Mediaboss Marketing

(Composite / Photos: GettyImages / Shutterstock)

Some personal news: Keep calm and carry on. Ill be taking some time off for a family wedding, new baby, French grandkids, and reunions. But well be back in fine fettle after Labor Day!

Happy Redacted Affidavit Friday.

Summer 2022 is ending with a bang. So, talk amongst yourselves:

Judge Orders Redacted Affidavit Used in Trump Search Warrant to Be Unsealed, Via NYT

Biden's Job Rating Rises to 44%, Highest in a Year, Via Gallup

Trump's social media app facing financial fallout, Via Fox (!) Business

J.D. Vance Appeared With Podcaster Who Once Said Feminists Need Rape, Via Mother Jones

Biden calls on 'mainstream' GOP to reject 'MAGA', Via Reuters

ICYMI, I talked with Marine combat veteran Elliot Ackerman on Wednesdays podcast about his new book, The Fifth Act: Americas End in Afghanistan.

We discussed the fall of Kabul and its aftermath, but Ackerman had a warning about threats to democracy in this country and the possibility that someday the military might become involved.

Heres a partial (edited) transcript of some of our conversation:

Elliot Ackerman: When you go from contested election to contested election, at each juncture, there's a game of brinksmanship that's going on with whether or not the military will have to come in and restore some type of order.

There was talk about them having to restore order after the January 6 riots, and there was National Guard I'm actually from Washington, D.C. there was National Guard all over Washington, D.C. in the wake of those riots.

Remember there was Tom Cottons New York Times op-ed, and President Trump talking about evoking the Insurrection Act in the summer of 2020. I mean, that was in a presidential election, but it shows how there is this temptation for our political class to start politicizing the U.S. military.

And that is very, very dangerous, because, although the military is seen as a non-political entity in the United States, that does not mean that those in uniform do not have their political biases, like every other American.

The only difference is there's a culture of omerta in the U.S. military. We don't speak it. But, that culture can break.

And, it seems as though our political leaders, from the right and the left, at every juncture, are eager to politicize the U.S. military. And it's something we should be very aware of and alarmed about as citizens.

My concern is that because so many citizens, again, don't speak the language, they aren't necessarily literate with what's going on inside the military.

They won't be able to see it until it's too late.

Charlie Sykes: [But in 2020,] the line held. And I think that reassured some people, because you had people like General Mark Milley, who issued public statements that there is no way the military is going to be involved. We had a letter signed by 11 former Secretaries of Defense saying, the military is not going to play any role whatsoever. So, at least in the existing top ranks of the military, they seem to understand the danger.

But, if I understand you correctly, you're saying, Don't become complacent about that, or assume that that necessarily reflects what might happen in the culture of the military going forward.

Ackerman: Absolutely. I mean, listen, our popular culture tends to fixate on these four-star generals, the most senior sliver of the U.S. military. But, the military is a massive organization with officers up and down the chain of command, who are not Mark Milley and might not do what Mark Milley says in the heat of the moment....

I'm really not trying to be alarmist, but we have such high levels of dysfunction domestically, and every time we kind of set up these scenarios where we're asking our military to play a role in domestic politics, we're really tempting the fates.

The analogy I use is that these contested elections remind me of a drunk driver.

A drunk driver will go to the bar, right, and they will get completely hammered drunk, and they'll drive home.

And, probably the first time they do that, like, they make it home, and they do it and they make it home the second time, the third time.

And then on the fourth or fifth time, they get hammered drunk and try to drive home.

That's when they wrap their car around a telephone pole.

When I look at our contested elections, it's like we're doing the equivalent as a nation of going to the bar getting just hammered drunk, and we try to drive home.

We've done it twice now, and we have sort of managed to make it home, but one of these days, if we keep doing this, we are going to wrap our proverbial car around a telephone pole.

And, it worries me. We have to stop engaging in these behaviors.

Two stories tell the tale:

Via NBC: In Arizona, Blake Masters backtracks on abortion and scrubs his campaign website.

NBC News took screenshots of the website before and after it was changed. Masters' website appeared to have been refreshed after NBC News reached out for clarification about his abortion stances.

