be fully owned by the Democrats. This was true even though congressional Democrats, in their 1970s legislative output, had been far more supportive of pro-neighborhood regulations, such as anti-redlining laws, favored by the nation’s leading networks of neighborhood organizations. Now, if Democrats wanted to center pro-neighborhood initiatives in their rhetoric about urban issues, they would need to fight Republicans over that term’s very meaning and importance. As it turned out, this wasn’t a fight that many Democrats of the 1980s were interested in mounting.Google News Trump’s Urban Rhetoric: The Enemy WithinThe current Republican presidential candidate’s political stance toward cities was also forged during the 1980s, but it was one shorn of the paeans to neighborhoods that Reagan crafted so skillfully. Its contours are best captured by Donald Trump’s intervention in the well-known Central Park jogger case of 1989, referenced by Kamala Harris in the recent presidential debate.In April of that year, a white female investment banker was raped and left for dead in New York’s Central Park. Trump, then known as a real-estate developer, reportedly spent $85,000 on ads in four New York newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and the execution of five teenaged defendants — four African American and one Hispanic — collectively known as the Central Park Five. After charging that “roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods,” Trump wrote, “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer.” The teens were found guilty and sentenced to prison.Thirteen years later, however, DNA evidence and another man’s confession compelled the New York Supreme Court to vacate the convictions. In 2014, the freed prisoners were awarded about $40 million in civil damages. By then, Trump was flirting with runs for political office. Asked if his confrontational style would harm his political prospects, Trump referred to the exonerated Central Park Five. Far from apologizing for calling for the execution of innocent men, Trump boasted that his stance on the case “will help me. I think people are tired of ‘politically correct.’”For 35 years, Donald Trump has based his political appeal partly on blaming liberal politicians for urban neighborhoods becoming cauldrons of chaos and crime. In some ways, Trump’s rhetoric resembles Reagan’s. When Reagan visited the South Bronx during the 1980 campaign, he famously remarked that he had “not seen anything that looked like this since London after the blitz.” Like Trump, Reagan blamed failed federal policies and recommended tax incentives and private business as the way to revive urban neighborhoods. And like Trump, Reagan supported a get-tough, law-and-order approach to crime.Trump has sought to paint city neighborhoods as burning hellholes, alienating the same urban voters the GOP once courted. (TPM Illustration/Getty Images/Hieronymus Bosch)The similarities, however, end there. In Reagan’s rhetoric, cities had a chance for redemption: if they embraced small government, neighborhoods would thrive again, people would look out for each other, and neighborhoods would become safe and prosperous once more. Trump, on the other hand, sees little room for redemption. Cities are the enemy. You do not redeem your enemies, you defeat them.Trump is often viewed as totally lacking in verbal discipline, meandering aimlessly between vindictive tirades and self-important bluster. But from 2016 to the present his talk about cities and neighborhoods has demonstrated remarkable consistency. Across the nine years of speeches, press conferences, and tweets that we examined, Trump has hammered home the same message time and time again: cities are enemy territory.Consider the following quote (odd even by Trump’s standards) from a 2016 meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board where he questioned the need to fund military alliances like NATO.
“So I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.” Note how Trump segues almost effortlessly from discussing international military commitments to supposed urban decay at home.The central metaphor Trump uses when talking about cities is “war.” Normally, war occurs between sovereign nations. For Trump, however, the war is within our nation. War requires two sides that are clearly differentiated and physically distinct. For Trump, the two sides are cities and suburbs. In the cities, as Trump tells it, you will find one of America’s enemies: foreigners who presumably look different from native-born Americans. They have infiltrated urban neighborhoods, in his telling, fueling a conflict between alien cities and native suburbs.To understand Trump’s view of cities and urban neighborhoods, you also need to understand how he views suburbs. Suburbs, in his speeches, are home to the “real” America. They are where the “American Dream,” a phrase Trump turns to repeatedly, is realized. For Trump, the American Dream is not about participating in community structures and projects but about the pursuit of material wealth, primarily through the ownership and defense of single-family homes.By contrast, cities are the American nightmare, the place where the American Dream dies. Trump uses terms such as “living hell,” “total decay,” “violent mayhem,” and “a disaster” to describe cities. Cities are foreign outposts within American society. In this view, the hordes of “illegal aliens” invading the southern border have taken over city neighborhoods. During the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Trump called Chicago “a war zone that’s worse than Afghanistan.”Under this view, sanctuary cities — whose policies, according to Trump, “force prisons and jails to release criminal aliens directly into your neighborhoods” — are the archenemy. As he boasted at a 2017 