Mediaboss Marketing

For all the talk about our democracy being in a death spiralthe worries about toxic polarization, government paralysis, attempts to overturn elections, the Jan. 6th insurrection, nonstop culture wars, and rising illiberalismthere turns out to be little agreement on exactly what democracy is, what it is supposed to do, and whom it is supposed to serve. As a result, a concept that should be one of the unifying core tenets that all Americans subscribe to becomes yet another thing that sends us to each others throats.

A large online survey of American adults, conducted in November and released late last month by the Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, hints at how our differing perceptions of democracy, among other terms, contribute to the anti-democratic impulses were presently seeing.

For example, only 61 percent of the respondents said they view democracy positively, while more than a third view it neutrally or negatively. And, like many things in our country, there is perception gap between the races. Nearly 3 in 4 (72 percent) white Americans have a positive impression of the concept of democracy compared to less than 50 percent of black Americans; Hispanics respondents came in at 58 percent, Asian Americans at 63 percent, and Native Americans at 51 percent. Yet there was almost no distance among those with negative impressions, each racial or ethnic group falling in the 7 to 9 percent range. Rather, neutral feelings toward democracy drive the racial disparity, with nearly twice as many black Americans and Native Americans saying they hold no positive or negative impressions of democracy relative to white Americans views (35 and 38 percent to 18 percent). Clearly, a groups historical experience with democracy influences its present-day feelings towards it.

Podcast April 13 2022

Like Hitler and Mussolini before him, Putins acting with hubris and arrogance because hes been

These results suggest that although Americans talk about democracy like its a value, many perceive it as little more than a toollike a gun or a hammer, its goodness or badness is mostly connected to our perception of who is using it and for what purpose. Those who have benefited the most from its employment are more likely to have positive impressions of it while those who feel it has been used against them or to subjugate them are less likely to see it as inherently good.

In this way, when democracy is perceived to be less an expression of values and ideals and more an object to be wielded on behalf of some at the expense of others, the doomsday predictions become all the more understandable. The notion that our democracy is eroding is directly connected to the idea that people we disagree with are using it against us. It is a commentary, not that there is a fraying commitment to a government of, by, and for the people, but that the question of who are considered to be the peoplethe real and true Americansremains heavily contested.

As one might expect, this quandary bleeds into perceptions of other terms central to our civic language. The words with the most positive ratings in the study were unity, liberty, and citizen; the words with the most negative ratings were privilege, social justice, racial equity, and activism. Again, the racialand partisanundertones of these words are impossible to ignore.

Theres not even consensus on words like patriotism, which has become highly partisan in the last decade-plus: More than 83 percent of Republicans view it positively, compared to about 47 percent of Democrats. And 72 percent of white Americans hold positive impressions of the term patriotism, compared to just 30 percent of black Americans; the latter are almost twice as likely to hold a negative view and two and half times more likely to view it neutrally.

If we perceive patriotism to be a love of country, these numbers might be troubling, but the fact that black Americans constitute more than 17 percent of the active military force despite being about 13 percent of the nations population demonstrates that their love for America pulses deeply. Moreover, love of country often finds other expressions: black Americans are nearly 50 percent more likely to think positively of activism and social justice relative to white Americans; Democrats twice as likely as Republicans. Through this lens, little wonder that some who consider the Jan. 6th insurrectionists to be patriots often describe Black Lives Matter as a terrorist threat. Ones view of what actions are patriotic most often depends on ones opinion of who is taking the action.

Here is where another study is especially useful. In 2019, More In Common, a nonprofit that researches the things dividing us and tests interventions to improve our democracy, published a study titled The Perception Gap, drawing on a survey of American adults conducted days after the 2018 midterm elections. (Disclosure: Im a board member of the organizations U.S. chapter.) The survey found that Democrats believe Republicans are far more anti-immigration or deniers of the existence of racism than they actually are. And Republicans perceive Democrats to feel far less national pride than they really do, to consider police bad people much more than they really do, and to support open borders much more than they really do. The results also revealed how media coverage of the most extreme views contribute to a number of national misunderstandings.

