US Politics: Left-Wing Radio and the Rhetoric of Hate (Haddigan)

US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

Liberalism, as a political philosophy, has a proud tradition in the United States. Beginning with reform efforts to alleviate the hardships of industrial workers at the turn of the 20th  century, progressive politicians and activists have attempted to pursue policies over the last century that make the "American Dream" a realistic goal for all Americans. But, at the same time as advancing the notions of tolerance and equality in the United States, liberals have also shown a remarkable intolerance for dissent from their conservative opponents. A 19-page report recently issued by the conservative Media Research Center, The Real Radio Hatemongers: Left-Wing Radio Hosts’ Track Record of Vile and Vicious Rhetoric, provides the latest evidence that some liberals are as susceptible to making personal malicious attacks as their conservative adversaries.

US Politics: Glenn Beck on Martin Luther King “A Radical Socialist Icon”
US Politics: Can Obama and the Democrats Retain Control of Congress? (Haddigan)

Shortly after radio became a nationwide medium of communication in the 1920s, liberals began to attack conservatives for using it to spread a reactionary message of fear and "hate". They have tried to curb right-wing radio hosts, from the controversial "Radio Priest" Father Coughlin in the 1930s to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity today,  through federal regulations. 

The most important of these regulations was the "Fairness Doctrine". This required that every radio station, for a renewal of its licence by the Federal Communications Commission, had to include programming time for the discussion of controversial political issues, with a presentation of both sides of the topic.

Introduced by the liberal administration of President Truman in 1949, the Doctrine was revoked in 1985 by a FCC controlled by Reagan appointees, who argued it contravened the First Amendment right to free speech. In the interim, e President Kennedy and President Johnson had used the measure to blunt conservative criticisms over the airwaves of their policies. FCC enforcement eventually led to conservative Reverend Carl McIntire, in the 1970s, becoming the only radio broadcaster to lose his licence because of violations of the Doctrine. (McIntire attempted unsuccessfully to air Radio Free America from a "pirate" ship off the coast of New Jersey in 1973.)

Democrats have called for a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Former President Bill Clinton argued on a progressive radio show in 2009, "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows."

Clinton articulated the longstanding fear of liberals that corporations, and tax-exempt foundations supported by corporations, were financing the Radical Right’s spurious attacks on progressive policies. His argument also drew on the disparity between liberal and conservative representation on national talk radio stations, with the right wing possessing a significant advantage in audience numbers. But, at the heart of liberal complaints against conservative radio hosts, from the thirties to today, is the contention that they foment discord in America with their "Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves", the title of a new book by Bill Press.

Deep in the liberal psyche is the contention that the Radical Right, the so called fright-peddlers and hatemongers of the early 1960s, created the climate for the assassination of President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The MRC report includes the contentious assertion of Mike Malloy (The Mike Malloy Show, August 26, 2009) on his sadness at the death of Ted Kennedy: “I remember feeling that way in 1963 and again in 1968, when his two brothers were murdered by the right-wing in this country.”

Liberals fear that the same fate awaits President Obama, a tragedy that Ed Schultz suggests some right-wing radio hosts would welcome: “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.”

And, apparently, conservative talk radio does not confine itself to encouraging the murder of Presidents. Other bizarre claims made by Malloy include: Limbaugh and Beck want to see repeats of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; Bill O’Reilly inspires the killing of doctors who provide abortions; and a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was killed because of the “poison” pumped out over the airwaves by conservative broadcasters. On a show last September, Malloy declared, "Glenn Beck rails against census workers, and inspires his people to go out and kill one for sport.” And not only did Beck galvanize the murderer, he welcomed the atrocity: “I will guarantee you that O’Reilly and Beck and the rest of these monsters on the neo-fascist right love this stuff. It gives them something else to talk about. It’s sport.”

