Mediaboss Marketing

Opinion

The settlement, though disappointing, provides at least a measure of accountability

Wed 19 Apr 2023 05.08 EDT

As opening arguments neared on Tuesday afternoon, even the most hardened skeptics might have found themselves thinking the impossible was actually going to happen: the corrosive lies of Fox News would go on trial, Rupert Murdoch would be forced to the witness stand, and positive societal change might result.

American democracy, which has been teetering on the brink in recent years would be pulled back from the precipice, at least by a few crucial feet.

After all, the jury of six men and six women had been seated in Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit against Fox News.

The judge had delivered his warnings to stay away from news reports as they heard arguments and testimony. And hundreds of reporters had packed a Wilmington, Delaware, courtroom and its overflow room, ready to settle in for the next six weeks of juicy revelations.

Then the hammer fell with a sudden announcement that the sides had agreed to settle, something that had seemed almost inevitable from the start.

Yes, the amount was a huge one $787.5m but it still felt like a below-the-belt blow to those of us who care about truthful reporting and the role of a responsible press in American society.

Dominions lawyers who, after all, work for a for-profit company whose majority owner is a private-equity firm based in New York tried to spin it their way.

Money is accountability, one said. Today represents a ringing endorsement for truth. Funny how much that ringing must sound uncannily like a cash register for a company whose 2022 revenue had been projected at roughly $98m. The settlement is nearly eight times that amount.

As a longtime critic of Fox, and as someone who cares deeply about the role of a truth-telling media in our democracy, I wanted to see the case proceed. But Im not surprised that it didnt. And I never thought that even a verdict for the full damages of $1.6bn would put the hugely profitable cable network out of business or make any lasting difference in how it functions.

And, after all, as one first amendment expert, the author and University of Tennessee professor Stuart Brotman told me on Tuesday, the reputational damage [to Fox] was already done. The pre-trial filings panicky emails and text messages from executives and hosts about going too heavy with the truth about the election demonstrated that Foxs highest priority was keeping its Trump-loving audience happy, not communicating the inconvenient facts about Joe Bidens election.

Brotman also notes that a trial was risky. We live in a political universe that defies gravity, and its hard to say what would have resulted. After all, Trump was arraigned on felony charges and his poll numbers went up. Impeachment meant more successful fundraising. And Fox News on trial might well further endear the network to its dedicated audience who dont get outside their information bubble much.

Whats more, juries are notoriously unpredictable. Anything can happen, which is why settlement however painful is so often the outcome.

Losing a lot of money hurts, Brotman noted, especially so when a second, somewhat similar trial is coming up on Dominions heels the one filed by Smartmatic USA scheduled to be tried soon in New York. (Smartmatic seeks even more money than Dominion $2.7bn in damages, claiming that Fox News hurt the companys reputation by lying about how its technology was used in the 2020 election.)

The only thing that could make a real difference in Foxs fortunes is something very far away from a Delaware courtroom. Thats a consumer-driven change in the way big cable providers pay the carriage fees that are the main source of Foxs revenue. The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America is working to make that happen, but it will be an uphill climb.

Meanwhile, nothing has changed. The publics memory is short. There will be no apology required as part of the settlement, pointless as that would have been. Fox is already back to bragging about their continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards, which would be funny if it werent so tragic.

If Dominion really cared about serving the publics interest, they wouldnt have settled this case without at least the symbol of a required on-air apology.

But the huge price tag maybe the biggest ever in a defamation case and the appalling findings from the pre-trial filings provide at least some measure of accountability.

They are, after all, those interesting things we call facts. And we cant un-know them.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

See the article here:
Dominions suit exposed how Fox damages democracy with its lies - The Guardian

Former South Korean business minister Young-sun Park and social media CEO Will Hohyon Ryu discussed potential applications of artificial intelligence to democracy during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School Tuesday.

The event hosted by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation in collaboration with the Harvard Korea Institute was moderated by Jeeyang Rhee Baum, an adjunct lecturer at HKS. The discussion centered on the large language model ChatGPT, Ryus social media platform OXOpolitics, and AI in general.

More than 50 people attended the event, which was held in the Kennedy Schools Land Hall.

Park, South Koreas former minister of small and medium enterprises and startups and a fellow at the Rajawali Foundation Institute for Asia, opened the event with a discussion of the concept of liquid democracy, a form of direct democracy where voters can directly weigh in on policy decisions or choose to delegate their vote to a representative.

Liquid democracy empowers direct participation, Park said.

Many democracies are currently experiencing crises of polarization, according to Park. In nations like the U.S. and South Korea, stark divisions between the political left and right mean that politics are not representing the voice of all the public, she said, sparking dissatisfaction with politicians and systems of representation.

To address this, Park said, governments should turn to new advances in technology to make politics more representative. By facilitating direct communication among the people and convergence of the peoples opinion, technology can supplement the shortcomings of representative democracy.

Ryu, the OXOpolitics founder, said a shortcoming of representative democracy is the middlemen who stand between the voters and their representatives.

Its not always the case that my representatives words really represent me, Ryu said.

Park said AI can complement representatives, synthesizing voters opinions in an accessible way.

AI is the most efficient way to make the direct democracy possible, Park said.

For example, Park discussed how a South Korean startup recently used ChatGPT to compile citizens views on South Koreas relationship with Japan filtering through hundreds of thousands of online posts to create a comprehensive summary of public opinion.

This system opened a new possibility for determining politics widely by analyzing the opinion of the conservatives and progressives in less [than] one minute, she said. This is the first step to getting closer to digital democracy.

Similarly, Ryu said he developed the social media platform OXOpolitics to connect voters directly to politicians. The platform collects users opinions on political issues and visualizes the data for politicians to see.

Ryu said OXOpolitics is a form of liquid democracy because it allows each individual to weigh in on political issues themselves.

Imagine theres an AI that understands me better than myself, he said. We are trying to bring AI-assisted liquid democracy into reality.

Ryu acknowledged, however, the dangers of introducing artificial intelligence into political systems.