"I am 100% pro-life," Masters' website read as of Thursday morning.

That language is now gone.

Another notable deletion: a line that detailed his support for "a federal personhood law (ideally a Constitutional amendment) that recognizes that unborn babies are human beings that may not be killed."

**

Meanwhile, in Michigan

Last week, the GOP candidate for governor said that rape victims find healing through having their rapists baby.

This week? Republican Tudor Dixon now trails Democratic incumbent, Gretchen Whitmer, by double digits.

Share Morning Shots

More smart stuff from Ruy Teixeira:

Democrats will surely be happy for anything that delivers a relatively good election result in the current terrible national environment. It did not appear to bother them in 2020, nor does it appear likely to bother them in 2022, that their partys character and coalition keep skewing toward white college graduates. Consciously or not, this is the track the party is currently onthe cultural left turn of the party makes no sense outside of that context.

Between 2012 and 2020, the Democratic advantage among nonwhite working class voters declined by 19 points, while the Democratic advantage increased among white college graduates by 16 points. Stay tuned for more of the same.

Meanwhile, via the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: New Student Debt Changes Will Cost Half a Trillion Dollars.

President Biden todayannounceda set of changes to student loans including cancellation of up to $20,000 for some borrowers that will cost between $440 billion and $600 billionover the next ten years, with a central estimate of roughly $500 billion.

Combined with todays announcement, the federal governments actions on student loans since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic have cost roughly $800 billion. Of that amount, roughly $750 billion is due to executive action and regulatory changes made by the Biden Administration.

Bonus via Axios: GOP ad blitz mocks Biden's student loan plan.

Republicans are confident that the president's plan will be politically problematic, and are backing up their spin with paid advertising.

The ad, which will be airing during upcoming college football and Major League Baseball games, features a waitress, mechanic and landscaper talking about working extra shifts to help theatre majors and business majors get out of debt.

A landscaper in the spot says: " Biden's right you should take my tax dollars to pay off your debts. My family will figure out how to get by with less. What's most important is we spare college graduates from any extra stress." A mechanic follows up: "Wanna be a struggling artist? College is on me."

Cathy Young, in todays Bulwark:

Some things seem straightforward: For instance, as long as Russia wages a barbaric war in Ukraine, cultural institutions in liberal democracies should not collaborate with or engage any state-run or state-affiliated Russian cultural entities, including private organizations with government connections. The same, I would argue, applies to pro-war, pro-regime figures such as Gergiev. While, generally speaking, art should not be politicized and artists should not be punished for their politics, some circumstancessuch as wars of aggression and unconscionable violations of human rights that amount to state-sponsored terrorallow for exceptions.

Other cases, however, are far more complicated.

Matt Johnson, in this mornings Bulwark:

After decades as one of the worlds most courageous champions of free expression, Rushdie is in critical condition because a would-be assassin obeyed the command of a long-dead religious dictator to kill him for writing a novel. One reason his life has been in danger for the past 33 years is the fact that so many people are afraid to do what he has done: stand up to religious totalitarians and fight for the universal right to free expression, especially for those who live under oppressive and intolerant regimes. The least we can do now is show a bit of courage on his behalf and stand by his side in the fight to come.

Read more:
The Military and the Fate of Democracy - by Charlie Sykes - The Bulwark

Bangkok

The suspension of Thailands unpopular prime minister, Prayuth Chan-O-Cha, was given a lukewarm welcome Thursday by pro-democracy forces, who say his replacement another elderly ex-army chief shows the same authoritarian players still dominate national politics.

Prayuth was suspended from office Wednesday by the countrys constitutional court, while the bench deliberates whether he has hit the eight-year term limit.

The limit was introduced in a constitution written by Prayuths allies after he toppled the elected government in 2014 as army chief, promising to stay on only as long as necessary to remedy years of division and political violence.

But eight years later he has refused to step down, staggering on through waves of mass protests, economic crises, no confidence votes in parliament and even the loss of some of his key political allies.