On the question of racial perceptions, social psychologists Thierry Devos and Mahzarin R. Banaji have found that Americans across race and ethnicity believe that equal treatment and democracy are civic values that are central to the American identity. But they also found that Americans hold the view that some races and ethnicities are simply less American, not due to a lesser belief in equality but the product of the American identity being seen as prototypically white. This insight aligns with scholarship from a range of disciplines that reveals how entangled race is with our national identity.

Taken together, our perceptions of the concepts that should unite us run headlong into our perceptions of which groups best embody them and our misperceptions of one another along partisan and racial lines. Suddenly, conversations about democracy are not about democracy at all, but about who gets to access it and for what purpose. Discussions about patriotism or equity are just opening salvos for zero-sum arguments about American culture, identity, and belonging.

In America, democracy is more than just a system of institutions, relationships, and processes. It is a declaration of our national identity that we have not yet managed to accept and appreciate as being multiracial and ideologically diverse.

So, when you hear laments about the state of our democracy, dont think exclusively in terms of a crumbling system. Think instead of a people who are hesitant to be governed by those different than them, a nation deficient in social trust.

View post:
Whats Democracy to You? - The Bulwark

Russian President Vladimir Putins goal is to attack Ukraine and Ukrainians, but also to make the idea that might makes right into the organizing principle of international legal relations, said Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Unions ambassador to the United States, at a discussion at Harvard Law School last week. And it is a battle the U.S. has to win too not just Europe.

Lambrinidis, who has served in his role since March 2019, was speaking at an event hosted by the Harvard International Law Journal that was moderated by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor of Law. In a wide-ranging discussion, Lambrinidis spoke about the shifting alliance between the U.S. and Europe, and emphasized the need for the West and its partners to work together to address the worlds most pressing issues, including the war in Ukraine, trade, climate policy, and more.

There has long been a strong and reciprocal relationship between the U.S. and Europe, Lambrinidis began. Part of [my] job is to create that sense that this relationship is not a one-way street, he said. That is hugely important for U.S. interests as well. And maybe thats what Russia showed us now.

If the litmus test for human rights is perfection, no one passes it, because no one is perfect. But that is not the litmus test for human rightsThe test is not whether youre perfect, but whether you have independent institutions in place in your country

Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Unions ambassador to the United States

When he assumed his ambassadorship during the presidency of Donald Trump, The first thing that I wanted to accomplish was playing defense. Trying to make sure that this [relationship] didnt get worse, but also trying to make sure that we could reply in kind if illegal measures were taken against us, he said, adding that he aimed to show that the E.U. is both an economic superpower and not the enemy of the United States.

The feelings that Europeans have for the United States are deep and positive, he said. But realizing that the feelings that Europeans had that this was an indispensable, deep, unshakable relationship, [albeit] with difficulties, with troubles could be read by some on this part of the Atlantic as a disposable, if not unfriendly and unhelpful relationship Thats something that a lot of Europeans didnt expect.

The Trump administrations sentiments toward Europe convinced many there of the need to strengthen the continents defense capabilities. When article five of NATO was questioned by the previous administration, many Europeans said, it is imperative, it is a matter of life and death, that Europeans develop a military capability that is quite independent of a NATO.

Today, under President Joseph Biden, everyone wants to work with me now on everything, which is actually a different kind of challenge, because you have to find out what to prioritize of all those things, said Lambrinidis. He counted international trade, democracy and human rights, climate policy, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as among the most important issues for the U.S. and Europe to work on together.

Indeed, the current crisis with Russia and its invasion of Ukraine, and tensions with President Xi Jinping of China, have awakened us up to the fact even more urgently now that a liberal international order is not a foregone conclusion, said Lambrinidis. I think that the transatlantic relationship after this crisis is without a doubt strong, including the focus that we are placing on the values that we were taking for granted.

Democracy and open society, human dignity, doesnt necessarily win we have to work for it, he said, pointing out that only around 40 countries have sanctioned Russia for its blatant violation of international law, its brutalities, violation of international humanitarian law, or the law of war.

Yet, while countries that have declined to issue sanctions dont necessarily approve of what Russia is doing, The fact that they dont like Russia does not mean that they dont at the same time resent us in some way, he said, adding that the U.S., Europe, and its allies had to understand and appeal to these nations in a different way to bring them into the coalition.