We are doing a really dangerous thing, he said. Bringing AI not human intelligence but artificial intelligence to politics is potentially disruptive.

Park argued that developers can avoid these dangers by upholding five ethical principles: transparency, safety, responsibility, fairness, and goodwill. Ryu agreed that it is important to hold AI ethically accountable.

We can follow AIs recommendations, but ultimately, humans still have the responsibility as citizens to make the right decisions, he said.

To ensure that algorithms make beneficial decisions for the public, Ryus platform includes an explanation of where the algorithms recommendations come from.

With transparency, you can trust AI, he said.

In the end, Ryu said, AI is just a tool whose users must decide how it contributes to democracy.

AI could be a dictator that tells us what to do, Ryu said. But the same time, it can be a representative.

See more here:
Technology Experts Discuss Role of AI in Democracy at Harvard ... - Harvard Crimson

Brazilian senator Humberto Costa recalls the successes of participatory budgeting, where everyday Brazilians met to decide portions of their local government budgets, and why it needs to implemented widely once again. Courtesy of AP Newsroom.

by Humberto Costa|April19,2023

What are the obstacles and opportunities facing democracy today? Zcalo is publishing aseries of letters to highlight how the worlds democratic ideals are faring in practice. From Brazil: Senator Humberto Costa writes about the efforts to re-mobilize one of his nations signature democratic ideas: participatory budgeting.

One of the worlds great democratic innovations is about to make a big comeback in the place where it was invented: my country, Brazil.

And the story of that innovations rise, fall, and revitalization offers lessons for the world.

Participatory budgeting was a creation of Brazil, first introduced in Porto Alegre in 1990. Under participatory budgeting, everyday Brazilians met and decided themselves how to spend portions of their local government budgets. The meetings and debates were not easy work, but people liked having the power. So, the idea spread quickly to other cities, with the support of the Workers Party, of which I was a member.

At the time, the Workers Party was out of power nationally, but counted many mayors and state governors in our ranks. Participatory budgeting was part of our efforts to engage more Brazilians where they live.

In the 2000s, I saw participatory budgeting firsthand in Recife, my own city, the capital of the northeastern province of Pernambuco. We used it extensively at the neighborhood level, so people could set priorities for spending and choose specific projects they wanted to pursue.

I was in government at the timeworking on health mattersand we were intrigued and often surprised by the choices people made. In many situations, we assumed people had one set of priorities, but that found criteria were totally different when we actually asked them to make a decision.

One of the worlds great democratic innovations is about to make a big comeback in the place where it was invented: my country, Brazil.

In one example, we thought that a group of neighborhoods might prioritize building a public health office, or clinic. But through a participatory budgeting process, the people of the neighborhoods indicated that they actually wanted something different: an extension of an existing program called City Gym that provided space for recreation and exercise.

Constructing a city gym gave them a place to go to pursue their health, to run and walk, and to meet friends. The citizens also wanted exercise equipment. Participatory budgeting gave them the power to get what they wanted. It also seemed to improve healthreducing stress and diabetes risk. An international evaluation recommended the City Gym program to other countries.

Watching participatory budgeting in process, those of us working in public health learned that we had to listen to people. We expanded other programs that citizens told us they wanted, like the Family Health Program, a national program team composed by doctors and taking in consideration and they offer primary care. We also learned that we had to talk to people more often, if we were going to convince them to prioritize spending on an area we wanted to promote.

Participatory budgeting was such a success in Brazils local communities that it spread around the world, to more than 11,000 communities, according to an atlas that documents the process. Participatory budgeting processes have won many awards for innovation and engagement.

But in Brazil, its birthplace, the process has declined in use. What happened? There was resistance from officials who didnt want to cede power to people, or found setting up the process to be challenging. My partys priorities changed. As we won presidential elections and took power nationally, we lost interest in city hall and state government.

That was an enormous mistake. When participatory budgeting declined, the people became less engaged and less organized. And that meant that when the far right gained power, the people were not mobilized to resist. Democracy is something that requires practice.

The Workers Party has just won the presidency again. But this time, we are not repeating our mistake. Im now a senator, and participatory budgeting and democratic programs like it are a big part of what were working on.

Indeed, our new president, Lula, is preparing a participatory budgeting program for the nation. Its an important topic in discussions at the federal government level, where we hope to apply it to four-year planning budgets.

Id like to see it used more broadly also to make decisions in each state, and in municipalities. Such participation could help set priorities for addressing many issues, including health, education, and public security.

It wont be easy to create this process at the national level. It will take some time. But its an important step. Its time to re-mobilize this signature Brazilian idea so that Brazilians can again set their own priorities, and make their own decisions about the future.

Link:
A Letter From Brazil: Where a Great Democracy Invention Is Making ... - zocalopublicsquare.org

Ive avoided writing this essay for at least three years but my stomach gnaws.

My town, an epitome of rural America, boasts not one but two January 6, 2021 insurrectionists. And for the noisy oneHank Munzer, its always a boast. He introduces himself that way.

The other insurrectionist, years younger, comes from an ostensibly Christian family as his father was and is a preacher. I dont think he preaches the gospel of love. This younger man sang tenor with me in the college choir one year. His sister cleaned our house for a few years and ended up running an orphanage in Kenya. In our town brewery this man, in his thirties, when asked about his career aspirations, said something like Id like to be a mercenary soldier.

He keeps his head down awaiting his court case.

Not so Hank, whose business shop lines our towns main north-south street. He was arrested about a week after the Capital riot and charged with one felony count and four misdemeanors, two of those disorderly or disruptive conduct. Among other things he was accused of recording videos inside the Capitol. Six days later he posted those on Facebook. That fact alone evidences his online dependency. Did he know or care about legality? He thinks he did nothing wrong and only exercised free speech.

He was arraigned then released on bailhe grins in his orange prison suitand then he got to work on his business building in Dillon.

Hank was supposed to go to trial in August 2022 but now theres been another half-year postponement. Hes wanted a change of venue but will be tried in Washington D.C. He prefers to represent himself rather than use a lawyer. That fact suggests the level of his self-righteous zealotry or his narcissistic personality disorder. Or both.