rally: “We are cracking down strongly on sanctuary cities that shield criminal aliens. And in order to stop the drugs, gangs, and traffickers, we are building a wall on the southern border.”And this war metaphor is not just talk. In 2020, Trump repeatedly mulled sending federal troops into cities to confront racial justice protests. In August 2022, shortly before announcing his third White House run, Trump returned to that theme, contemplating sending the National Guard into cities: “In places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law, such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops,” he said.Such talk has policy implications, too. Trump repeatedly attacked the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which required local governments to develop plans to promote greater integration. While laudable, AFFH has few mechanisms to compel local governments to act. That did not stop Trump, however, from charging that AFFH will “abolish the suburbs.” As Trump tweeted in 2020: “The ‘suburban housewife’ will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low-income housing invaded their neighborhoods.”In short, Trump views cities as enemy territory. If he could, it seems, Trump would build a wall around cities to protect the suburbs. Trump does at times talk about “saving” cities, frequently touting his Opportunity Zone program, which cut taxes for investors in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, the Opportunity Zone program is a boondoggle for wealthy investors and has generated few benefits for residents of economically marginalized communities. In any case, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about how cities need to be contained and ultimately repressed drowns out any discussion of policies to help neighborhoods.Google News Trump’s Rhetorical Retreat:
An Opportunity for the DemocratsUndoubtedly, Trump has won political support by stoking suburban fears of urban crime and neighborhood decline. His “get tough” approach to policing has surely won him votes. Many citizens are afraid. Some cities do have higher levels of crime than suburbs. Many central-city neighborhoods face overwhelming challenges. Meanwhile, television and social media exaggerate urban dangers.Every rhetorical strength, however, has a weakness. Trump’s strategy is a glaring vulnerability that Democrats can exploit. The key is not to focus exclusively on attacking his fortress of lies and exaggerations, but rather to seize the rhetorical ground on urban neighborhoods that Republicans have abandoned and then to imbue it with progressive principles.One explanation of Trump’s extreme anti-city rhetoric may be that, unlike Reagan, he has conceded the urban vote to the Democrats. As noted earlier, in 1980 Reagan won more votes than Jimmy Carter in urban counties. Forty years later, however, Biden won twice as many urban-county votes as Trump (nearly 31 million to just over 16 million).The urban rhetoric of presidential candidates, however, cannot be understood in isolation from the broader story they are telling about the nation. Reagan always had a sunny, optimistic narrative. In his 1989 Farewell Address he talked about a “shining city on a hill,” “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. … And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” Even though Reagan and Trump share a faith in unfettered markets, tax cuts for the rich, and hostility to federal social programs, the contrast in their language could not be more striking.(TPM Illustration/Getty Images)Trump’s neighborhood rhetoric reflects a much darker vision of the nation than Reagan’s. His political appeal is based on activating fears about people who look and speak differently from his target voters. Trump gins up his political base by stoking anxiety about dangerous “others,” a category that includes immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, but also residents of central cities. In this view, outsiders (abetted by liberal politicians) are driving American society into chaos and decline. Only he, Donald Trump, can save God-fearing native-born Americans from being pushed aside and humiliated in their own country.It is tempting to respond by countering Trump’s rhetoric with facts: immigrants are not criminals and rapists (in fact, they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans); cities are not cauldrons of chaos (in fact, crime is down); and suburbs are not uniformly bastions of the American Dream (in fact, many inner-ring suburbs are struggling). Yet if exasperated pro-city commentators end solely by debunking Trump’s anti-cities invective, this may only reinforce Trump’s rhetorical framing (“don’t think of an elephant!”). Facts never trump (pun intended) emotional rhetoric. Democrats need an alternative urban rhetoric that draws from the deep progressive traditions in American politics.In recent decades, centrist Democrats have utilized a pro-urban rhetoric, but it is a thin rhetoric rooted in a technocratic vision of cities as centers of the new knowledge economy. Journalists and academics are fond of pointing out that urban areas voting heavily Democratic are the most productive and innovative in the American economy. This is true, but such an appeal just underscores the difference between cities and the rest of the country. We need a rhetoric that does not divide cities from the rest of the nation but unites them in a common project.Given its positive emotional resonance, the word “neighborhood” could sit at the center of that rhetoric. Reagan cannily linked Americans’ affection for strong neighborhoods to his small-government, free-market agenda. Trump’s inability to comprehend the positive resonance of urban neighborhoods has created a rhetorical vacuum that Democrats can fill to their advantage.