Lambrinidis also recognized that both the U.S. and Europe have faced criticism about human rights violations, but he was forceful about the role each had to play in promoting them globally.

If the litmus test for human rights is perfection, no one passes it, because no one is perfect, he said. But that is not the litmus test for human rights. I submit to you the test is not whether youre perfect, but whether you have independent institutions in place in your country to ensure that you cannot shove your imperfections under the carpet. In other words, whether or not you have what it takes to try to be more perfect than you are.

Institutions like independent courts, the rule of law, and the existence of a free press, he said, allow violations to come to light, and I am doing what I can do to make sure that those institutions in Europe are free, and are effective, and function, because this is my calling card around the world.

Credit: Lorin Granger/HLS Staff Photographer

Turning to the war in Ukraine, Lambrinidis was forceful in his condemnation. What Putin is doing is black and white. He has decided, in a very calculated way, a very unilateral way, and for reasons that are both strategic and personal, psychological that he thinks Ukraine should not exist as a country. And then he moved to violate every norm of international law that even Russia had signed, to extinguish it as a country.

Putin is trying to assert dominance over diplomacy, and Today, there are too many bullies in too many parts of the world that are more than happy to use that principle to create really serious instability, he said. And if we get to that world, our security as Americans or Europeans is going to be fundamentally altered, and we will not be able to wash our hands clean from all this.

Lambrinidis also touted the E.U.s leadership on other pressing issues, such as data protection. Although the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation initially faced opposition from internet companies and free speech groups, Lambrinidis said it had proved prescient. Weve gone from that, to today, having people competing on who protects your privacy more. But that took the European Union to come in and say we were going try to legislate this.

Lambrinidis ended the discussion by offering a few words of advice to students on how to build a career after law school, imploring them to understand their greater motivations for whatever it is they choose to do. Your why is going to be the most important question you have got to answer, he said, adding that ambition was not a good enough goal on its own. I have no respect for ambition, none, unless your why is good. But if your why is good be ambitious. If you figure it out, if you follow a path that takes you instinctively to that why, youre going to be okay.

Read this article:
'Democracy and open society, human dignity, doesn't necessarily win we have to work for it' - Harvard Law Today - Harvard University

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

American democracy is likely coming to an end, at least according to liberal media networks such as MSNBC, ABC and CBS, as well as Democrat politicians.

On Tuesday, Fred Wellman, the former executive director of the Lincoln Project, tweeted, "Norms and traditions are going to end our democracy."

Later that day, The Washington Post published a column by Jennifer Rubin, who warned the impact of COVID-19 may be "hastening" the demise of democracy in the United States.

ROLLING STONE RIPS MANCHIN FOR NOT 'SAVING DEMOCRACY,' PORTRAYS BIDEN AS INEFFECTIVE IN PUSHING VOTING BILLS

"Trust in U.S. institutions has been declining for years, thanks to government scandals, economic dislocation, increased inequality and social media" Rubin wrote. "Now, evidence is growing that the coronavirus pandemic is making the phenomenon worse."

Prior to the column, Rubin warned about the fragility of American democracy, such as when she predicted in December that Sen. Joe Manchins, D-W.V. vote against President Bidens Build Back Better plan could send American democracy hurtling to its demise.

Sen. Joe Manchin speaks at a press conference outside his office on Capitol Hill on Oct. 6, 2021. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

On Sunday, Rolling Stone published similar criticism against Manchin titled, "How Joe Manchin Knifed the Democrats and Bailed on Saving Democracy."

Democrats are often given air-time by their allies in the media to blame Republican laws and policies, especially those of former president Trump, for the impending "death" or "end of democracy." The alarmist talking point is echoed by network analysts and pundits.

During a panel discussion on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," frequent guest Donny Deutsch claimed that if Democrats cannot understand what wins elections than "democracy is over."

"If we dont get this right this time its over. You put McCarthy back in, you put Trump back in our democracy is over. Im not overstating it. Thats where were at. And the Democrats have to understand what wins elections and what loses elections," Deutsch said.