Meanwhile, he enjoys local notoreity. He even ran for city council and garnered dozens of votes. Whose sick joke is that? Exactly whom in rural America is he speaking for? One flavor of rural America consists of a range of deep resentments; above all, resentment of the federal government. Nothing new here, given the long history of agricultural subsidies and dependencies.

In some regards, my town, as a breeding ground for insurrectionists, represents just the latest expression of rural resentment signified earlier by the Sagebrush Rebellionremember its shovel brigade, with many shovels trucked from my state?or, more recently, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover by Cliven and Ammon Bundy, ongoing loose cannons?

What has my town become? In this milieu of noise and anger, when rudeness reigns unchecked, how many of us will change whats happened?

Why are most of us enslaved to social mediathe origin story herenot recognizing and diffusing their role in our unravelling? Hank is an epitome and product of social media through which his crazy voice assumes outsize proportions. Now, were drowning as fringe voices infect and debase public discourse.

This guy has received plenty of press since his arrest. His version of what unrolled at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 sounds like a child marveling at a fairy tale in which hes participating. He claims he travelled all the way to the Capitol to meet Trump though, of course, Trump wasnt allowed to go, throwing a temper tantrum in his limo-SUV.

Hank has been in our town for some years and even repaired our washing machine or connected our new dishwasher. On the latter occasion, he chatted on his bluetooth most of the time. He acts affable, garrulous.

How long ago did he start trolling alt-right chat rooms? Maybe hed turned into a MAGA-head before that disastrous acronym became commonplace. What combination of ignorance and disposition and random events led to his fantastic convictions? Through sundry platforms he found fellow true believers and discovered deep solidarity.

In the press, hes all innocence: At the time I didnt know what was going on, but looking back it almost seemed like it was a trap they opened the doors.

Really? Happened to be breaking in but knowing nothing? They opened doors? Theres that unspecified plural pronoun again. The key note here is paranoia, a QAnon homebase. His rendition contradicts every account Ive studied about that day of infamy. Hank continues in a passive vein that denies any agency on the part of the mob: No one ever asked us to leave or exit the building; its like we were turned on, suddenly.

The depth of delusion takes ones breath away.

Hanks most stunning disclaimer: He acted without malice and claims he doesnt support violence against anyone. People like this repeat these lies to reassure themselves and, in their delusion, persuade themselves theyre proselytizing others.

This includes victimhood as a core ingredient. One of the most pernicious consequences of alt-right chatrooms, for example, concerns the proliferation of victimhood. The sometimes indeterminate they act in ways and with consequences that seemingly constrain or harm mea seductive, even irresistible mode of auto-suggestion, no matter how far-fetched.

The symbiosis of their fault and poor me depends depends upon an unformed, unchecked egotism. In rural U.S., its a knee-jerk inheritance to rant against the feds, to pose as the little guy tilting against big government. Of course the feds prove a primary employer via federal land agencies, its no surprise to admit.

The brand of victimhood in the ascendant is also reinforced by our towns setting. Out here in the boondocks, some locals harbor every possible resentment against urban- and suburbanitesthey who include most the population and more political power. Long subject to satiric treatment and neglect, rural America, whether aging white or more, is more pissed off than ever about chronic disregard or dismissal among stakeholders in the contemporary U.S. Even in our rural state, something like 80% of us now live in or near six to eight cities (those with 30,000 or more).

The current rural malaise includes an agrarian longing, however suspect: A hearkening back more than a century when many more Americans were rural rather than urban. In residual rural pockets, folks typically have less broadband width and less high-speed access. It could be argued that in the post-Internet world, the neglect or stigmatization of rural U.S. accelerates. After all, most all our Internet cues come from suburbs or cities. Folks on the farm or ranch or in the two-traffic light town already feel that, increasingly, they dont fit along the spectrum of contemporary fashions and feel than ever more removed from sites of power and prestige. Angry and depressed about economic disjunction and ongoing disregard, they easily slip on the clothes of victimhood. And they seek and seize upon scapegoating targets.

In the pathology of victimhood, its also easy to adopt a David-vs.-Goliath stance, particularly when Goliath owns considerable tracts of landpublic lands, a great legacy but beyond any local control. Or when wealthy out-of-staters arrive, moving into something big, whether temporarily or permanently, and paying cash. Lots of cash.

Another likely source of MAGA victimhood in contemporary rural America derives from this political truth: Our votes hardly matter. At the federal level, our votes (electoral college or otherwise) dont add up to much and weve so few Representatives. At the state level, delegations representing about half a dozen cities wield most political clout. Where does that leave rural U.S.?

A generation ago, one national politician described our state as hyper rural. You know the feeling? My county, larger than Connecticut, boasts about 9,000 residents and few traffic lights. Most Americans cant imagine or understand or appreciate such a mode of life. Many pass through but few would choose to stay. In pockets like mine, its an unimaginable distance to D.C. or New Yorkother countries.

Why should D.C. call the shots about public lands right here, for instance? What do they know at ground level? And so it goes, more Beltway rants.

In his spot-on analysis of my state, Fifty-Six Counties, novelist Russell Rowlanddefines a fierce love of the land or their families or their country characteristic, I believe, of rural Americans: They love until it makes them blind, until they feel the need to barricade themselves against anything that threatens that love.

That circling-the-wagons mentality against ostensible outside threats, a species or xenophobia and denial, results in destructive conduct: So we drink. We kill ourselves. We throw our sinking self-image out onto those around us, sometimes in violent, ugly ways, and we decide that our problems are everyone elses fault, and that if they would go away, or act more like we do, or learn to think more like we think, then we would feel better.

In such soil grows the Hankss of rural communities. After all, they are out to get us, right? And rural problems come from elsewhere, according to this self-delusion.

This toxic combination of ignorance, victimhood, naivet, and auto-hypnosis, now commonplace, would remain minuscule but for alt-right media platforms.