Democrats can broaden their political appeal by drawing on Americans’ attachment to local communities. But it should not be an appeal to the homogeneous tightknit European-ethnic neighborhood that Reagan and Carter fought over and that Trump has updated with his defense of fortified, predominantly white suburban subdivisions.Today’s urban neighborhoods are much more diverse, containing not only different races and ethnicities but different lifestyles and family types. Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods foster face-to-face encounters in shared public spaces that nurture tolerance and a sense of interdependence. They cultivate community without conformity. Strong neighborhoods help people to get along at the same time that they help them to get ahead. They help to reconcile the longstanding tension in American life between individualism and community.For several key voter groups, this kind of place-based appeal could have meaningful resonance. For instance, in the highly scrutinized Blue Wall states, many neighborhoods — whether in major metropolises or in smaller cities like Erie, Lansing, and Racine — are still suffering from legacies of industrial job loss, which massively destabilized everyday local environments and institutions. In the same states, the prospects and perils facing individual neighborhoods are of concern for many urban and inner-ring suburban Black and Latino voters, especially given how neighborhood health often correlates with opportunities for economic mobility. Responding explicitly to those concerns could counteract minor but real erosion among these two traditionally Democratic voter blocs.In short, engaging voters on why neighborhoods matter, paired with policies explicitly crafted to nourish fragile communities at the most local scale, can help Democrats expand majorities among current coalition partners while making small but useful inroads in economically precarious Republican-leaning regions.Besides appealing to specific places and demographics, the language of neighborhood can resonate more broadly with many Americans who yearn for strong and diverse communities. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention contained seeds of a robust language about the crucial role neighborhoods can play in enhancing freedom and equity. In his acceptance speech, vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz used the term “neighbor(s)” seven times. “That family down the road,” Walz said, “they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do. They may not love like you do. But they’re your neighbors. And you look out for them. And they look out for you. Everybody belongs. And everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” At their best, Walz suggested, neighborhoods support the freedom to live as one chooses while also instilling a shared sense of community responsibility: again, community without conformity.In a powerful DNC address earlier in the week, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia invoked the language of neighborhoods for similar purposes: “I need my neighbors’ children to be okay so that my children will be okay. I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay. … I need American children on both sides of the track to be okay.” We should reject the GOP’s zero-sum vision, Warnock was suggesting, that helping disadvantaged neighborhoods threatens the well-being of those doing somewhat better. Strong neighborhoods support shared prosperity.Such invocations of mutual responsibility and intertwined futures played little part in the Republican anti-statist appropriation of neighborhood themes during Reagan’s ascent. Today, Donald Trump’s dystopian portrayals of cities demonstrate that he is temperamentally incapable of even hollow gestures toward the support that strong neighborhoods can, and often do, offer urban inhabitants up and down the class ladder.The opportunity for Democrats is clear: their MAGA opponents have vacated the public discourse over what neighborhoods mean for modern American life. Just as Democrats
with their defense of diverse families have redefined what it means to be “pro-family,” they also need to reframe what it means to be pro-neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse can be successful neighborhoods. They exist in suburbs and small towns as well as big cities.Many neighborhoods are struggling, however. An appeal to the importance of neighborhoods needs to be more than just talk. Democrats should emphasize that strong neighborhoods are too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Neighborhoods need help from government. The expansion of social insurance and safety-net programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and childcare subsidies is crucial for the health of economically precarious neighborhoods, but this is not enough.Many of the policies of the Biden-Harris administration, as well as Harris’s more recent housing policy proposals, can rightly be framed as pro-neighborhood. Addressing housing affordability will help to stabilize neighborhoods, as will programs like the eviction moratorium during COVID. The federal government can support the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement by encouraging communities to eliminate exclusionary zoning. A diverse neighborhood policy agenda could include increased funding for community development block grants that target fiscally stressed communities, stronger enforcement of anti-redlining laws, more funding for home repair, increased support for grassroots community development corporations — and much more.Whatever policy choices might ensue, placing neighborhoods closer to the center of their vision for our national future will allow Democrats to move beyond cold neoliberal defenses of the American city, while aligning themselves with daily relationships that many voters experience as vital and deeply meaningful.“This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral…”Source Link: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/g512cb2fd9d9e5a4d12339bc06eed4a73defbbe72601f1945998ccfbe769decf5dc56ed8e2c784545e11c2439e26bc476_64.jpeg #GLOBAL - BLOGGER This article... BLOGGER - #GLOBAL
0 notes
technologycompanynews · 10 months ago
Text