His deputy and longtime political wingman, Prawit Wongsuwan, takes over as caretaker until the court delivers its final ruling, which could take several weeks.

But hopes of a quick change of momentum for Thailands battered democracy movement were hard to find with the 77-year-old Prawit now steering the government.

Some speculate that the constitutional court which has toppled democratically elected leaders and taken out their election-winning parties in favor of the conservative establishment is just making a show of its neutrality as the country prepares for elections, likely early next year.

This changes nothing as Prayuth or Prawit both come from the same power structure, said prominent pro-democracy activist Attapon Buapat.

The court suspended Prayuth only to calm the public in the next weeks or months when it again rules in favor of the establishment. Its all just a game.

It is too early to predict a likely winner of the next election, experts say, as the widespread unpopularity of Prayuths government may not reflect their ability to pull together a working coalition.

Thalufah, a youth-led reform group galvanized by years of anti-Prayuth protests, tweeted Thailand is going down with the frail Prawit as acting premier.

When Prayuth was PM, Thailand was standing at the edge of a cliff, one Twitter user wrote. Now that Prawit is acting PM, Thailand has fallen off the cliff.

True democracy

Prawit has long held influence from behind the scenes among key pillars of Thai politics and society: the military, the palace and the business dynasties that control the economy.

His promotion, experts say, is a sign of the enduring hold the establishment has over a country battling inflation, soaring household debt and increasing inequality.

It really doesnt matter whether Prayuth stays or goes, he is merely a mechanism of the existing power. If he goes, his replacement will rule in favor of this power, Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, a constitutional law scholar at Chulalongkorn University, told VOA.

Were going backwards. Everything that weve tried to dismantle as a society, like the patronage system, has all come back.

Opposition lawmaker Rangsiman Rome also warned it may not be over just yet for Prayuth, a leader who professed he carried out the coup to save the country but became a sucker for power.

Should the court rule in favor of him, I think Thailand would officially be gearing toward the Dark Ages, he told VOA News.

There was scattered applause for Prayuth from within the ranks of an army that has carried out 13 successful coups since the kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1932 and refused to accept election losses to pro-democracy parties.

People should praise Prayuth for following a democratic path by respecting the courts order, Army chief Gen Narongphan Jitkaewthae told reporters. It shows this is a true democratic system. Hes been a gentleman about it, a true soldier if you will. This is true democracy.

Continue reading here:
Even with Political Nemesis Prayuth on the Ropes, Thai Democracy Advocates Still Glum - VOA Asia

A bellwether New York primary Tuesday confirms what polls in the last week have been telling us: The cup of American democracy, which many advocates have long seen as half-empty, may actually be half-full. Americans now seem ready to take their twin desires to preserve democracy and abortion rights to the polls in November.

In a closely watched swing district north and west of New York City, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Republican Marc Molinaro, 52% to 48%.In late campaigning Ryan's message was largelyfocused on protecting abortion rights and the need to counteract threats to American democracy.

Ryan's victory was presaged by polls released earlier this week. This apparent good news arrives against the backdrop of long-running concerns about the public's commitment to democratic norms and values.

A 2016 study found that when Americans were asked to rate on a scale of one to 10 how "essential" it was for them "to live in a democracy," 72% of people born before World War II responded with 10, the highest value. But among people born since 1980, fewer than one in three expressed a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

Another study published in 2020 by political scientists Matthew Graham and Milan Svoloik found that only 3.5% of voters would "realistically punish violations of democratic principles" if candidates they otherwise supported did something destructive of those principles.

A December 2021 article in Vox explained that "the politics of saving democracy look like a sped-up version of the politics of climate change. In theory, everyone knows it's important. In practice, the threat feels remote and abstract far enough removed from [people's] everyday concerns that they aren't willing to change their behavior to avert looming catastrophe."

But new polling suggests that Americans may be more aware of the threat to democracy, and more concerned about it, than those earlier bleak assessments suggest.

An NBC News poll, conducted Aug. 12 to 16, asked for the first time about threats to democracy on the list of issues facing the country. It found that 21% of registered voters ranked those threats as the most important issue facing the nation today, five points higher than the second-ranked issue, the cost of living.