Liberal radio hosts do not limit themselves to alleging that right-wing figures whip up hate. They also engage in personal attacks on conservatives, some of which contain material that, if aired by Glenn Beck, would lead to his instant dismissal by Fox News. Malloy in October 2008 argued that Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, is a “hatemonger” who “would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations.” Molloy concluded, “This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.”

But even that invective pales compared to Montel Williams almost a year ago when he urged Bachmann, “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead!  I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

As the most prominent of conservative radio broadcasters, Rush Limbaugh receives most of the vitriol aired by some liberal radio hosts. Malloy has hoped “that Rush Limbaugh will choke to death on his own throat fat”. A parody song for the Randi Rhodes Show in May included the verse, “He’s a fat conservative butthead/Sick Republican sleazeball/Fearmongering scumbag/Egotistical asswipe/Mean-spirited, hog-wallowing, fat conservative putz/With the face of ahorse’s ass/Mega dildos, Rush!” Hardly the way to build a bridge to tolerance and respect for the differing political philosophies in the United States.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh has no interest in helping foster a spirit of bi-partisanship. The liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, features a link to the "Limbaugh Watch". The site also contains extensive scrutiny (and easily accessed archives) of the misinformation presented in media appearances by Glenn Beck and other conservative broadcasters.

On the other side, the conservative Media Research Centre was founded five years ago to counter what it claimed was a liberal media bias on network news shows. Though not as easily searchable as Media Matters, the MRC website offers extensive evidence for the conservative lament that the media is controlled by liberals, a complaint that dates back to the years of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

As befits the importance of a free media to a healthy democracy, both these sites illustrate by contrast that political debate can be vigorous in the United States. Since the days of Roosevelt’s "fireside chats", however, liberals have been successful in portraying themselves as the responsible and principled political persuasion, opposed by a hatemongering and rabid right wing. Conservatives, understandably, resent their marginalization as the purveyors of extremism and react in a less than civil manner.

The truth is that, for all the instances of red-baiting in America (which continues today with the claims Obama is a socialist), there are similar occurrences of brown-baiting --- comparing conservatives to fascists --- by liberals. In fact, a credible argument can be made that McCarthyism was the result of an enraged conservative minority retaliating against attempts by liberals during World War II to smear all right-wing isolationists as fascist traitors. Until liberals realise that they are part of the reason for the current incivility in political discussion, there appears little likelihood that the nature and tone of debate will change in the United States.

US Politics: Can Obama and the Democrats Retain Control of Congress? (Haddigan)

EA's US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes:

With latest figures suggesting that the American economy is still performing poorly and a continuing restlessness in the progressive Left over health care reform, the prospects for the Democrat Party in November look bleak.

Incumbent administrations almost always suffer badly at the mid-term polls, but President Obama is facing a particularly mammoth struggle to retain control of Congress --- the upper body of the Senate and the lower body of the House of Representatives --- in his election cycle. Faced with a resurgent conservative opposition and a general dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy and health care, the President needs an issue to recapture the enthusiasm of apathetic Democrat voters.

US Politics: Is This the Beginning — or the Beginning of the End — for Glenn Beck? (Haddigan)

Failing an astounding change in economic fortunes in the economy, it is a near-certainty that the administration will turn to blaming the Bush years for the current troubles, as well as bringing out the old Democrat bugbear of big-business funding Republican causes. In these Congressional elections, an estimated $153 million will be spent on campaigns, nearly double the $77 million spent in 2006.

Last week the Labor Department announced an unexpected rise of 500,000 in the number of jobless claims, a figurethat that prompted John Boehner, the Minority Leader in the House of Representative, to call for the firing of President Obama’s top two economic aides. This week it was revealed that new home purchases in June were at their lowest level since collection of the data began in 1963. With weak consumer confidence and nervous investors, the state of the economy has led to warnings that the United States may suffer a double-dip recession: Mark Zandi, the economist who helped the administration determine the extent of its stimulus package, recently raised his evaluation of the chances of a renewed recession from 20% to 33%. The long-term odds may still be in President Obama’s favour, but the reality is that he will not be able to point to the success of his economic spending package come November.