How Republicans Stopped Talking About ‘Neighborhood,’ And Why Democrats Should Make That Term Their Own - Notice Today Web - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own/?feed_id=212235&_unique_id=66f49149df27e This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run by Democrats and they have very similar policies. It’s just insane. But you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot, you get mugged, you get raped. … We have these cities that are great cities where people are afraid to live in America.”This is, of course, a ludicrous caricature, as numerous bread-fetching city dwellers could attest. Yet to understand the significance of this seething anti-cities rhetoric — both its political potency and the unique opportunity it presents for Democrats — requires a brief look at a deep-seated tension in how conservatives have talked about urban areas across recent decades.For more than a century, the Republican Party’s conservative wing has run against cities. Early in the twentieth century, their animus was rooted in nativism and religion. They mobilized small-town Protestant voters by attacking heavily Catholic cities as beholden to popery, demon rum, and corrupt Irish machines. Several generations later, during Richard Nixon’s ascent, the party’s right wing roused white voter antipathy toward escalating urban crime and civil uprisings, both supposedly fostered by the federal War on Poverty.In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, leading conservative politicians and intellectuals modified Nixon’s rhetoric, adding elements aimed at corralling new urban and urban-adjacent Republican voters. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan explicitly placed the social functions played by local neighborhoods at the heart of his urban commentary. Tender odes to the beauties of the human-scale city neighborhood — paired with condemnation of government programs for undermining community self-help capacities — infused national GOP communications output. Crucially, this often lent the party’s outreach efforts a pro-urban veneer. Propelled partly by this neighborhoods appeal, Reagan attracted key support from traditionally Democratic “white-ethnic” inhabitants of older city and suburban areas.But this component of Republican rhetoric eventually evaporated. In recent years, Donald Trump and his allies have moved hard in the other direction, portraying urban areas solely as dangerous alien enclaves and as menaces to the “American Dream” anchored in the suburbs. In refusing any reference to neighborhood ties and social virtues, the MAGA compulsion toward urban demonization concedes rhetorical ground that Democrats can occupy to their advantage. Right now, we believe, Democrats should assertively bring neighborhoods back into the conversation, but this time fully on their own terms.By crafting an unabashedly progressive vision for the importance of urban neighborhoods to national health, they can draw upon the deep-seated affection many Americans have for their local communities and environments. At the same time, Democrats can potentially forge bridges to a segment of small-town and rural voters for whom neighborhood ties also play an emotionally resonant role. But to do this, they need to know something about how this term once percolated through, and now has vanished from, their GOP opponents’ political worldview.Google News Reagan’s Urban Rhetoric: Yoking Neighborhoods to the Conservative AgendaIt’s seldom remembered today how thoroughly discussions of urban neighborhoods permeated American political campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Over the postwar decades, U.S. cities had been badly battered by social forces and policy choices that left large swaths of the urban fabric in tatters. What anxious 1960s commentators discussed as an “urban crisis” had come by the 1970s to seem a permanent state of affairs.Yet amid the urban gloom of the 1970s, a countervailing force took shape: a diffuse yet powerful grassroots movement dedicated to bolstering the redeeming social ties and lifeways that urban neighborhoods still offered. Known simply as the neighborhood movement, this activist upsurge adopted an anti-technocratic ethos and a populist rhetoric. Participants portrayed neighborhoods as “the little guys,” facing off against the vast, neighborhood-destroying machinery of profit-hungry corporations, indifferent city halls, and a disdainful cosmopolitan media. Meanwhile, the authenticity, local relationships, and plucky self-advocacy of historic urban communities became fodder for innumerable newspaper features, from the style and real-estate sections to the city and national political pages.While most of the movement’s national leaders leaned in a progressive direction, the movement didn’t sit easily on the Left-Right spectrum. In some guises, local affiliates showed the influence of the counterculture, Black or Chicano nationalism, or the labor movement. In other guises, activists wielded the language of neighborhood stability and values to oppose initiatives such as school integration, scatter-site public housing, or disruptions to what 1976 presidential candidate Jimmy Carter — in a much-pilloried gaffe — called the “ethnic purity” of a community. The movement was always an ideological crazy quilt. Yet it fostered an upsurge of grassroots organizing that percolated through the nation’s older cities.By the time Ronald Reagan embarked on his 1980 White House bid, the word neighborhood had taken on a central role in national politics — one that would only grow that year. At the campaign’s outset, Reagan strategists were highly attuned to the slow-motion splintering of the New Deal coalition. Several came to believe that a domestic focus not solely on workplace and economic issues, but rather on the sanctity of local residential environments, could accelerate the coalition’s final demise.Indeed, the 1980 Reagan neighborhood strategy was designed to win over a specific chunk of voters within the larger group that would later be dubbed “Reagan Democrats.” The targeted voters here were mostly white, generally lower-middle class, culturally conservative, disproportionately though not exclusively Catholic, suspicious of federal antipoverty and racial justice initiatives, but still rooted in either older city districts or blue-collar inner-ring suburbs rather than the burgeoning suburban periphery.Moreover, to a substantial segment of these voters, neighborhood wasn’t simply a warm and fuzzy word evoking friendly sidewalk greetings and block-party cookouts. At this moment, to speak of defending neighborhoods from outside meddling — even when done in apparently race-neutral terms — often had a powerful racial charge. “Neighborhood schools,” after all, had been the rallying cry of white urban opposition to busing and redistricting for school integration.To create an urban rhetoric based around local community life, Reagan’s team had to take the protean language of the diverse neighborhood movement and bend it to their political agenda. This movement’s language was not automatically conservative; it had to be made to resonate in that fashion. This task was taken on by two key campaign speechwriters and strategists, who sought to hitch the term neighborhood to bigger conservative ideological goals.On the libertarian side was John McClaughry, who had become enamored by the “Small Is Beautiful” philosophy motivating the previous decade’s enthusiasm for experiments in grassroots institution building. Though generally understood as an outgrowth of the 1960s counterculture, McClaughry thought, these impulses could be harnessed to promote an anti-statist economic vision.