'THE VIEW' CO-HOST SCOLDS 'NAIVE' JOE BIDEN FOR WANTING TO WORK WITH REPUBLICANS: I SEE 'THE WORST OF PEOPLE'

Hillary Clinton waves to the audience before "An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" at Park Theater at Park MGM on May 5, 2019. (David Becker/Getty Images)

MSNBC colleague Chris Hayes made a similar claim when he told late night host Seth Meyers that Trump is "the most acute threat to American democracy" since perhaps the Civil War.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton echoed the concerns during a December 2021 "Sunday Sitdown" on TODAY with Willie Geist.

"I think that could be the end of our democracy. Not to be too pointed about it, but I want people to understand that this is a make-or-break point. If he were, or someone of his ilk were once again to be elected president, and if especially he had a Congress that would do his bidding, you will not recognize our country," Clinton said.

A month later, during an interview with ABC News host George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., agreed with Clintons assertion that another Trump presidency would mean the end of the U.S government as we know it.

Other members of the political, media landscape, including MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, Joy Reid and Michigan AG Dana Nessel, all made repeated claims that future Republican victories in the midterms or 2024 would be the "end of democracy."

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on July 16, 2019 (Lloyd Bishop/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Taking the dire warning a step further, some also asserted the GOP would be the "death of democracy" because Democrats failed on passing voting rights and ending the filibuster.

During the Black Lives Matter protests and riots of summer 2020, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson said on ABC News that the civil unrest was not just about the death of George Floyd, but also about the "death" of American democracy.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition, Rosie ODonnell, Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, MSNBC's Zerlina Maxwell warned viewers about the "death" of democracy.

The GOP isn't the sole threat to democracy according to the liberal media. They also often cite the U.S. Constitution, an insufficient amount of censorship, and parents protesting at school board meetings as threats to democracy. However, if voters elect more Republicans in the midterm elections, viewers can expect a flurry of eulogies on American democracy.

See the article here:
MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Democrats repeatedly fearmonger, claim GOP will be the death of democracy - Fox News

A dramatic loss of faith in the ability of British democracy to serve the interests of UK voters is revealed in a new report that finds that donors to political parties and big businesses are now commonly viewed by the electorate as the main drivers of government policy.

Disturbing evidence that millions of voters feel their voices and views go largely unheard while big money interests hold most sway is uncovered in the latest report by the IPPR thinktank, in collaboration with the Observer, on the future of democracy.

The study, entitled Road to Renewal, draws on YouGov polling of 3,442 adults, which found that just 6% of voters in elections in Great Britain believe their views are the main influences behind eventual decisions on policy taken by government ministers.

By contrast, more than four times as many (25%) believe major donors to political parties have the most influence over shaping policy, followed by business groups and corporations (16%), newspapers and the media (13%) and lobbyists and pressure groups (12%).

Just 2% cite trade unions as the main forces behind policy decisions, which the reports authors note is a remarkable shift since the 1970s and 1980s when concerns about overly powerful unions was widespread. The polling was jointly commissioned by IPPR, the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy.

The study traces growing dissatisfaction with advanced democracies worldwide over recent decades, reflected in falling turnout at elections, falling party memberships, and more people switching loyalties, including to populist alternatives.

It calls for an urgent rethink by mainstream parties of how democracy works in the UK, including steps to reconnect citizens with politics and politicians through devolution of more powers. It calls for greater checks on executive power to safeguard representative democracy, laying blame at the door of Boris Johnsons government for ignoring parliament when it can.

The sidelining of parliament by the current government including briefing to the media before MPs, passing sweeping pandemic legislation without parliamentary censure, minimal parliamentary oversight of Brexit negotiations and the prorogation of parliament, were all examples of abuses that contributed to lack of faith in the democratic process.

The publics verdict on politicians ability to comprehend their lives is damning. Asked how well they believed politicians understood the lives of people like you, a total of 78% of voting adults said badly, with this number split between the 36% who said fairly badly and 42% who answered very badly. Just 1% said very well and 12% fairly well.

Young UK adults (18-24) are least likely to say democracy serves them well (just 19% say it operates well against 55% who say badly), while those aged 65 and over are most likely to say it is working for them (46% say well and 47% badly.)

IPPR warns that mainstream social democratic parties that fail to tackle the root causes of discontent with the political system jeopardise the foundations of liberal democracy and their own prospects of securing power.