Nor will President Obama be able to promote the first two years of his Presidency as a victory for health care reform without alienating the left wing of his party. Despite the historic achievement of passing an act that revolutionises the provision of patient care, progressives are infuriated at the omission of a public option, and some Democrats are rebelling against the administration’s portrayal of the Affordable Care And Patient Protection Act as the best result that could be achieved.

Recently, 128 Democrats co-sponsored a bill to amend the health care law to include a public option (government-run insurance provision) from 2014. Initially confident that the public would hail the economic benefits of reform, including the reduction of the Federal deficit, health care advocacy groups who helped President Obama garner enough votes to pass the act are now stressing that it can be improved with the inclusion of a public option. The bill is highly unlikely to pass, but it sends a clear message to the administration that come January, if the Democrats manage to retain control of Congress, the public option will be back on the agenda.

Two weeks ago Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, spoke to The Hill, a Washington-based website covering Congressional politics: the “lack of appreciation or recognition for what Obama has accomplished has left Gibbs and others in furious disbelief". Top analyst Larry Berman said Gibbs' outburst “reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval.”

Meanwhile, the President was unveiling another tactic in the election strategy. At the end of July, he urged passage of the DISCLOSE Act for campaign finance reform. On 9 August, at a Texas fundraising dinner for the Democratic National Committee, he went further, as he claimed that failure to pass the Act was allowing groups like Americans for Prosperity to run attack ads against Democrat candidates, with no indication of who was funding the assault. He warned that “harmless-sounding” organizations like the AFP were able to influence the forthcoming elections because of Republican obstructionism in Congress, asserting, “We’ve got to make sure that we don't have a corporate takeover of our democracy.” The President returned to the theme last Saturday in his Weekly Address, titled unsubtly, "No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy."

All three of these speeches attacked the pernicious influence of special interest groups on elections, indicating President Obama is going to use campaign reform as an important issue in the run-up to November. Two of the statements refer to Theodore Roosevelt, the "grandaddy" of progressive politics, and his warning 100 years ago of corporations as “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs”. Obama called for a bi-partisan solution in Congress, i.e., the DISCLOSE Act, and a return to “a democracy that works for ordinary Americans --- a government of, by, and for the people”.

There is a long way, in political terms, before the elections, but it is already apparent that it would be suicide for Democrats to stand solely on their record on the economy and health care reform . To retain control of Congress, President Obama will need to give voters a reason to distinguish between the politics he represents and that of the Republicans/Tea Party. He will draw on the residual contempt among Democrats for all that President Bush stood for and the campaign finance issue. Obama’s "politics of hope" of 2008 have become the "politics of fear".

Still, there are reasons for Democrats to be optimistic they can perform better in the elections than current poll indicate: the tendency of grassroots conservative movements like the Tea Party to implode, the ability of President Obama to convince voters to turn out for him, a significant advantage in cash, and the possibility that the unknown variable of state and local concerns may help Democrat candidates.

To make a foolhardy prediction, as the race just begins in earnest, I believe that the Democrats --- in what looksto be an ill-mannered campaign --- will surprise many in November and narrowly retain both the House and the Senate. The present administration, and its supporters, are not yet "tired" enough of their policies to relinquish control of Congress so easily.

US Politics and Media: Why Glenn Beck Is Good for America (Haddigan)

The history of the United States is one of extremes, a tale of how contending visions of the past should shape the nation’s future. The concept of "America" is a continuous conflict between a respect for traditional explanations of the individual’s responsibilities in a virtuous society and a yearning to unleash modern philosophies of the "Rights of Man".

This battle, since the first settlements in America, has been, largely fought out in the media. Glenn Beck on the Right, and Chris Matthews on the Left, are but the latest manifestations of the eternal struggle for the American Soul.