This was especially true when applied to urban neighborhoods, where government could be portrayed as the great disrupter of organic forms of human-scale organization.Meanwhile, a conservative cultural component was refined by William F. Gavin, an advocate for a sharp-elbowed urban Republicanism that would be at home in blue-collar Catholic neighborhoods like his boyhood haunts in Jersey City. Neighborhood loyalties could become an even more potent national electoral force, Gavin insisted, when leftist activist movements were saddled with the blame for the decomposition of local traditions and lifeways.The outcome in 1980 was a candidate with no real experience in traditional urban neighborhoods — and no apparent affection for the struggling cities of which they were a part — who sang their praises in almost romantic terms. This Reaganite theme first emerged in 1978, in a syndicated radio address where the future candidate gauzily pronounced: “The neighborhood scale is a human scale — a place where the real spirit of a community can develop. Many neighborhoods are rich in tradition and memories. And in many, there is a mixture of generations and functions, so that activity is continuous. This in turn works to keep crime down when, as one urban planning critic described it, there are ‘eyes on the street,’ eyes of grandparents and shopkeepers who watch the passing parade.”And what was to blame for neighborhood decline, in this telling? Virtually every public program — good, bad, or indifferent — that had touched the nation’s urban fabric. As Reagan continued: “Building codes, zoning laws, highway construction, urban renewal, federal mortgage insurance, the so-called Model Cities program, forced school busing — these and other factors have often combined to depress the value of neighborhoods and undercut the fullness of their life.”These themes offered one anchor for the GOP’s 1980 appeals. It was Gavin who devised Reagan’s resonant five-word campaign slogan: “Family, Work, Neighborhood, Peace, Freedom.” The rallying cry covered giant banners at the Republican National Convention and infused the candidate’s speeches. The appearance of “neighborhood” on that list was no accident. As Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin later explained, each word was aimed at a coveted bloc of swing voters — with neighborhood meant to especially woo white, blue-collar voters, particularly Catholics. The ensuing adoption of neighborhood symbols was so thoroughgoing that Harry Boyte, a noted left-wing organizer and scholar, would remark in astonishment: “From the campaign rhetoric, one might have wondered whether Reagan had spent recent years involved in some neighborhood renewal project or seeking to get the local savings and loan to give more loans to the community.”Surprising some observers, Reagan won slightly more votes in urban counties than did his Democratic opponent, President Jimmy Carter. While it’s difficult to tell what role the neighborhood theme played in that outcome, staffers were confident that it helped. By this time, however, the neighborhood movement was already waning in strength as an organized political force. This decline was evident four years later by the comparative absence of “neighborhood” talk from both Reagan’s and Walter Mondale’s presidential campaigns.But as the 1980s dawned, the Reaganite adaptation of the neighborhood movement’s basic social vocabulary had accomplished at least two things. First, it meant that Republican talk about older cities did not appear entirely hostile and aggressive. The party’s essentially anti-urban policy aspirations were sprinkled over with praise for a specific type of urban social organization recognizable to voters. The story this conveyed to many voters and journalists was that — despite planned GOP slashes to a host of programs crucial to beleaguered municipalities — Republicans admired and sought to augment the urban environments that mattered to everyday people.Second, these invocations
turned neighborhood itself into a contested political term, one that couldn’t be fully owned by the Democrats. This was true even though congressional Democrats, in their 1970s legislative output, had been far more supportive of pro-neighborhood regulations, such as anti-redlining laws, favored by the nation’s leading networks of neighborhood organizations. Now, if Democrats wanted to center pro-neighborhood initiatives in their rhetoric about urban issues, they would need to fight Republicans over that term’s very meaning and importance. As it turned out, this wasn’t a fight that many Democrats of the 1980s were interested in mounting.Google News Trump’s Urban Rhetoric: The Enemy WithinThe current Republican presidential candidate’s political stance toward cities was also forged during the 1980s, but it was one shorn of the paeans to neighborhoods that Reagan crafted so skillfully. Its contours are best captured by Donald Trump’s intervention in the well-known Central Park jogger case of 1989, referenced by Kamala Harris in the recent presidential debate.In April of that year, a white female investment banker was raped and left for dead in New York’s Central Park. Trump, then known as a real-estate developer, reportedly