The paint job on Hanks business building proves his lie as it is far more than an eyesore; as a calculated act of visual violence, it repels many of us and, according to one local realtor, dissuades occasional prospects who considered moving here. One friend told me she no longer drives on this main street; another said she chants ahole, ahole, ahole every time she rides by. The city council does nothing because of Freds ostensible First Amendment protections.

My stomach used to cramp as I passed but in more recent seasons, Ive grown numb, pretending to ignore this bizarre paint job. Most townspeople do their best to ignore it. Ive never seen a building, graffitied or otherwise, like this one anywhere.

For example, on its south side theres a large image of a sheeps head (black), its mouth gagged with a red bandanna. Above the image, in block letters, MIND CONTROL DEVICE and underneath that, prodded by an arrow in larger block letters, SHEEP NO MORE. Presumably its an allusion to William Lederers long ago A Nation of Sheep.

Actually, now were more a nation of sheep than ever, and some know why. Who are the sheep now? Hanks answer diametrically opposes that of the majority.

To the right we read a quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr., who would likely be surprised to be included here: NOTHING IN ALL / THE WORLD IS / MORE DANGEROUS / THAN SINCERE / IGNORANCE AND / CONSCIENTIOUS / STUPIDITY. This strikes me as one unintentionally accurate self-description of Fred and the swelling tribe of conspiracy theorists.

Below this proclamation, again in block lettering, four mottos: THOSE THAT FEAR HAVE NOT BEEN / MADE PERFECT IN LOVE followed by GOODBYE HOSPITAL ADMIN. / CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY followed by TYRANNY NEVER ENDS WITH / COMPLIANCE OR SUBMISSION / THIS IS WAR, and closing, in deeper black paint, THOSE THAT TRADE LIBERTY FOR / SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER. It would take too long to unpack this unruly collage, a stunning jumble of juxtapositions.

The east and north facades reveal quotations from JFK and George Bush, Sr., and insinuate many linkages between Kennedys assassination and the previous president and his Big Lie regarding the 2020 election. Perhaps the most subversive note concerns the visual linkages between our foundational We The People doctrine and QAnon dogma.

Kevin Roose of The New York Times posted an article (Sept. 3, 2021) anatomizing QAnons genesis, growth, and appeal. QAnon, a cancer thats metastasized from fringe to mainstream, perpetuates lies about a range of topics via YouTube. The core lie, posted by some troll (Q) in October 2017, breezily flourishes far beyond what is meant by crackpot: A group of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics and media.

Say what?

Hard to know where to start among these glaring, primitive fears: Satan worship, pedophilia, or this global cabal that includes Democrat leaders, left-wing Hollywood trendsetters. Even the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis make the list of villains.

The Storm, a species of fast-forward end time, refers to the near-future event when Trump returns to power and unleashes this vague cabal, punishing its members and bringing them to justice.

It turns out QAnon attracts a diverse constituency, not just crazy libertarians or fearful evangelical Christians. According to Roose, a December 2020 poll suggests that 17% of Americans subscribe to QAnon. Among Republicans its a higher percentage. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have ostensibly removed thousands of accounts and blocked a lot of QAnon content, which of course only feeds the miasma of persecution and paranoia that defines these True Believers.

How has this crazed fantasy moved onto the radar screen within two to three years? Loose analyzes QAnon as both a social community and a source of entertainment. These claims worry me all the more though Im unsurprised. QAnon functions in some regards as a cult, a fringe online church community with all the predictable bonding. Cults sustain a sense of solidarity, exclusivity and privilege through ongoing proselytizing and reinforcement protocols. Deep State true believers believe they know more than rest of us and revel in the difference.

Im even more struck by QAnons fundamental texture of online gaming, as most posts involve some decoding as though this cults cryptic communications attest to a privileged arcana of knowledgelets call it a pseudo-cabal. No doubt the element of gaming underlines this cults sense of exclusivity. You know, like a series of secret passwords that permit entrance into the speakeasy. Above Freds front window we read, TRUST THE PLAN / WWG1WGA.

I grew up a gullible lad but adulthood and education thickened my skin. In the world according to Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, what does adulthood look like? QAnon appears only a ripe instance of a young childs gullibility, a cancer growth of online addiction. Gullibility, like clinical depression, has reached epidemic proportions well before COVID-19. Do social media fuel it or are there other lead causes?

Here in the sticks resentment against the feds remains a hoary, inherited creed, however unfounded and dubious. That tradition provides a welcoming micro-climate for conspiracy theories to flourish because for some, the wagons keep circling.

Weve been warned repeatedly.

Social historian Sherry Turkles books carefully plot the online invasion and subsequent evisceration of stable identity and erosion of actual, physical communities. One of her titles captures the potent paradox occasioned by social media, Alone Together. Its old news that social media diffuses ones identity and allows Freuds id, a red zone, to take charge: No filters so the spontaneous overflow of powerful anger and rudeness never need be recollected in tranquility.

Being virtually together reinforces, in myriad insidious ways, our burden of being increasingly alone. Besides, being angry together, online or in front of Fox News, feeds our dopamine, a craving marking addiction. Her subtitleWhy We Expect MORE from Technology and LESS from Each Otherperfectly forecasts our common unravelling well before the 2016 Presidential election with its reality TV star. This book deeply depressed me as I knew most would never heed her prophetic voice.

Turkles more recent book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age measures the depths of our decline and makes one poignant read. Turkle argues what many online addicts have forgotten, that the pathway out of alone leads us back into physical interaction via conversation. The art of conversation, however risky or messy, reminds us of what human beings have always done besides eating, making love, and killing.

Jeff Orlowskis documentary, Our Social Dilemma, also sounds the warning about the subversive dominance of the mega-platforms in our lives. Were all at the mercy of algorithmsand this is no conspiracy theory, its current mega-business according to Behaviorism 101. This film should be required watching for anyone creating or using social media.

In recent decades, published research directly correlates social media addiction with clinical depression. Some mental health professionals believe that clinical depression represents the fifth vital sign health care providers should monitor.