Recognition of the long history of partisan division in the US over fundamental ideas about politics is needed to calm the disquiet Beck and Matthews provoke in contemporary society. Both might promote an ideology of fear of the "other side", but America has prospered in the past --- and will in the future --- despite dire warnings about their predecessors and successors in the American media. Indeed, you can argue convincingly that the United States benefits from the existence of a partisan media.

The political media have continually forced the populace to evaluate what it means to be "American". Through struggles from the Pilgrims and Puritans through the revolutionaries of the War for Independence to the Civil War, in the conflicts to come in Populism and Progessivism, Fundmentalism (creationism) and Social Gospelism (evolutionism), New Dealism and Reaganism, Cold War conservatism and liberal counter-culture, the American media of the time played a central role in defining the terms on which the often acrimonious debate took place.

Because of our somewhat quaint notion that the past was more civil and polite than the present, aided by the self-perpetuating but false myth of the generation who came to (im)maturity in the 1960s that they revolutionised society, we fail to appreciate that a partisan media is not a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors, as long as visual images have existed, have displayed a sense of impropriety in criticising opponents that would make some today blush. See, for instance, scatological woodcut images (most people of the time couldn’t read) that were used as propaganda to defame the Pope during the early Protestant Reformation of the 1500s in Europe. You may hate Glenn Beck, or Chris Matthews, but these (extremely) sacrilegious cartoons and accompanying doggerel verses will put into perspective the limits that our modern society places on acceptable political discourse. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~dluebke/Reformations441/ReformationSatires.html)

America’s history of partisan conflict, and the role of the media, is more a rollicking and rambunctuous series of colourful disputes and incidents than a threat to American democracy (although Alexander Hamilton may have disagreed, since he was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 after Burr took umbrage at Hamilton’s criticisms of him in the press). The government have attempted to tame the freedom of expression of both the press and the people, most notably in the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940, but have failed to sustain a constitutional case for the argument that "crying fire", in the political theatre at least, is a "clear and present danger" to the nation’s security.

For a short period in its early years, the US did display a remarkable commitment to the idea that "disinterested" politicians could represent the country as a whole. George Washington succeeded in portraying this image, and following presidents laboured to sustain the illusion that the Chief Executive was a neutral approach who umpired the inevitable conflicts in American society (a myth that still held enough emotional sway for Eisenhower to use it in the 1950s).

But American politics changed in 1832 with the election of Andrew Jackson after a populist appeal to the masses, and it became the public-image, spin-dominated spectacle we know today with the election of William Henry Harrison in 1840.

(Of particular interest in the Harrison campaign was the Whigs' profligate distribution of whisky to persuade, or confound, voters to support the original log-cabin candidate. The whisky was handed out in bottles from the E. C. Booz distillery, leading to "booze" becoming a common term for alcohol in America.)

One reason for the overall civility of contemporary political debate, despite what some might regard as the extremist rabble-rousing of Beck and Matthews, is the changing definition of the word tolerance in Britain and in America. When the two countries (at different times) announced the establishment of religious tolerance as a guiding principle of popular democracy, they saw the word as meaning an individual had "to put up with" different religious opinions, even though they may regard them as evil or degenerate. It meant no individual could harm another, or aggress against them, because of their religion.

It did not mean, however, that the individual had to understand, empathize, or respect the tenets of a different faith. Behind the original conception of the tolerance of religion, and freedom of political expression, lay the understanding that both were a battleground where conflicting ideas should be, befitting their essential importance to mankind, fought out with vigour and conviction. Politics and religion, it was assumed, were so crucial to an individual’s definition of their identity that they would be debated with passion, not discussed lifelessly in a soulless debating chamber.

Beck and Matthews display some of that vitality, and as a result they and their like energise the American political debate. They force Americans to question the views they believe in by presenting a no-holds-barred alternative. And with their reliance on examining current events in the light of the nation’s history they allows each person to decide what it means to be an "American".

Beck and Matthews are not a threat to American democracy. They are, in fact, part of the reason why the United States retains a more than passing and rhetorical interest in the role of the individual in a just society.