When respondents were asked to choose their top two issues, threats to democracy tied with cost of living as the leading concern for 29% of respondents, followed by jobs and the economy at 28%.

Asked earlier this week about the poll results, even Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, acknowledged that threats to democracy are "an important issue."

The NBC poll also found that 66% of the public thinks that Donald Trump bears responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Furthermore, Americans believe that the investigations into Trump's involvement should continue, by a 57% to 40% margin, though there remain sharp partisan divides on this issue.

This last statistic helps us understand the finding about the public's concern about threats to democracy, which appears directly related to Trump's attempts to end democracy, rather than his claims of ballot fraud.

The House Jan. 6 committee's June and July hearings on Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election seem to have affected America's consciousness, and the steady drumbeat of publicity about the former president's legal troubles also seems to be registering with the American people.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

In addition to the select committee hearings and Trump's legal troubles, the Supreme Court's June decision overturning Roe v. Wade arrived as a wake-up call, demonstrating clearly what Americans have to lose if we abandon democracy and individual rights.

That decision "lit a fire under people," in the words of former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. In early August, voters resoundingly defeated an anti-abortion amendment to the state constitution.

Of course one set of polls and one referendum in a heartland state do not prove that protecting democracy and rights will drive the vote in November. Fortunately, there are other polls in battleground state elections that suggest a national environment increasingly favorable to those who stand for rights and for free and fair elections.

An Aug. 17 poll by Public Policy Polling found that more than 60% of Wisconsin voters expressed "serious" or "very serious" concerns about Trump's "lies about an election he knew had lost." And 55% of Wisconsinites had concerns about Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican incumbent up for re-election this year, and his alleged efforts "to put fake elector documents from Wisconsin and Michigan into [Mike Pence's] hands" on Jan. 6.

In Arizona, according to an Aug. 18 Fox News poll, incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly leads Republican election-denier Blake Masters by eight percentage points.

The same pattern showed upin an Aug. 21 Trafalgar Group poll in Pennsylvania's key Senate race, with Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman leading Dr. Mehmet Oz, by five points. Oz, an ally of Trump, has supported overturning Roe. Tuesday's victory by Ryan in upstate New York where many experts believed the Republican had the advantage reinforces the meaning of that poll.

Whatever the MAGA base does, one thing is becoming clear in 2022: Most Americans support abortion rights, want to keep democracy and reject election lies.

Another poll released on Aug. 22 bySuffolk University and the Reno Gazette-Journal shows that in Nevada, incumbent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto's lead over Republican Adam Laxalt has grown from just three points in April to about seven points now. Laxalt has supported Trump's election falsehoods and called the Supreme Court's original Roe decision "a joke."

All these polls occurred after the Aug. 8 FBI search of Trump's home and resort at Mar-a-Lago. As further evidence of the sharp partisan divide, a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted on Aug. 10 showed Republicans rallying around Trump, with support declining for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 opponent.

That could prove a temporary bounce or a lasting one, but either way, the message of the recent polling is this: Whichever way the 30% to 40% Republican MAGA base turns, the vast majority of Americans value and want to keep democracy, generally support abortion rights and dislike those who deny legitimate election results.

These findings give Attorney General Merrick Garland some room for maneuver as he pursues his investigations of Jan. 6 and Trump's potential crimes

They also suggest that, despite her primary loss in Wyoming, Rep. Liz Cheney may find a receptive audience for her new pro-democracy campaign, dubbed "The Great Task."

In launching that effort, Cheney said, "I'm going to be very focused on working to ensure that we do everything we can not to elect election deniers. We've got election deniers that have been nominated for really important positions all across the country. And I'm going to work against those people. I'm going to work to support their opponents."

The great task of preserving American democracy is not just the distinctive work of our generation. It has been with us all along. From the beginning, America's leaders have warned about democracy's fragility and tried to rally citizens to its cause.

In 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a woman on the street in Philadelphia reportedly asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government the convention had created. He replied with a warning, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

These recent polls suggest that Americans' worries about democracy will propel many to vote in November, and to organize others to vote. Hope feeds action. For every one of us ready to take up the task that Franklin long ago set out, the cup of American democracy looks more than half-full.

