Mediaboss Marketing

Throughout history, the United States has exhibited a predisposition to bifurcate an extraordinarily multi-faceted and complicated world in order to make sense of it. During the Cold War, the core purpose of U.S. grand strategy revolved around containing the Soviet Union and combatting communism in every region of the world. Post-9/11, Washington became a town hell-bent on waging war against transnational terrorism. President George W. Bushs Freedom Agenda, enacted in 2005, was powered by the theory that spreading democracy globally was the chief antidote to tyranny in our world. Today, China has replaced terrorism as the one global threat lawmakers and policymakers can rally against.

President Joe Biden is continuing this tradition. Much like his predecessors, Biden not only cherishes democratic governance at home, but is firmly convinced that its the answer to competing against Washingtons two largest autocratic foes: China and Russia. During the campaign, Biden promised to organize a Summit For Democracy to renew the spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the free world. In his news conference last week, Biden raised concern about the decline of democracy worldwide and how it was in the U.S. interest to prove to the world that democracy in fact works. I predict to you your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded, autocracy or democracy, Biden said, because that is what is at stake.

Yet amid the consensus against China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and every other power the United States has gripes with, the most important questions are being shoved to the side. Is dividing the world between democracies and autocracies really the best bet for U.S. foreign policy? Is forming an anti-authoritarian bloc the most efficient and least costly strategy to meet what are in reality quite limited U.S. foreign policy objectives? What are the consequences, intended and unintended, of such a strategy?

There are several reasons to think the Biden administrations preference for a global pro-democracy agenda may not be the best course of action for the U.S.

First, there are examples in recent history when an us-vs.-them framework produced calamitous costs to U.S. power and prosperity. While the Cold War may have ended on Americas terms, with the Soviet Union dead and communism a floundering ideology, the Cold War mentality also generated ideas like the domino theory: the notion that failing to stop communism in one country would inevitably lead to communism sinking its teeth into others. Its an ideology that drove successive U.S. administrations to deploy hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops into Vietnam, a strategic backwater in Southeast Asia highly adverse to foreign meddling. Seven years of ground combat resulted in more than 58,000 U.S. deaths, tens of billions of dollars in expenditure, and a U.S. Army broken and demoralized. The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, motivated by the noble but nave urge to rid the Middle East of tyranny and oppression, was less destructive to the U.S. military but no less harmful to Americas long-term strength.

Nobody is predicting a similar military or ideological conflict against China, of course. But neither can anyone be confident that following a democracy-vs.-autocracy script will be smooth or lead to unequivocal success for the United States.

Forming two distinct ideological blocs, as the Biden administration appears to propose, will make diplomacy on common threats more difficult, particularly in a world where challenges are increasingly transnational in nature. As David Adler and Stephen Wertheim wrote in The Guardian in December, The commanding crises of our century cannot be found in the conflict between countries. Instead, they are common among them. A bifurcated world between a U.S.-led democratic order on one side and a China-Russia-led autocratic order on the other tends to harden sentiments on both sides and limit space for cooperation. Over time, even the most simple but critical aspects of statecraft like agreements on tension reduction become insurmountable hurdles. A coalition of democracies pitted against a coalition of autocracies is the very opposite of the realism U.S. foreign policy so desperately requiresone that allows countries with different belief systems to collaborate on shared problems.

Finally, the more Washington insists on a global democratic order, the more likely others who dont buy into it will cement coalitions of their own in order to limit U.S. power and influence. Russia and China, two neighbors who are traditionally wary of the others intentions in Asia, are becoming more intertwined at the same time Washington is seeking to contain both simultaneously. Moscow and Beijing are cooperating in more fields with more frequency, from exploring ways to bypass the U.S.-led financial system to engaging in joint military exercises and air patrols. While we shouldnt overstate the possibility of a formal China-Russia alliance, U.S. policymakers shouldnt be numb to these developments either.

We may want an easy solution to a complex problem. Foreign affairs, however, is very often a business where pursuing easy solutions with simple frames of reference can create even more problems. U.S. foreign policy should not be dogmatic, but flexible. Otherwise, Washington risks tying one hand behind its back.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist at Newsweek.

Read the original post:
Don't Divide the World Between Democracies and Autocracies - Defense One

In a 2013 speech before the press in Kazakhstan, Chinese President Xi referenced the past glory of the ancient Silk Road, a trade pathway that once connected Europe with China and dominated international markets. Reflecting upon the glory of the since-expired trade path, Xi proposed a major infrastructure project that would revive overland trade routes between China, Central Asia and Europe: an economic belt.