US v. Britain: History, Education, and "Big Ideas" in Politics (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

For me, one of the fascinations of US politics is the nation’s continual fight over the same issues using the same arguments. Contemporary disputes are fought on the ground of precedent and tradition, example and intent dating back 50, 100, 150, and, ultimately, the 221 years since the ratification of the Constitution. No other country pays as much attention to the relevance of historical events to current affairs than the United States.

And, contrary to some opinion in Europe, America’s reliance on the past as a guide to the future is not a smokescreen for hiding the country’s overriding preoccupation with material interests. The United States, unlike European nations, still believes that political differences rest on contrasting fundamental assumptions about the philosophical justifications for the ways an individual is governed. Thomas Paine wrote, as America sought independence from Britain, that "government is a necessary evil". That sentiment may have died out in Europe, bit it animates debate in the US.

Take, for instance, the contentious subject of education. In America, discussion nearly always reverts to the principle of who has the right --- the federal government or parents --- to provide for the instruction of the young. An argument is brewing right now over the proposed introduction in each state of a standardised curriculum designed by Washington.

Opponents of the reform question the measure on many fronts, but the foundation of their disquiet with the policy is the claimed opportunity for the federal government to "indoctrinate" pupils against the wishes of local communities. Parents, it is argued, have the right to decide what their children learn in school, with the tradition in the US that schools are paid for by local property taxes and controlled by locally-elected school boards. One of the Tea Party’s policies for returning America to its vision of a limited government is to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, leaving education completely in the hands of local elected officials.

The right of the State Government in deciding how the young receive their instruction underlies all debates on the issue. The recent "Textbook Wars" in Texas, where state administrators acrimoniously debated in an open forum the correct teaching material, was a bewildering spectacle for many in Europe.

In Britain, the choice of what is taught in classrooms is left to an unelected bureaucracy in the Government and, except for a few brave souls, any deviation from that assumption is regarded as heretical delusion. The State takes almost complete control of the curriculum and the standards that assess student achievement. No mainstream party, or political persuasion, opposes on principle the right of the Government to dictate how and what students are taught. This leads in Britain to incredulity that greets the news that Creationism is taught in some classes in America and included in the curriculum because parents want it there.

Last week I discovered that a judge in Virginia is allowing the state’s legal challenge to Obama’s healthcare legislation because it raises constitutional concerns about the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause (unless you are forced to do so, never --- trust me --- try to understand the Commerce Clause). One newsletter in my in-box proclaimed Virginia as having no case, citing numerous constitutional experts; another argued that the state had an ironclad argument, quoting (you guessed it) several experts on the dreaded Commerce Clause.

I also learned that conservatives are questioning the "equal protection", under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, of so-called "Anchor Babies". These are children who are granted citizenship in the United States because they are born here, even if the parents are illegal immigrants. Some websites agreed with the contention that not all babies born in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws; inevitably, some opposed this view. But both, side justified their opposing opinions with the extensive use of quotations from individuals involved in the decision to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1868.

I found out that some Tea Party organizations are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. This change to the Constitution (1913) allowed citizens to directly elect senators to Congress, replacing the tradition of state legislatures deciding who represented voters’ interests in the upper house in Washington. More a philosophical dispute over the power of the majority in a democracy than a strictly constitutional matter, this debate was accompanied by discussion of the intent of the authors of the Federalist Papers, written in the late 18th century, against the "progressive" impulse that led to the passing of the Amendment.

And then I was informed by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, that my help was needed to stop Democrats from using the forthcoming session of Congress to pass controversial liberal legislation. Gingrich did not refer the reader to recent examples; instead, he directed attention to the Federalists passing the Judiciary Act in 1800 to handicap the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson.

The United States still, and almost unconsciously, centres political debates around ideas, big Ideas about democracy that involve the "rights" of the people and the "responsibility" of the individual and that rely on explanations of the nation’s past to supply their context. I received more political discussion based on historical concerns this morning than I would get from watching the BBC for a year.