spent $85,000 on ads in four New York newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and the execution of five teenaged defendants — four African American and one Hispanic — collectively known as the Central Park Five. After charging that “roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods,” Trump wrote, “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer.” The teens were found guilty and sentenced to prison.Thirteen years later, however, DNA evidence and another man’s confession compelled the New York Supreme Court to vacate the convictions. In 2014, the freed prisoners were awarded about $40 million in civil damages. By then, Trump was flirting with runs for political office. Asked if his confrontational style would harm his political prospects, Trump referred to the exonerated Central Park Five. Far from apologizing for calling for the execution of innocent men, Trump boasted that his stance on the case “will help me. I think people are tired of ‘politically correct.’”For 35 years, Donald Trump has based his political appeal partly on blaming liberal politicians for urban neighborhoods becoming cauldrons of chaos and crime. In some ways, Trump’s rhetoric resembles Reagan’s. When Reagan visited the South Bronx during the 1980 campaign, he famously remarked that he had “not seen anything that looked like this since London after the blitz.” Like Trump, Reagan blamed failed federal policies and recommended tax incentives and private business as the way to revive urban neighborhoods. And like Trump, Reagan supported a get-tough, law-and-order approach to crime.Trump has sought to paint city neighborhoods as burning hellholes, alienating the same urban voters the GOP once courted. (TPM Illustration/Getty Images/Hieronymus Bosch)The similarities, however, end there. In Reagan’s rhetoric, cities had a chance for redemption: if they embraced small government, neighborhoods would thrive again, people would look out for each other, and neighborhoods would become safe and prosperous once more. Trump, on the other hand, sees little room for redemption. Cities are the enemy. You do not redeem your enemies, you defeat them.Trump is often viewed as totally lacking in verbal discipline, meandering aimlessly between vindictive tirades and self-important bluster. But from 2016 to the present his talk about cities and neighborhoods has demonstrated remarkable consistency. Across the nine years of speeches, press conferences, and tweets that we examined, Trump has hammered home the same message time and time again: cities are enemy territory.Consider the following quote (odd even by Trump’s standards) from a 2016 meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board where he questioned the need to fund military alliances like NATO.
“So I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.” Note how Trump segues almost effortlessly from discussing international military commitments to supposed urban decay at home.The central metaphor Trump uses when talking about cities is “war.” Normally, war occurs between sovereign nations. For Trump, however, the war is within our nation. War requires two sides that are clearly differentiated and physically distinct. For Trump, the two sides are cities and suburbs. In the cities, as Trump tells it, you will find one of America’s enemies: foreigners who presumably look different from native-born Americans. They have infiltrated urban neighborhoods, in his telling, fueling a conflict between alien cities and native suburbs.To understand Trump’s view of cities and urban neighborhoods, you also need to understand how he views suburbs. Suburbs, in his speeches, are home to the “real” America. They are where the “American Dream,” a phrase Trump turns to repeatedly, is realized. For Trump, the American Dream is not about participating in community structures and projects but about the pursuit of material wealth, primarily through the ownership and defense of single-family homes.By contrast, cities are the American nightmare, the place where the American Dream dies. Trump uses terms such as “living hell,” “total decay,” “violent mayhem,” and “a disaster” to describe cities. Cities are foreign outposts within American society. In this view, the hordes of “illegal aliens” invading the southern border have taken over city neighborhoods. During the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Trump called Chicago “a war zone that’s worse than Afghanistan.”Under this view, sanctuary cities — whose policies, according to Trump, “force prisons and jails to release criminal aliens directly into your neighborhoods” — are the archenemy. As he boasted at a 2017 rally: “We are cracking down strongly on sanctuary cities that shield criminal aliens. And in order to stop the drugs, gangs, and traffickers, we are building a wall on the southern border.”And this war metaphor is not just talk. In 2020, Trump repeatedly mulled sending federal troops into cities to confront racial justice protests. In August 2022, shortly before announcing his third White House run, Trump returned to that theme, contemplating sending the National Guard into cities: “In places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law, such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops,” he