Why do conspiracy theory platforms proliferate? Inside that house, safely online no matter the gross distortion of or disconnect from actuality, some find and fasten onto various pseudo-brother- or sisterhoods. And group victimhood. In these spaces, inhibitions drop away and gullibility reigns and more dopamine is released. For some, the more incredulous the claims, the more eagerly theyre grasped. Such essential human modes as introspection or sustained reflection, like listening, disappear. What has ever happened to critical thinking, a traditional hallmark of being educated and adult?

Some poor bastard out there can even hatch a fantasy linking two taboosSatan worship and pedophilia and sexual predationwith a vague plot centrally casting the worst President in our history. Its all easy under a big expanding tent.

Lets return to my hometown with this sore on one of its main streets. Hanks convictions belong in an alternate reality. He loves the attention, shies away from no microphone or camera, and apparently knows more about most subjects than the rest of us. Ive heard him holding forth. In front of his building he displayed a F Biden sign until one city council member pressured him to remove it.

Zealots of the Big Lie are dangerous whether in Congress or on a main street in rural America. And the extreme right-winger strategy focuses upon local elections school boards, county commissioners or health officers, above all. Hank, who believes he can best represent himself in his trial, thinks hell beat all charges and then file and win a civil lawsuit: They are going to pay me a huge premium for this.

Does anyone else share his roseate lenses? No narcissism here, right? Theres that vague pesky they again, default mode for conspiracy theorists.

For more than two years Hank parked his Trump truck by his front door on public property: A smaller version of his buildings decor, blue with prominent white lettering. On one corner in smaller lettering, an offensively crude jingle: Joe & The Hoe Gotta Go. Serious confusion, and not just about the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation. Who is speaking for Whom?

Remember Hank harbors no malice and opposes violence. Ive never seen this truck move, though presumably it rides slowly with a few other vehicles on Fridays after 5:30. Like other residents, Ive driven past on a Friday later afternoon, watched a few pickups and overweight men, usually menyou know, Carhartts snug, burly if not beardedrally around. The truck train then drives slowly and makes noise on residential streets. Does anyone pay attention? Whose First Amendments rights are being infringed here?

And you know how our nation flags been appropriated. This weekly event feels like a tiny fringe group and the phallic symbolismthose fluttering erect flagsfeels sophomoric or worse.

Most in my town ignore or dismiss him, despite a noisy, sympathetic fringe. From inside his bubble, he exaggerates his influence. Yet the truck remained, another act of visual violence. Is he tolerated due to apathy?

Turns out the truck is illegal because its one giant political sign. According to Montana law(18.6.246, POLITICAL SIGNS), section one states Signs promoting political candidates is used shall be placed on private property only. Section two reads, in part, Political signs must not be placed on or allow any portion to intrude in the public right-of-way or on public property. That includes sidewalks and streets. Further, Political signs must be removed with 14 days following the applicable election.

So whats the deal here?

Unsurprisingly perhaps, this section of code requires local enforcement and our city council and police department chose not to enforce the code, and get this glaring screed off the streets. Why not? Why have local officials willfully ignored state law and, as it turns out, municipal code as well? Do they think Hank commands more support than he does? This apathy and failure reflect fragile democracy at a local level.

Our states lead human rights organization has long tracked extreme rightwing fringe groups in and out of our region. It has provided webinars on Harassment, Discrimination, Intimidation and disseminated a Rapid Response Guide for Hate Incidents. Their research documents not only armed paramilitary groups but aggressive actions to influence local elections. Since COVID-19, county health officers have found themselves a bullseye for these outfits and those swayed by them.

Bullying has no place in a healthy democracy yet weve witnessed endless displays, online and on the ground, at every level. Thats no surprise given the role modeling of the past half dozen years and more.

January 6 insurrectionists need jail time.

I cant swallow the lethargy of millions while fringe groups migrate inward. What differences exist between our current House of Representatives and the Reichstag in 1933? Have we forgotten the consequences of Josef Goebbels, in the late 1930s, repeatedly denouncing Die Juden as vermin? What are the differences between vermin or woke labelling?

Read more:
Essay: The rural rotting of democracy Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan

European Democracy Hub

Senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at Carnegie Europe and Executive Director of the European Partnership for Democracy, respectively

The second Summit for Democracy was held over three days in the last week of March. The event did not attract much media attention and some observers judged the outcomes to be modest. Yet, the government leaders involved agreed that the summit process will continue and promised to explore ways of deepening coordination between democracies.

Richard Youngs is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, based at Carnegie Europe. He works on EU foreign policy and on issues of international democracy.

South Korea will host a third summit, opening the prospect of more global buy-in for what has been up to now a heavily U.S.-led process. European governments have engaged in the Summit for Democracy, although in most cases so far without according it high-level priority. The summit process could turn into an important strategic platform in the defense of global democratic norms or it could atrophy into irrelevance.

Ken Godfrey is the Executive Director of the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD).

European governments still need to decide what they want from the initiative and, more generally, what importance to attach to international democratic coordination. Given all this, we asked noted experts and democracy practitioners for their thoughts on how Europe should position itself in relation to the Summit for Democracy and how it should seek to influence the evolution of the process.

Co-director of the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

With the second Summit for Democracy over and a third, to be hosted by South Korea, in the works, European governments need to decide what role they want to play in the process. Europe has thus far been divided. A few smaller, mostly northern European states have followed the United States lead and played active roles in the organizing of side meetings and cohort processes around themes like media freedom, civic space, and tech for democracy. On the other hand, most European statesincluding the big four of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdomhave participated only ambivalently and largely perfunctorily. They have been hesitant to embrace the broad U.S. framing of a global divide between authoritarianism and democracy, and uncertain about the value of the summit process, but at the same time they have not been willing to give a full cold shoulder to the initiative.

Thomas Carothers, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peaces Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, is a leading expert on comparative democratization and international support for democracy.