Read more

about the coming midterms

The rest is here:
It's happening: Abortion rights and the threat to democracy are reshaping the midterms - Salon

Pakistan inherited a physically unified country with its two wings in 1947. However, it had to build an indigenous nation with a transition from Indian to Pakistani nationalism. Of course, Pakistan was carved out of India and hence it needed to muster a unified sense of belonging amongst its people. Similarly, it imported Western democracy as its system of government, but this comprised of essentially undemocratic political forces religious, stratified and unelected party leaders in political parties with hereditary trend. It also received genetic (from colonial past) strong non-political institutions called establishment comprising of bureaucracy, judiciary and the military. Thus, Pakistan was in quest of nationalism and democracy as defining features of its existence. Rather, democracy had to build the nation.

After 75 long years of its independence, Pakistan is yet to succeed on either of the fronts. It couldnt muster strong Pakistani nationalism. Not democracy but dictatorship tried to produce nationalism which lashed back. More and more centrifugal forces kept crumbling states basic foundations. The most lethal attack came in the shape of the creation of Bangladesh from the Eastern Wing of united Pakistan. The breakup of the eastern wing must had carried some lessons for the rulers and the ruled. However, as per saying, we learn from history that we do not learn from history, the country is still in quest of forming a strong Pakistani nationalism.

Democracy was eagerly desired by the people of the land but was engulfed by undemocratic and dictatorial forces. Almost every stakeholder has a share in it. Firstly, take an example of religious parties. They never believed in the Westminster system of government. They wanted an Islamic system which in their view was diametrically opposite to egalitarianism. Later, they followed a via-media by following an Islamic democracy in their own view and followed the suit. Till to-date, all religious parties are making an effort to bring Shariah through a democratic system. They have accepted democracy as a system of government to ascend to power and then bring an Islamic system a paradox.

Secondly, the top leadership of every political party was led by Pakistan elite class. Middle order party command and followers remained from the middle and lower class. A stratified party hierarchy reflected Pakistans stratiform society. It also gave birth to hereditary politics- limiting party leadership to a family as a dictator. Even the middle-order party cadre was dominated by inherited young fellows of a few crony goodmen. The substantial middle and lower class of the society just remained followers and merely voters.

Implicit to the above, thirdly, the shabby political party system in Pakistan completely failed to induce intra-party democracy. Almost every party, has a dictatorial party-head trend. No intra-party elections take place and therefore the command of the party is left to a family. The family runs the party with a royal writ. Middle-order leaders dont have to prove their following and number of followers. Nepotism and flattery are enough to muster party kings, sorry, party leaders attention to elevate his/her position to higher ranks.

Finally, and fourthly, colonial trend of the establishment to dominate politics of the country remained a very important feature of Pakistan in its post-colonial era. They had a very inferior notion about Pakistans electoral junta. Even former Pakistani President Iskander Mirza of the 1950s said on record that the people of Pakistan are too naive and immature to practice democracy. He, along with his cohorts, was very fond of democracy guided by the Establishment. That was the sole reason for Pakistans swift and quick changing of governments and declaration of martial law during initial 11 years (1947-58). Even afterwards, democracy was presented with a suffix- Basic democracy by General Ayub Khan; Equal democracy by General Yahya Khan; Islamic democracy by General Zia and Real democracy by General Pervaiz Musharraf. This also reflects that those dictators used democracy as a means to run their dictatorial and autocratic rule in Pakistan.

In light of above mentioned four trends since independence, the country, today, experiences another tug of war between the judiciary and the parliament. Parliament practices while the judiciary protects (custodian) the constitution. The fight between the practice and protection of the constitution is usually won over by the judiciary- again an unelected body. Supremacy of the decision of the courts is pronounced by the judiciary however, its upheld by a specific segment of elected members of the parliament- another dichotomy. This dichotomy is not new: from (Speaker) President of first Constituent Assembly, Maulvi Tamizuddin case, to the recently pronounced Supreme Court decision in case of deputy speaker of the National Assembly, Qasim Suris ruling, decision of the supreme court superseded the parliament and supported by a few goodmen (parliamentarians). The party with a majority in the parliament has to pack up. This also exposes that in Pakistans democratic representatives, there are a few with undemocratic spirits. At times, democracy is weakened by the democratic forces.

