News bits: Attacks on democracy, wildlife in decline

The radical right empire that Leonard Leo quietly built

The NYT writes:

Behind the scenes, though, these groups have something in common: They are part of an ambitious coalition developed in recent years by the conservative activist Leonard A. Leo, who until now has been best known for his role in pushing the appointments of conservative judges to the center of the Republican Party’s agenda.

Most of the initiatives were financially supported, or in some cases launched, by an opaque, sprawling network shaped by Mr. Leo and funded by wealthy patrons, usually through anonymous donations that critics call “dark money.”

An investigation by The New York Times of Mr. Leo’s activities reveals new details of how he has built that network, with relatively little public attention, into one of the best-funded and most sophisticated operations in American politics, giving him extraordinary influence as he pushes a broad array of hot-button conservative causes and seeks to counter what he sees as an increasing leftward tilt in society.

The network represents a dramatic expansion of tactics and focus for Mr. Leo, who spent nearly three decades working mostly behind the scenes to pull the judiciary to the right as an executive at the Federalist Society. His success in that effort, and expansion into other polarizing fights, is rapidly making him a leading target of criticism from the left.

His philosophy is defined by a belief that the federal government should play a smaller role in public life and religious values a larger one, and that institutions and individuals should be challenged for embracing what he sees as subversive liberal positions.

His expanded effort focuses on a variety of causes, including restricting abortion rights in the states; ending affirmative action; defending religious groups accused of discriminating against L.G.B.T.Q. people; opposing what he sees as liberal policies being espoused by corporations and schools; electing Republicans; and fighting Democratic efforts to slow climate change, increase the transparency of money in politics and expand voting access.

This is more evidence of (i) the increasingly radical Christian theocratic nature of the Republican Party, (ii) Christian nationalist desire to discriminate against those it deems unworthy, e.g., the LGBTQ community, and (iii) its staunch resistance to doing anything about climate change. That is radicalism. 

The NYT’s assertion that Leo wants to expand voting access is puzzling. The article linked to discusses Republican efforts to restrict voting access, not to expand it. That may be a typo. 

Note that Leo wants to gain power to oppose and reverse what he sees as liberal tendencies in society and business, e.g., concern for climate change, defense of civil liberties for the LGBTQ community, etc. Those changes are what is happening naturally in American society and commerce. That is evidence that Leo is an autocrat or authoritarian, not a democrat.

Declines in wildlife

Declines in wildlife by humans and the climate change are increasing. The NYT writes:

Researchers Report a Staggering Decline in Wildlife. 

Here’s How to Understand It.

It’s clear that wildlife is suffering mightily on our planet, but scientists don’t know exactly how much. A comprehensive figure is exceedingly hard to determine. Counting wild animals — on land and at sea, from gnats to whales — is no small feat. Most countries lack national monitoring systems.

One of the most ambitious efforts to fill this void is published every two years. Known as the Living Planet Index, it’s a collaboration between two major conservation organizations, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Zoological Society of London.

The assessment’s latest number, issued Wednesday by 89 authors from around the world, is its most alarming yet: From 1970 to 2018, monitored populations of vertebrates declined an average of 69 percent. That’s more than two-thirds in only 48 years.

.... start with three populations: birds, bears and sharks. The birds decline to 5 from 25, a drop of 80 percent. The bears fall to 45 animals from 50, or 10 percent. And the sharks decrease to 8 from 20, or 60 percent.

That gives us an average decline of 50 percent. But the total number of animals fell to 92 from 150, a drop of about 39 percent.

The index is designed that way because it seeks to understand how populations are changing over time. It doesn’t measure how many individuals are present.

So, is it still bad?

Yes. Some scientists think the report actually underestimates the global biodiversity crisis, in part because devastating declines in amphibians may be underrepresented in the data.

And, over time, the trend is not turning around.

“Year after year we are not able to start improving the situation, despite major policies,” said Henrique M. Pereira, a professor of conservation biology at the German Center for Integrative Biodiversity Research who was not involved in this year’s report.