Parth Patel, IPPR research fellow, said that Russias invasion of Ukraine had led many leaders to praise the merits of liberal democracies over those of dictatorships, despite the many shortcomings of the former in the eyes of UK voters.

In the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine, our leaders have lined up to champion liberal democracy. But the reality is that the battle for democracy needs not only to be won abroad, it must be won at home too.

In truth, democracies have not been delivering well for their citizens. Politicians and parties are increasingly out of touch, and the sway of ordinary citizens over public policy has declined. Many are opting out of political participation altogether, while large numbers have lent their support to populist challengers signs of a protest against democracy as usual.

In the 1990s, the report says that around two-thirds of citizens of western Europe, North America, Northeast Asia and Australasia were satisfied with democracy in their countries. Today a majority in these regions are dissatisfied. Nowhere has the rise in democratic dissatisfaction been steeper than in Anglo-Saxon democracies.

Patel said mainstream political parties had too often tried to imitate the populist agenda of their opponents, rather than to tackle the underlying causes of democratic discontent.

They must now take a long, hard look in the mirror and commit to meaningful reforms that put the voices of citizens back at the centre of democracy. Giving back control should be a dividing line at the next election.

The report will be available for download

See the article here:
Young adults have dramatic loss of faith in UK democracy, survey reveals - The Guardian

The prime minister and the chancellor broke the law. That is the finding of the Metropolitan police investigation, which will result in fixed-penalty notices for the two men. To be more precise: Boris Johnson broke the life-saving rules that he set, and which others made immeasurable sacrifices to follow, in the very place where they were formulated then denied having done so. Through his actions and his subsequent remarks, he has treated the public with contempt.

While parties took place in Whitehall, hundreds of parents, spouses, siblings and friends were dying each day. Families were unable to see vulnerable relatives in care homes. Doctors and nurses on the frontline could not gather to comfort each other after gruelling shifts. The Met is investigating no fewer than 12 gatherings, and has handed out 50 fixed-penalty notices; with the prime minister alleged to have attended as many as six events, he could yet face more fines. The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group observed: It is still unbelievably painful that Boris Johnson was partying and breaking his own lockdown rules, while we were unable to be at our loved ones sides in their dying moments, or in miserable funerals with only a handful of people.

That Mr Johnson should have lied when challenged over his behaviour is hardly surprising, given his record. But the ministerial code of conduct is clear: Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation. Mr Johnson told parliament that he had been repeatedly assured that there were no parties and that no Covid rules were broken. Asked about two events in late 2020, Rishi Sunak assured MPs: I did not attend any parties. The opposition is right to say that they should go. According to a snap YouGov poll, 57% of voters agree.

Each day that Mr Johnson remains in place, he diminishes the highest office in the land. Yet no one expects him to do the honourable thing and, conveniently for those concerned, the Met has issued these fines while parliament is in Easter recess. The integrity of British government is now in the hands of Conservative MPs. While cabinet ministers proved notably quiet on Tuesday, backbenchers who had previously demanded his resignation drew back from the brink, citing Ukraine though Britain has previously changed prime ministers even when at war itself. Others point to the paucity of suitable replacements. Many are waiting for the judgment of the public in Mays local elections.

Meanwhile, Mr Sunak, who looked like a rising star when handing out furlough cash, this week asked for an investigation into his own financial affairs after news of his wifes non-dom tax status and the couples US green cards emerged. There could hardly be a more glaring contrast than the one between his treatment of the countrys poorest as the cost-of-living crisis takes hold snatching back the 20 boost to universal credit and his familys gilded lifestyle.

The lockdown breaches will magnify growing public anger at the kind of country this government is creating: the sense that there is one set of rules for those in power and another for the rest of us; the feeling that it is their world, built by them and for them, in which the rest can only struggle by. It is hard to think of a conclusion more corrosive to democracy, and to a society already deeply riven. Tory MPs can choose to ignore the ministerial code of conduct, trashing the standards of government. They can choose to ignore Mr Johnsons actions. But they should remember that the public will ultimately judge them as well as their boss if they give him a free pass and rightly so. Treat voters with contempt and you should expect them to respond in kind.

Go here to see the original:
The Guardian view on partygate: a test of our democracy - The Guardian