The above discussion proves that Pakistan practiced democracy in an undemocratic ambiance. Every segment of our polity has its undemocratic disposition in practice. Democracy is more on our lips and less in run-through, another contradiction. Pakistan is a small democratic topping on a large undemocratic cake. With an unconstitutional consensus, Pakistans democracy is failing to build a nation a Pakistani nation.

[Image by QASIM REHMANI from Pixabay]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

The author is a Professor, Chairman of the Department of International Relations, and former Director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Peshawar, Pakistan.

Visit link:
Democracy and Nation-building in Pakistan During Political Instability - The Geopolitics

Commentary

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. Democratic Party are big on unified messaging (also known as propaganda), lockstep voting, and democracy according to their own specific definitions. The parallels are eerie.

Let us examine them.

In communist China, the short-term and long-term narratives of CCP leader Xi Jinping and his henchmen are amplified daily by state-run media, CCP bureaucrats, and wolf warrior diplomats. Communist euphemisms such as community with a shared future, common prosperity, core interests, and indivisibility of security are endlessly repeated to browbeat Chinese citizens and psychologically condition them to accept CCP diktats without resistance. Perhaps the most laughable euphemism is the communists claim that their one-party system is a whole process peoples democracy.

All of these malleable phrases are Orwellian and arbitrarily defined by the communists to shape public opinion to achieve political and especially psychological objectives in accordance with Mao Zedongs Three Warfares strategy. Relentless and consistent messaging is one of the propagandists most effective tools used to influence peopleand the CCP are masters at it.

In the United States, the Democratic Party has a similar unified messaging strategy, especially when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. This is no surprise because many progressive Democrats have been schooled in Maoist thought during their college years.

For example, Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to President Joe Biden, once referred to Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers, as noted here. Apparently, others in the White House view Mao favorably, too, as radical Maoist activist Yuri Kochiyama, who praised Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was honored by the White House back in March during Womens History Month, as noted here.

Thus, Democrats have adopted Maos Three Warfares for their own use, especially the elements of media warfare (influencing public opinion) and legal warfare (providing the legal context for Democrat efforts to change the U.S. constitutional Republic that they call lawfare).

The Democrats daily narrative and associated talking points are routinely dispensed by the White House and Democrat congressional leaders, including via the White House press secretarys daily briefings, and echoed by sympathetic (if not sycophantic) media that often use the identical phrases and words in those talking points, as explained here.

The Democrat-media complex doesnt use incarceration, reeducation, or other harsh methods to keep its cadre in line like the CCP. But there are plenty of carrots and sticks applied to their media accomplices behind the scenes to ensure conformity to Democrat narratives, for example,intimidating phone calls, promises of future interviews (and off-the-record meetings), invitations to insider meetings (and here), etc.

The CCP captures the annual trophy for most lockstep votes cast, as the various votes taken by the Politburo and National Peoples Congress (Chinas rubber-stamp legislature) are virtually by acclamation with minimal, if any, dissenting votes cast. All of these people are lifelong communists who believe that the CCP is the rightful ruling class in China.

CCP members are the first among equals at all levels of the Chinese government, including national, provincial, prefecture, and county, all the way down to towns and villages. The so-called party secretaries outrank the government officials at every level of government, as noted here. The only candidates for political office are CCP-approved, whether members of the CCP or from tiny political parties thoroughly penetrated and controlled by the CCP. Political dissent is illegal in communist China and dealt with harshly by the states internal security apparatus. Whatever the CCP wishes to implement in the way of policy is thus approved without any real resistance from Chinese citizens.

The Democratic Party can only look upon the CCP with admiration regarding unified voting. However, Democrats in Congress lately have done a good job in voting as a bloc without defections on key legislation under the Biden administration. One of the most recent examples was the passage of the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act on a party-line vote. Senate confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court of Ketanji Brown Jackson and Democrat senators voting in lockstep to impeach former President Donald Trump are other good examples.