The greatest value of the summit process so far has probably been its role as a spur for the establishment of various joined-up processes among governmental and nongovernmental actors to craft multilateral policy and aid platforms around some key themes. Accordingly, the smaller, more motivated European states should keep pushing to advance these processes and own some of them fully. As they do so, they can attempt to pull the less motivated European states into greater participation, encouraging them to see the next phase of the summit process as less about U.S.-led pageantry and more about taking targeted, concrete policy and aid actions. However, expectations about any significant change of heart about the summit process on the part of most European governments must necessarily be modest.

By doing the above, the motivated European governments can help the Summit for Democracy avoid the fate of an earlier U.S. initiative, the Community of Democraciesdevolution into a ritualistic series of cumbersome, and largely empty gatherings driven by the United States and a changing cast of relatively small democracies that it enlists into hosting roles. In seeking to help achieve tangible policy progress on key themes and to help the summit process evolve into something of lasting substance, motivated European governments can play on their strengths in the democracy domain. These strengths are a proven commitment to and deep experience with pro-democracy multilateralism, cutting-edge thinking and action on some key regulatory policy areas such as tech and democracy, and an enduring consensus across most parts of the European political spectrum on the importance of international democracy support (in contrast to the unsettling of U.S. democracy policy during the presidency of Donald Trump).

Professor of Democracy and International Development at the Birmingham University

The culmination of the Summit for Democracy in Zambia saw the end of another global democracy event. Many have been held over the last few years and many more will be held in the future. But key Western governments have yet to really grasp what effective democracy support actually requires, and what they need to do in order to move from platitudes to policies. Strengthening democracy can no longer be limited to the old-fashioned idea of simply investing in democratic institutions and civil society in every country in which a donor is active. It must also be about rewarding democratic governments with a greater share of aid and economic opportunities and insulating their countries political systems against backsliding.

Nic Cheeseman is professor of Democracy at the University of Birmingham.

European governments should prioritize the following three things in helping the next phase of the Summit for Democracy process address the challenges faced by fragile democracies.

Governments around the world are unlikely to see the value of adhering to democracy if aid continues to be distributed with little regard for regime type. Democracies should receive more aid than authoritarian countries, other things being equal.

Some of the opposition parties whose election victories have been the best news stories for democracy in recent years are struggling to retain popular support in government. One reason is that they came to power with impossible expectations placed upon them, but another is that many parts of the world are still suffering an economic form of long COVID, compounded by high food and fuel prices. As Zambias President Hakainde Hichilema recently warned, if governments like his are not supported in delivering services, there is a risk that citizens will turn their backs on democracy. To manage this, fragile democracies need not only aid but also privileged access to beneficial trade relations and debt relief.

Insulating democracies against democratic backsliding means supporting them not only in delivering services in the short term but also in building more effective states. As Ken Opalo has argued, weak state capacity is the most significant barrier to both political and economic development. Constructing more effective states and stronger democracies must therefore go hand in hand.

These three goals form an agenda for the next Summit for Democracy where European states, some of which have a reputation for engaging more consistently and reflectively around the world, will need to play a prominent roleand are likely to be better placed to do this than the United States.

European countries with their history of having a more capable state are better suited to partner with fragile democracies around the world in this endeavor. But this will only happen if European governments pull their heads out of the sand and recognize the global rise of authoritarianism for the existential threat it is. Otherwise, what would be the point of organizing another Summit for Democracy if Europe and others do not listen to the warning of the government that co-hosted the latest one?

Executive Director of the Forum 2000 Foundation

After a period of creeping external and internal pressure on democracies, Russias invasion of Ukraine and a more assertive China have made the global geopolitical landscape clearer. In this context, closer democratic coordination is quite clearly needed. It is not so obvious, however, that the two Summits for Democracy have charted the right path for doing so. Despite the time and effort invested in them, it feels like the process has still not properly started. Difficult questions remain unanswered: Is there actual progress in cooperation among democracies as a result of the summits? How sincere is the interest of democratic governments in deepening cooperation? And what are the main objectives of this initiative?

The EUs involvement in the two summits so far was impeded by Hungary not being invited to either, but European democracies should take the initiative in shaping the next stages of the process. Recent security, economic, technological, and other developments have placed it in a vulnerable position, putting its prosperity and its democracy at risk. The EU needs to take a more agile role in global affairs, to look for new approaches, and to pursue its interests more vigorously. In this context, propping up the global rules-based order, strengthening the transatlantic partnership, and enhancing political and economic cooperation with democratic partners around the globe should be natural objectives.

Jakub Klepal is the Executive Director of the Forum 2000.

The Summit for Democracy process has the potential to be an important platform for pursuing these objectives. European governments should focus on three areas: making the process more inclusive, embracing more fully partners and civil society from outside the Euro-Atlantic space, and making the process more strategically focused.

A recent Forum 2000 policy brief titled What is the future for global cooperation on democracy? stressed that democratic states outside the West need to have more ownership in steering the process. The United States decision to invite Costa Rica, South Korea, and Zambia as co-conveners of the second summit and to pass the leadership role to Seoul was a step in the right direction.

Civil society and other relevant nongovernmental actors also need to play an enhanced role. The mobilization of civil society organizations within the summit cohorts has shown that there is significant potential in their involvement. More inclusiveness would widen the reach of the process and deepen its roots. As the Forum 2000 brief suggests, a shift from a process of democratic governments to one of global democrats, allowing for more involvement by civil society from democratic countries and by democracy defenders from nondemocratic ones would make sense. A more substantial interface between governments and nongovernmental actors could also provide fertile ground for fresh ideas and informal networks to emerge and move the process forward. To enable more meaningful participation by civil society organizations with limited resources, the EU and other donors should assist them with sufficient and flexible funding.

Finally, EU states should help the Summit for Democracy process achieve the difficult balance between being more strategic and addressing crucial topics such as Russias war against Ukraine so as to remain credible and relevant, and including democratic actors from the Global South for whom taking strong positions on such topics is complicated. If such a balance is achieved, the summit process could become a platform where not just technicalities but also the strategic interests of democracies worldwide can be discussed and coordinated.