said.Such talk has policy implications, too. Trump repeatedly attacked the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which required local governments to develop plans to promote greater integration. While laudable, AFFH has few mechanisms to compel local governments to act. That did not stop Trump, however, from charging that AFFH will “abolish the suburbs.” As Trump tweeted in 2020: “The ‘suburban housewife’ will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low-income housing invaded their neighborhoods.”In short, Trump views cities as enemy territory. If he could, it seems, Trump would build a wall around cities to protect the suburbs. Trump does at times talk about “saving” cities, frequently touting his Opportunity Zone program, which cut taxes for investors in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, the Opportunity Zone program is a boondoggle for wealthy investors and has generated few benefits for residents of economically marginalized communities. In any case, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about how cities need to be contained and ultimately repressed drowns out any discussion of policies to help neighborhoods.Google News Trump’s Rhetorical Retreat:
An Opportunity for the DemocratsUndoubtedly, Trump has won political support by stoking suburban fears of urban crime and neighborhood decline. His “get tough” approach to policing has surely won him votes. Many citizens are afraid. Some cities do have higher levels of crime than suburbs. Many central-city neighborhoods face overwhelming challenges. Meanwhile, television and social media exaggerate urban dangers.Every rhetorical strength, however, has a weakness. Trump’s strategy is a glaring vulnerability that Democrats can exploit. The key is not to focus exclusively on attacking his fortress of lies and exaggerations, but rather to seize the rhetorical ground on urban neighborhoods that Republicans have abandoned and then to imbue it with progressive principles.One explanation of Trump’s extreme anti-city rhetoric may be that, unlike Reagan, he has conceded the urban vote to the Democrats. As noted earlier, in 1980 Reagan won more votes than Jimmy Carter in urban counties. Forty years later, however, Biden won twice as many urban-county votes as Trump (nearly 31 million to just over 16 million).The urban rhetoric of presidential candidates, however, cannot be understood in isolation from the broader story they are telling about the nation. Reagan always had a sunny, optimistic narrative. In his 1989 Farewell Address he talked about a “shining city on a hill,” “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. … And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” Even though Reagan and Trump share a faith in unfettered markets, tax cuts for the rich, and hostility to federal social programs, the contrast in their language could not be more striking.(TPM Illustration/Getty Images)Trump’s neighborhood rhetoric reflects a much darker vision of the nation than Reagan’s. His political appeal is based on activating fears about people who look and speak differently from his target voters. Trump gins up his political base by stoking anxiety about dangerous “others,” a category that includes immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, but also residents of central cities. In this view, outsiders (abetted by liberal politicians) are driving American society into chaos and decline. Only he, Donald Trump, can save God-fearing native-born Americans from being pushed aside and humiliated in their own country.It is tempting to respond by countering Trump’s rhetoric with facts: immigrants are not criminals and rapists (in fact, they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans); cities are not cauldrons of chaos (in fact, crime is down); and suburbs are not uniformly bastions of the American Dream (in fact, many inner-ring suburbs are struggling). Yet if exasperated pro-city commentators end solely by debunking Trump’s anti-cities invective, this may only reinforce Trump’s rhetorical framing (“don’t think of an elephant!”). Facts never trump (pun intended) emotional rhetoric. Democrats need an alternative urban rhetoric that draws from the deep progressive traditions in American politics.In recent decades, centrist Democrats have utilized a pro-urban rhetoric, but it is a thin rhetoric rooted in a technocratic vision of cities as centers of the new knowledge economy. Journalists and academics are fond of pointing out that urban areas voting heavily Democratic are the most productive and innovative in the American economy. This is true, but such an appeal just underscores the difference between cities and the rest of the country. We need a rhetoric that does not divide cities from the rest of the nation but unites them in a common project.Given its positive emotional resonance, the word “neighborhood” could sit at the center of that rhetoric. Reagan cannily linked Americans’ affection for strong neighborhoods to his small-government, free-market agenda. Trump’s inability to comprehend the positive resonance of urban neighborhoods has created a rhetorical vacuum that Democrats can fill to their advantage.