Democrats are increasingly unified on all of the major issues and policy objectives, including immigration (they are for the continuation of Bidens open-border policies), abortion (as rabid pro-abortionists, this is perhaps the single unifying issue among Democrats), climate alarmism (all congressional Democrats voted for the thinly disguised Green New Deal provisions that made up a significant part of the Inflation Reduction Act), and voting rights (they dont support election integrity laws, and not a single Democrat has supported full forensic audits of elections in any state).

As far as Xis claim that China is a whole process peoples democracy is concerned, all of the countrys institutions are entirely controlled by the CCP. The notion that anything is approaching a genuine participatory democracy where all Chinese peoplenot just the communistshave a say in running the country is absurd. All provincial and national senior government officials in communist China are elected by the appropriate peoples congress deputies or are appointed, not democratically elected by Chinese citizens.

The eight tiny political parties that the communists allow to operate include approximately 1.25 million people out of a total population of around 1.4 billion. Each party is aligned ideologically with the CCP by design and control. Any dissenting voices are crushed. Western concepts such as government of the people, by the people, and for the people are discarded by the communists, whose domestic political goals are despotism and tyranny through a perpetual one-party rule.

In short, the CCPs whole process peoples democracy is a sham and nothing more than a propaganda tool.

The Democratic Party uses the word democracy routinely to achieve its political objectives, too. Phrases like defending our democracy and saving our democracy abound in speeches by senior Democrats. One example of Democrats defending democracy is defeating all attempts to strengthen election integrity by equating voter ID laws to voter suppression. Never mind that election fraud enabled by weak voter ID requirements itself undermines democracy by negating the legal votes of American citizens.

Another example is the Democrats continual reference to Trump supporters as threats to our democracy. Even Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINO) such as Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.), who are ideologically aligned with Democrats on this particular issue, complained about the unraveling of our democracy when she was ousted from the House Republican leadership in May 2021 for her willing participation in the Democrats J6 witch hunt. She received a taste of how democracy works on Aug. 16 when Wyoming primary voters overwhelmingly voted her out, losing by over a 30-point margin to Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman. Isnt that how democracy works?

The queen of defending our democracy has to be Hillary Clinton. Lets take a brief walk down memory lane:

Clinton is hardly the only Democrat who has weaponized democracy against Republicans and other political opponents. Some examples include the following:

In June 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed Trump for poisoning our democracy with his fraud big lie, as headlined here.

In December 2021, The Atlantic published a whole special issue on American Democracy in Crisis, with articles from a host of Democrats.

In March, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed her fears for democracy if Republicans retake control of Congress in November.

In April, J6 committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) claimed that we have to save our democracy to save our species.

Is this just political hyperbole or do the Democrats seriously believe that a resounding Republican victory during the midterm elections would somehow end democracy in the United States? That the will of the people being expressed to toss the Democrats out for policies that have resulted in stagflation and open borders is in direct defiance to democracy in America?

It seems like Democrats define democracy as only working when Democrats get elected. That seems similar to how the CCP views whole process peoples democracy working in China!

Call it democracy with democrat characteristics. It is almost as if Democrats are trying to mimic the Chinese Communist Party in pushing narratives that, if followed by American voters, would result in Democrat one-party rule ad infinitum in the United States. And we know where that road leads by observing communist China: despotism and tyranny.

The parallels between the CCP and the Democratic Party on certain topics are definitely eerie. Unified messaging, lockstep voting, and democracy are defined and used as political weapons. Toss in mask mandates, economic lockdowns, social controls, and vaccine mandates. Perhaps it is proof that authoritarians everywhere exhibit the same tendencies regardless of race, color, or creed variations.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Stu Cvrk retired as a captain after serving 30 years in the U.S. Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. Through education and experience as an oceanographer and systems analyst, Cvrk is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he received a classical liberal education that serves as the key foundation for his political commentary.

Read more here:
The US Democratic Party Imitates the CCP in Several Areas - The Epoch Times