About a month later, Xi traveled to Indonesia and announced the creation of a new maritime Silk Road. The project would build and upgrade ports along the already well-traveled sea corridor between the Indian Ocean and China.

Thus began the Belt and Road Initiative, Xis major infrastructure project to reroute global trade through China in the hopes of becoming the worlds new superpower. In this project, China provides loans to fund the creation of new infrastructure deep water ports, high-speed rail systems, bridges, highways, pipelines and fiber-optic networks in countries throughout the Global South. The project spans three continents and touches over 60% of the worlds population.

Last Friday, President Joe Biden discussed implementing a new program with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to counter Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, proposing a similar initiative, pulling from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world that, in fact, need help.

Bidens proposal recognizes a true threat posed by China to the world order. Previously, countries seeking loans for development projects needed to meet the World Banks strict conditions for loan recipients. Frequently, these include structural adjustment programs, currency reform and austerity.

But China doesnt require countries to meet these standards. Instead, it offers loans to countries that will not be able to pay them back. Many of these recipient countries are regularly plagued by corruption and stagnant economies that would inhibit them from receiving a loan from the World Bank.

This type of predatory lending is termed debt trap diplomacy. Rather than defaulting on the loans, these developing countries lease ports and roadways to China. In doing this, China gains power over recipient nations, holding them hostage by way of their debt. Experts speculate that Chinas grand strategy is to create a string of pearls a network of Chinese naval bases that will allow China to police the Indian Ocean.

While many Western observers are anxious that this project will propel China to be the worlds sole economic superpower, the project poses a more fundamental threat to democracy.

The World Bank, in some cases, works to incentivize countries to protect human rights and implement procedural democracy. By establishing these as requirements for loans, the World Bank has used developmental financing as a means to encourage democratic development throughout the Global South.

Unlike loans from the World Bank, some of which are preconditioned upon ethical governance, protections of human rights and some level of democracy, Chinas loans require little from the recipient nations. In fact, nations involved in the Belt and Road Initiative are overwhelmingly oppressive and autocratic.

Chinas minimal requirements for recipient nations have thus allowed many countries to maintain their autocratic structure rather than democratize as they formerly would have to receive development loans, threatening the diplomatic power of the old World Bank.

Originally posted here:
Democracy in The Daily: There's a new World Bank - Tufts Daily

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has recently been sounding the alarm that Democrats may plan to try to reform the filibuster. McConnell argues that senators need to put principle first and keep the Senate safe.

McConnell recounts that back [i]n 2017 and 2018, a sitting president lobbied [him] to do exactly what Democrats want to do now, yet he said no because [b]ecoming a U.S. senator comes with higher duties than steamrolling any obstacle to short-term power.

McConnell seems to forget that he himself played a part in reforming the filibuster back in 2017 when he eliminated its use on Supreme Court nominees. After stonewalling the consideration of Merrick Garland for appointment to the Supreme Court during the presidency of Barack Obama and then pushing for filibuster reform during the presidency of Donald Trump to clear a path for Neil Gorsuch (and later Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), conservative justices now wield a 6-3 majority.

Get reliable, independent news and commentary delivered to your inbox every day.

Of course, McConnell claims that his 2017 decision to reform the filibuster was simply taking the Reid precedent to its logical conclusion. This is a reference to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids decision to reform the filibuster back in 2013 by eliminating its use on all presidential nominees except those to the Supreme Court. Reids decision to reform the filibuster isnt really much of a precedent, however, as the filibuster had previously been reformed several times in the past.

For instance, in 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing a two-thirds supermajority to end debate and force a vote. This reform came about at the behest of then-president Woodrow Wilson who was frustrated with the repeated use of the filibuster.

In 1974, the Senate further restricted the use of the filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours when attempting to pass a budget-related bill using the reconciliation process. Essentially, this means that reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered, as debate cannot continue indefinitely. Notably, this process has been used by both parties to ram through major legislative victories along party lines. While Democrats cheer on President Joe Bidens $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, Republicans still celebrate Trumps 2017 tax cuts.

In 1975, senators reduced the two-thirds supermajority required to end debate to three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, which amounts to 60 when there are no Senate vacancies.

McConnell argues that if Democrats shortsightedly decide to reduce the Senate to majority rule, well have lost a key safeguard of American government. Setting aside the fact that McConnell has been a willing participant in moving the Senate closer to majority rule, it seems that he is trying to equate protecting the filibuster with protecting democracy itself. However, the filibuster is not necessary to protect democracy; indeed, it has often been used to undermine it.