When I explain to friends in Britain that I study American history they generally reply along the lines of "Why? They don’t have any history." And when I was studying in the US, the usual response of American friends was, "Why? When you have so much more history to appreciate over there."

In Britain, history is an antiquarian pursuit that does not affect contemporary affairs. We have old buildings, a Queen, some quaint social traditions, a venerable if ineffective State religion, and more old buildings.

Last year, the Conservative member of Parliament David Davies resigned his seat in protest at the Labour Government’s encroachments on Britain’s traditional liberties, including the right of habeas corpus, the cornerstone of legal rights of British (and American) citizens. For his principled and legitimate stand, he became a laughingstock in the British media, criticised for wasting the time and money of his constituents who faced the "ordeal" of having to stage another election for the now vacant seat. (Davies stood for election again on the principles over which he resigned. He won, but with the result raising barely a murmur in news reports.)

The parlous condition of politics as a philosophy in Britain is indicated by the fact that the last two books of worth, "The Case for Conservatism" by Quentin Hogg, and George Orwell’s "1984", were published in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Ironically, 1948 also saw the publication of Richard Weaver’s "Ideas Have Consequences" in the US. It was a book that helped to introduce to intellectuals in America the importance of ideas in political change, at the same time that Britain, unknowingly, ended its proud contribution to the tradition of political theory.

In America, history and political philosophy are still a vibrant part of political discussion vital to how --- for those who are interested --- an individual chooses a position on the validity of universal healthcare, welfare, electoral reform, taxation, and all the issues that appear again and again as the subject of political contention.

Whether that is an admirable trait in America’s enduring attempt to determine how to construct a virtuous society is debatable. Race and religion, for instance, still influence American politics in ways that many find perplexing. And the role of a partisan media in provoking dissension, especially to those who see the "neutral" standards of the BBC as the correct way to present the news, also disturbs many.

But for good or ill, history, or more accurately the individual American’s conceptions of the past, determines the content of contemporary US politics in ways that other countries have discarded. As a result, that American politics possesses a depth of philosophical argument about the role of the government in our lives that Europeans, for all their dismissals of the shallowness of opinion in the US, would do well to learn from.

US Politics: Elena Kagan Confirmed as Supreme Court Justice (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

As expected, Elena Kagan was confirmed on Thursday afternoon as the 112th Supreme Court Justice. Despite opposition from a number of Republicans who objected to her liberal record, the roll vote in the Senate was 63-37 in her favour. Kagan was approved by all but one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and she also received the support of 5 Republicans.

With Kagan replacing the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, there will be little change in the ideological balance of the Court, but she joins at a time when several controversial and much anticipated cases are edging closer to possible review by the Court.

The Arizona illegal immigration law is headed for review by the Supreme Court, and there is little to suggest that the passage of time for contemplation by the Judges, will blunt the emotional impact of the arguments. Similarly, the ruling by a Californian judge on Wednesday that there is no rational basis for denying the right of same-sex couples to marry will spark national attention when it eventually reaches the Court.

And there is still the likelihood that, in what will sure to be one of the more historic decisions of the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care legislation will be reviewed. When the measure was signed into law Vice President Joe Biden infamously remarked it was a “big f%&&*g deal”. It will be a bigger deal than even that if it passes the scrutiny of the Court.

There is a mood growing on the Right that liberal "elites" in Washington are denying the will of the electorate in major issues. Citing popular support for the Arizona Law, California's Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage, and the Missouri referendum on Tuesday that rejected Obama’s healthcare legislation by 71-29%, conservatives are looking to the Supreme Court to defend their interests against what they claim is an aggressively liberal administration.

Kagan will begin her duties early next week when she swears the constitutional oath of office and begins study of all the documents on the cases that may appear before the Court next term. At a conference in September, the nine Justices will decide which cases they will consider when the Court begins its next term on 4 October.

The Chinese has a proverb, "May You Live in Interesting Times". Justice Kagan may think this quite apt as she takes up her new position.