And, if the Summit for Democracy is to function properly, it should be convened in-person. Online and hybrid events have their merit but nothing can replace the depth, the lasting experience, the strong network-building effect, and the media dynamics of high-level personal encounters.

Head of the Transformation of Political (Dis-)order research program at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)

As if in two parallel worlds, China and the United States recently hosted two international democracy events. Their goal was supposedly the sameto foster democracy. While the U.S.-initiated Summit for Democracy aims to protect freedoms and core democratic institutions, the Chinese-driven International Forum on Democracy: The Shared Human Values seeks to defend democratic diversity and countries right to separate development paths.

Julia Leininger is the head of the Transformation of Political (Dis-)order research program at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

This was an expression of the rivalry between China and the United States over political orders. But in contrast to the Cold War, today the development of countries in all world regions depends on winning the economic competition in an international capitalist system regardless of their political and ideological orientation. What is more, the global economy potentially provides a space in which interdependencies could at least mitigate conflict, but economic and political rivalries also fuel each other and may promote a downward spiral away from multilateral cooperation toward exclusionary intergovernmental relations. What does this imply for the European Unions role in the next phase of the Summit for Democracy process?

The international and national dimensions of political order have become inseparable. Zambia recently offered a good example of this. While its government co-hosted the recent Summit for Democracy, the opposition used the Chinese forum to denounce the United States for its double standards in international relations. This also reflects the waning credibility of Western states.

In the current geostrategic constellation, the EU needs to further develop its role as a credible supporter and protector of democracy worldwide and if used in the right way the Summit process could be one arena for meeting this goal.

For this, acting credibly means standing up for democratic values without being tainted by the United States sometimes questionable reputation. While the EU has a difficult historical legacy given its member states colonial past, as a supranational actor it can develop a different stance than individual governments. With its Global Gateway initiative, it has already announced a geostrategic initiative that has democracy support as a central element. The EU can also achieve geostrategic strength and credibility by clearly positioning itself at the working level of the summit process rather than by co-hosting a highly visible summit on the superficial frontlines of global rivalry.

Leading by example is the most promising approach to advancing democratic values. For the EU, this includes promoting democracy in its autocratizing member states and making the case for democracy in all its external fields of action. Conflicting objectives are natural in foreign policy; dealing with them openly and managing them is the real art. For example, greater trade or official development assistance can strengthen autocracies and counteract democratic objectives.

Do no democratic harm must therefore be a key guiding principle for the future of the Summit for Democracy process, applied in a coordinated fashion within and among all external policy fields by democracy-promoting governments. Germany has made an initial push in this direction in its development policy strategy for Africa. For the EU, it should mean breaking down policy silos and connecting policy areas and the work of different directorates. In the Summit for Democracy process, the EU could use its convening power to form a cohort with standard-setters such as OECD GovNet and regional organizations to develop a norm of do no democratic harm, involving decisionmakers from various policy areas, in particular trade and security.

Refined Democracy Narrative. Amid the current global wave of autocratization, democracy support and protection can no longer be based mainly on interstate relations. Many pro-democracy champions are not governments but civil society actors. Where democracy is in danger or where autocracies repress human rights, people fight for a democratic life even across borders. Solidarity with the aspirations of societies becomes a central motive for democracy promotion. The Summit for Democracy needs to pay greater attention to this dynamic.

A contemporary narrative justifying democracy promotion needs to consist of three elements: intrinsic motivation, the instrumental value of democracy, and solidarity between societies rather than states. Although civil society had an important role in the summit cohorts, it is necessary to give nongovernmental organizations from the Global South a more leading role in its next phase. Protecting and supporting democracy under the current conditions requires full buy-in from nonstate actors. The EU can advocate for such a narrative with its networks and based on the lessons learned from its various programs to foster civil society. This could give it more credibility in the eyes of its strategic partners in the Global South.

Executive Director of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee

The second Summit for Democracy passed by without being noticed by those who were not involved professionally. The sense of urgency involved was not translated into a public debate. Europe must use the momentum behind the commitments made and take the outcomes of the summit to the next level by intensifying the defense, renewal, and strengthening of democracies on the continent and beyond.

More action on European democracy is needed in the next phase of the summit process. Not only to fight the rise of autocracy in countries where democracy and fundamental values are already extremely under threat, but also in ones like the Netherlands where democracy needs serious maintenance. The fact that about 30 percent of the population does not feel politically represented in a country that is in general considered a thriving democracy is a matter of grave concern.

Kirsten Meijer is the Executive Director of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee.

The EU should lead by example by defending, renewing, and strengthening democracies in Europe and beyond, but it should only play a facilitating and modest role in the summit process. Other democratic champions, preferably from the Global South, should be in the lead, in solidarity with democratic activists from all around the world.

The EU could further support a meaningful summit process by backing demands for more transparency in it, by supporting its institutionalization and funding, by enhancing the role of cohorts, and by insisting on the engagement of civil society. European actors like the Democracy Under Threat civil society coalition in the Netherlands are ready to contribute, but the support of the EU as a guardian of democratic values is necessary.

Most importantly, the EU should lead by example within Europe itself. First, this means adopting an ambitious version of the Defence of Democracy Package being discussed. This is an important opportunity for the EU to strengthen fundamental freedoms, civic space, free media, and the rule of law as mutually reinforcing principles that underpin democracy. The recently published joint recommendations of civil society and democracy organizations in this regard should be taken fully into consideration and feed into the third summit.

The EU should use the momentum of the recent Summit for Democracy and the commitments that were made. For example, the work of the Civic Space Cohort would provide a great opportunity for the EU to further strengthen its role as a champion in the field of strengthening civic space.

Democracy also needs investment. The EU could improve the functioning of its existing instruments to further strengthen civil society; for example, by providing core funding and by no longer requiring 10 percent co-funding for projects that are funded by its Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values program so as to ensure nondiscriminatory and sustainable access to EU democracy funding.