According to McConnell, the filibusters 60-vote threshold is a feature, not a bug. However, the filibuster is not in the U.S. Constitution, and it only became part of the Senates rules because of a mistake. In order to correct this mistake, senators have, at several points throughout history, voted to limit their own use of the filibuster. Further reform, such as adopting a talking filibuster (which both Biden and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin seem to endorse) or simply abolishing the filibuster altogether (which progressives have long been advocating), would bring the federal government closer in line with many U.S. states and democratic countries around the world the majority of which dont allow for any filibustering whatsoever.

McConnell is sometimes characterized as an institutionalist whose first priority is to preserve the sanctity of the Senate. In reality, his defense of the filibuster is a one-part faux cautionary tale meant to convince the American public that doom will follow any attempt at change and one-part smokescreen meant to conceal his own machinations.

Go here to read the rest:
No, Mitch McConnell, the Filibuster Isn't Necessary to Protect... - Truthout

Photo: Handout/VIA REUTERS

After Georgia Republicans experienced the shocking setback of losing the states presidential election, the party descended into bitter internal recriminations. President Trump blamed Republican officials for allowing massive voter fraud to steal the state; many state Republicans blamed Trumps rhetoric for losing a winnable race.

But both Republican factions heartily agree on the proper corrective steps: a sweeping bill curtailing voting rights and handing new powers to Republican legislators to prevent the unfortunate events of 202021 from happening again. After the states governor, Brian Kemp, a target of Trumps rage, signed the measure, the former president offered his hearty congratulations. They learned from the travesty of the 2020 Presidential Election, which can never be allowed to happen again, the former President wrote in an official statement. Too bad these changes could not have been done sooner!

If you want to understand why this is happening, a timely new paper by University of Washington political scientist Jacob Grumbach helps explain. Grumbach surveys the performance of every state government across a broad array of measures of democratic health, such as indices of voting access like wait times and same-day and automatic voter-registration policies, felon disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and civil rights. His paper finds that the states that backslid on democratization over the past 16 years were shared a single characteristic: Republicans gained full control of their state government.

In other words, states that are rolling back democratic protections are not responding to demographic change nor to any change internal to their state. They are following the agenda of the national Republican Party. That agenda is spreading throughout the states, which are imposing voter restrictions almost everywhere their party has the power to do so. Restricting the franchise has become perhaps the partys core policy objective.

Some Republicans frame that agenda in explicitly Trumpist terms: They are acting to stop the next stolen election, having failed to prevent the last one. Those GOP officials who are too embarrassed to openly endorse Trumps election lies instead offer superficially plausible rationales.

First, they insist they are acting to protect states rights to run their own elections. Overlooking the awkward historical resonance of using the exact same justification once put forward to justify Jim Crowera restrictions, they insist states rights are all about preserving local variation. Elections should be run by those closest to the people, elected by the people, most responsive to the people, argues one leading Republican. State legislators are the closest to those we represent, insists another. States have long experience running elections, and different states have taken different approaches suited to their own locales and populations, pleads National Review.

And yet this mania for geographic proximity in election administration evaporates completely when they move from the state to the local level. Indeed, the most damaging provision in Georgias vote-suppression law removes power from local election boards and concentrates it in the hands of the states. If anybody actually does have local knowledge of election administration, it is the nice librarian who has been volunteering to organize the polls for many years.

But that form of localism has been crushed because, of course, the whole point is that the state government is run by Republicans. Democrats control the federal government. They also control many local governments where Democrats live and vote. They dont control many state governments, though, which are beholden to legislatures whose district maps give Republicans an insurmountable advantage. And so the right-wing intelligentsia has discovered a principle: The state is the only level of government neither too big nor too small to administer elections.

Second, they claim they seek merely to restore confidence in election integrity. And it is true that many Republicans voters lack confidence in the fairness of elections. What is the reason for their lack of confidence? Its that Democrats won a fair, clean, high-turnout election. (Indeed, they won it in spite of an electoral college system that forced them to beat Trump by four percentage points in order to gain a narrow majority.) It follows that restoring confidence means eliminating the conditions that gave rise to this concern: Democrats winning a clean election.

What gives the game away is that Republican vote-suppression maneuvers include a purge of Republican officials who worked in states Trump lost. The Michigan Republican Party removed Republican Aaron Van Langeveldefrom the Board of State Canvassers after he infuriated Trump and his fans by certifying the states electoral votes, thwarting Trumps attempt to override the election and secure an unelected second term.