Democrats can broaden their political appeal by drawing on Americans’ attachment to local communities. But it should not be an appeal to the homogeneous tightknit European-ethnic neighborhood that Reagan and Carter fought over and that Trump has updated with his defense of fortified, predominantly white suburban subdivisions.Today’s urban neighborhoods are much more diverse, containing not only different races and ethnicities but different lifestyles and family types. Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods foster face-to-face encounters in shared public spaces that nurture tolerance and a sense of interdependence. They cultivate community without conformity. Strong neighborhoods help people to get along at the same time that they help them to get ahead. They help to reconcile the longstanding tension in American life between individualism and community.For several key voter groups, this kind of place-based appeal could have meaningful resonance. For instance, in the highly scrutinized Blue Wall states, many neighborhoods — whether in major metropolises or in smaller cities like Erie, Lansing, and Racine — are still suffering from legacies of industrial job loss, which massively destabilized everyday local environments and institutions. In the same states, the prospects and perils facing individual neighborhoods are of concern for many urban and inner-ring suburban Black and Latino voters, especially given how neighborhood health often correlates with opportunities for economic mobility. Responding explicitly to those concerns could counteract minor but real erosion among these two traditionally Democratic voter blocs.In short, engaging voters on why neighborhoods matter, paired with policies explicitly crafted to nourish fragile communities at the most local scale, can help Democrats expand majorities among current coalition partners while making small but useful inroads in economically precarious Republican-leaning regions.Besides appealing to specific places and demographics, the language of neighborhood can resonate more broadly with many Americans who yearn for strong and diverse communities. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention contained seeds of a robust language about the crucial role neighborhoods can play in enhancing freedom and equity. In his acceptance speech, vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz used the term “neighbor(s)” seven times. “That family down the road,” Walz said, “they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do. They may not love like you do. But they’re your neighbors. And you look out for them. And they look out for you. Everybody belongs. And everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” At their best, Walz suggested, neighborhoods support the freedom to live as one chooses while also instilling a shared sense of community responsibility: again, community without conformity.In a powerful DNC address earlier in the week, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia invoked the language of neighborhoods for similar purposes: “I need my neighbors’ children to be okay so that my children will be okay. I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay. … I need American children on both sides of the track to be okay.” We should reject the GOP’s zero-sum vision, Warnock was suggesting, that helping disadvantaged neighborhoods threatens the well-being of those doing somewhat better. Strong neighborhoods support shared prosperity.Such invocations of mutual responsibility and intertwined futures played little part in the Republican anti-statist appropriation of neighborhood themes during Reagan’s ascent. Today, Donald Trump’s dystopian portrayals of cities demonstrate that he is temperamentally incapable of even hollow gestures toward the support that strong neighborhoods can, and often do, offer urban inhabitants up and down the class ladder.The opportunity for Democrats is clear: their MAGA opponents have vacated the public discourse over what neighborhoods mean for modern American life. Just as Democrats
with their defense of diverse families have redefined what it means to be “pro-family,” they also need to reframe what it means to be pro-neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse can be successful neighborhoods. They exist in suburbs and small towns as well as big cities.Many neighborhoods are struggling, however. An appeal to the importance of neighborhoods needs to be more than just talk. Democrats should emphasize that strong neighborhoods are too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Neighborhoods need help from government. The expansion of social insurance and safety-net programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and childcare subsidies is crucial for the health of economically precarious neighborhoods, but this is not enough.Many of the policies of the Biden-Harris administration, as well as Harris’s more recent housing policy proposals, can rightly be framed as pro-neighborhood. Addressing housing affordability will help to stabilize neighborhoods, as will programs like the eviction moratorium during COVID. The federal government can support the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement by encouraging communities to eliminate exclusionary zoning. A diverse neighborhood policy agenda could include increased funding for community development block grants that target fiscally stressed communities, stronger enforcement of anti-redlining laws, more funding for home repair, increased support for grassroots community development corporations — and much more.Whatever policy choices might ensue, placing neighborhoods closer to the center of their vision for our national future will allow Democrats to move beyond cold neoliberal defenses of the American city, while aligning themselves with daily relationships that many voters experience as vital and deeply meaningful.“This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral…”Source Link: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-republicans-stopped-talking-about-neighborhood-and-why-democrats-should-make-that-term-their-own http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/g512cb2fd9d9e5a4d12339bc06eed4a73defbbe72601f1945998ccfbe769decf5dc56ed8e2c784545e11c2439e26bc476_64.jpeg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. Donald Trump portrays city neighborhoods as feral places, deranged by Democrats. “The crime is so out of control in our country,” Trump charged at a Michigan campaign stop during the recent Democratic National Convention. “The top 25 [cities] almost all are run … Read More
0 notes
ai-news · 1 year ago
Link
There has been notable progress in Vision-Language tasks, with models like CLIP showing impressive performance in various tasks. While these models excel at recognizing objects, they need help composing known concepts in novel ways due to text repre #AI #ML #Automation
0 notes