The EU should continue to use its Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism to the fullest extent. Though this instrument is intended to protect the EUs budget and its financial interests, it also helps put pressure on member-state governments to bring about reforms that are important for upholding democratic values. Corrupt elites undermine democracies to keep political power in their hands and comprehensive anticorruption strategies are key for pushing back against autocracy.

Executive Director of the Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy

Hundreds of events have taken place during the recent Summit for Democracy and through its Year of Action. These have focused on important issues related to democracy and the threats that undermine it. Enormous efforts have been put in place by governments, civil society, and grassroots and democracy support organizations in many countries. So far, so good.

So why do I sit back with a slight feeling of disappointment, resignation, and worry? Have there been overall tangible results since the first summit in 2021? I am not sure. Those actors that were already engaged with democracy support in different formsindependent media, anticorruption, elections, civil rights organizations, political parties, and so onhave participated. But what is lacking is global joint leadership and a strong will to find new ways of working.

Lisbeth Pilegaard is the Executive Director at the Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy.

The data in the likes of V-Dems annual democracy reports shows us that more and more people are living under autocracy and that the democratic backsliding is happening faster and faster. This is the case even within the EU. Do we have the right tools, approaches, and funds to counter this worrying development?

The democracy support sector needs to engage in critical self-reflection as to the ways it has worked and the way forward. Not to identify one single solution to fix the problem but rather to foster broader engagement across a group of leaders and countries that will drive this agenda. It is important that European countries show the way. For example, having a frank conversation within the EU could help change the fact that democracy has been like a red rag to a bull within the UN, where leaders avoid having this discussion.

For the next Summit for Democracy that will be hosted by South Korea, I hope for tangible leadership and ambition as to how to take the process forward. One way is a clear willingness among states and their leaders to include democracy and democracy support in their foreign affairs policies and strategies. Europe and others owe this to the 72 percent of the worlds population living under autocratic regimes and who look for hope and concrete assistance to counter the oppression of their human rights and the lack of freedom to express themselves.

Chief Executive of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy

A summit should by definition be a top-down event. But three conversations in southern Africa during the recent Summit for Democracy reshaped my views about this one. The first was with a taxi driver who in the time between two Johannesburg traffic lights skewered South Africas political parties more neatly than any academic analysts I know had managed to. The second conversation was with a cross-party group of parliamentarians in Zambia about the climate emergency, to use their term. And the third was with a group of Zambian women activists who said that, with politicians failing them, they simply had to change their whole societies to bring true democracy.

Anthony Smith is the Chief Executive of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

None of these conversations took place in the formal summit sessions. But in different ways, the summit framed them, whether as a conversation starter or a side meeting. Leaders talking about democracy in Africa triggered meaningful conversations about the problems that people face and the failures of the political system in tackling them.

In the Zambia summit meetings, the voices were overwhelmingly African and their focus was clearsolving the multiple economic, energy, health, and education challenges through accountability, clean elections, and inclusion. They said that the focus had to be on the quality of government, deepening democratic culture, and relentlessly pushing for democratic institutions to do their jobs well. It was abundantly clear what would happen otherwise and no mystery to them why democracy mattered.

The summit process should definitely continue. There is no other global forum to discuss democracy in the world. We need to monitor the state of democracy and reinforce those working to deepen democracy at country level.

The summit process should first of all be a high-level, heart-on-our-sleeve signal that democracy matters to all of us across regions, faiths, and generations. We should review reports on the state of democracy in the world and use that data to identify key issues and to target support effectively.

The second aim should be to back those people who are working to strengthen their countrys democracy and to encourage others to do so. Geopolitics shaped the Summit for Democracy process but European contributions to it need to help make a difference at the community level, defending democracy while helping it deliver. In this process, leadership needs to be widely shared beyond Western powers, whose should be more openly acknowledged. As the women I spoke to know, democracy is about behaviors and cultures, not just rules. A massive effort is needed to support community leaders who are changing behaviors, raising standards, and exposing hypocrisy.

The United States did an outstanding job in conceiving the Summit for Democracy and getting it started. But the impact of the process depends in large measure on Europe taking its turn to maintain the momentum. It can do this in partnerships and with thoughtful leadership that recognizes the long-term challenges that countries across the world face in deepening democracy and delivering for their people.

Secretary General of ALDAthe European Association for Local Democracy, and Chair of the European Partnership for Democracy

The Summit for Democracy united democracy supporters and made more tangible their conviction that democracy is not a form of governance exclusively for the West. And, based on the discussions I had around the summit, the message is clear and should be presented to any future one: democracy must be empowered and can deliver better when focused at the local level.

Participatory democracy needs to be prominent in the next phase of the summit process. Participative forms of democracy have immense potential for finding answers to local problems and building communities resilient to authoritarian regimes and forms of governance. The more citizensin particular youth and women, for whom national politics is less accessibleare involved in local democracy by being elected to local government or in being actively engaged in local groups, the more they build up a DNA of democracy that is open to deliberation, negotiation, representation, and everyones contribution.

Antonella Valmorbida is the Secretary General of ALDAthe European Association for Local Democracy, and Chair of the European Partnership for Democracy.

As political parties in cities and regions try out different and interesting experiments with civic lists and citizens movements, local democracy empowered by real decentralization can build or rebuild trust between citizens and institutions. Donors focus on political partiestheir accountability, transparency, and forms of representationshould therefore support their work at the local level.

In this context, a vibrant and aware civil society, engaged and representing the collective interest of the community, is key for democracy. This has been exemplified by the experience of Ukraine since Russias invasion, with local authorities and civil society working together to become the strongholds of resilience and resistance.

The summit process has so far not paid sufficient attention to elections at the local level and needs to do more on this in its next phase. Local democracy and decentralization allow for an easier redistribution of powers and representation than is the case at the national level. Local elections can galvanize interest and engage citizens. The next Summit for Democracy and the implementation of past summit decisions must involve partners at the local level to a greater extent.

This article is part of the European Democracy Hub initiative run by Carnegie Europe and the European Partnership for Democracy.

This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

See the rest here:
How Can Europe Help the Next Phase of the Summit for Democracy? - Carnegie Europe