In Georgia, Republicans stripped Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of his authority over state elections. Sterlings chief operating officer, a Republican, told CNN the move was retribution for Raffenspergers refusal to submit to Trumps demand to disregard the election results and hand the states electoral votes to him.

The next time a Republican attempts to subvert an election result, there wont be any inconvenient law-bound officials standing in the way. The power to act on Trumps farrago of lies will rest in the hands of elected officials accountable to the partys constituents. Rather than arresting the Republican partys long slide into authoritarianism, Trumps departure has accelerated it.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

More:
Why the Republican War on Democracy Is Moving to the States - New York Magazine

The hallmark of a healthy democracy is civil debate, protest, civic engagement, and an unwavering right to voice ones beliefs even when there is disagreement especially when there is disagreement. Free speech and assembly are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Their placement in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution implies their importance. It comes as a surprise then to see that the Missouri House is poised to pass a bill that would silence the voices of those rising in defense of Black lives by enacting criminal penalties on the right to protest.

Not only that, but it is particularly targeted at protests that we led in St. Louis this past summer as leaders of the protest group #ExpectUS.

We serve in the General Assembly and the United States House of Representatives. Yet, we have been called terrorists, thugs, and monsters for affirming what should be clear: Black lives matter. Theyve always mattered, but time and time again, generation after generation, Black folks have had to take to acts of protest to affirm our humanity and civil rights. Like our ancestors before us, we are both products of mass protests, taking to the streets demanding that our communities be heard and our lives protected. Our protest has always been an act of love.

We have organized together in a protest group that begins each protest with a giant circle of love, people dancing and clapping. A protest group that cares for one another and brings snacks and water for one another. One that is rooted in the Ferguson Uprising and one that continues to grow. In our ranks are public officials, clergy, local leaders, business owners, students, parents, and people of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Our protest is an act of love, but it is also a demand that elected leaders do more to ensure we no longer need to take to the streets. To absolve us of the fear that our loved ones will leave home and will not make it safely back. Both of us ran for office because the policies coming out of Jefferson City and Washington, D.C., not only fell short but failed to center the reality on the ground faced by so many people in our community so many people who look like us and share our pain.

SB 26 is a continuation of policies that fail to protect Black and brown communities. It must not pass the Missouri House of Representatives or be signed into law by Gov. Mike Parson. Rather than take up this bill, lawmakers should play a critical role in supporting and encouraging robust speech and protest. Ultimately, what gets lost in the consideration of this anti-democratic, anti-protest legislation is why we protest in the first place.

We protest because the St. Louis Police Department leads the nation in police killings per capita, disproportionately killing Black people. Year after year after year. Weve seen none of our demands met by our government.

We protest because Black lives are not safe in Missouri. They werent safe in 2014 when an officer in Ferguson murdered Mike Brown, Jr. They werent safe in 2015 in Mississippi County when Tory Sanders got lost, ran out of gas, and was effectively tortured to death in a jail cell hours later. They werent safe in 2018 when Black people were 91 percent more likely to be pulled over by the police across the state a number that has increased over the years. They werent safe in 2020 when police killed Donnie Sanders in Kansas City. They have never been safe under the violence of starvation wages that we disproportionately receive wages that must be increased to at least $15.

Some proponents of this legislation have said that it would keep protesters and the general public safe. But silencing dissent cements the status quo. And for Black people in Missouri, there is nothing more dangerous to our livelihoods than the status quo. If public safety is truly at the heart of this legislation, then the Missouri State Legislature must waste no time addressing the series of initiatives protesters and activists have proposed to remedy the cycles of violence that are so rampant in our state and in our communities.

We invite members of the state legislature to engage with us and our communities in a good faith effort to build a better Missouri. We appeal to the fundamental constitutional values of free speech and free assembly as we implore our leaders and Missourians everywhere to reject SB 26 and, instead, focus on building a more robust and inclusive democracy that meets the needs of Black Missourians who are ready and eager for a chance to build strong communities and enact policies that will truly keep our families safe. The right to assemble is the bedrock of any healthy democracy, and it must be protected at all costs, not rolled back.

Rep. Rasheen Aldridge represents HD 78 in the Missouri House; Congresswoman Cori Bush serves Missouris 1st congressional district.

Read this article:
Opinion: The right to assemble is the bedrock of our democracy Vote NO on SB 26 - The Missouri Times