Mediaboss Marketing

GAZETTE: Do politicians play any role in citizens assemblies?

MANSBRIDGE: This is a quite contested and discussed topic in the community of people working with these groups. The theory from the beginning was This is citizens only and Keep politicians out. In Iceland, they completely excluded the politicians. In Ireland, a hybrid citizens assembly in 2012 on marriage equality and some other issues included one-third politicians. That assemblys positive vote led to a referendum on same-sex marriage, which led to its legalization in Ireland. The citizens assembly led to a referendum on abortion, which led to the legalization of abortion in Ireland. One of the interesting things the organizers found was that politicians were actually rather deferential to the process; instead of pushing their agendas in an aggressive way, they often kept quiet and listened to the citizens.

GAZETTE: What are the mechanisms by which these assemblies can be structured?

MANSBRIDGE: The basic structure is usually an alternation between small groups and plenary assemblies, with plenary assemblies being more the kind of listening and questioning experts thing. But they can take quite different formats. For example, the standard format, if you can afford it, would be a weekend. If you cant afford a weekend, then it could be a day; you really shouldnt take less than that.

In Britain, the Citizens Assembly on Brexit was designed to have one weekend that was informational, followed by a three-week break, and then another weekend that was more deliberation. The important thing about the Brexit citizens assembly was that some citizens learned about an EU rule that was not enforced in Britain. The rule said that if an EU citizen had been in an EU country other than their country of origin for more than three months without getting a job, they could be deported.

After the first weekend, some citizens in the assembly wanted Britain to stay in the EU but with this three-month rule and asked the organizers to include that option on the second weekend. That option garnered the support of the majority. Its conceivable that had there been a second referendum on Brexit worded to include the three-month rule, the choice of remain could have won. That might have been enough, before Britain polarized. But after the first referendum, Britain polarized tremendously, relatively quickly.

GAZETTE: Besides Britain and Ireland, which other modern democracies are implementing these assemblies?

MANSBRIDGE: Right now, many countries, including Colombia, France, and Germany, along with Ireland, Britain, and Iceland. Belgium is doing some of the most innovative work in a small section of Belgium, the German-speaking Community, or East Belgium, where theyve created a permanent citizens assembly, which includes a citizens council, drawn randomly from the citizens assembly, which sets the agenda. They have not met yet because of COVID; theyve put it to the side until the pandemic is over. But the idea is that the Citizens Council will call citizens assemblies, and the Parliament will be responsible for either implementing the recommendations of the citizens assemblies or giving public justification for why theyre not implementing those recommendations. Thats in the law now.

Mongolia has also written this into its constitution as a requirement for constitutional amendments; a citizens assembly, designed as a deliberative poll, has to approve them. In the deliberative poll they held in Mongolia, they had 85 percent participation, which is extraordinary. People came in from the outer steppes, some on their horses, to be part of it. It was a major event for the whole country. Colombia is doing something called itinerant citizens assembly in Bogota. The idea is the first citizens assembly will set an agenda, and the second will deliberate on the basis of that agenda and will make recommendations that the City Council is required to either implement or give reasons for public justification as to why not. And then the third citizens assembly will look back and evaluate what has been done.

GAZETTE: What do these citizens assemblies say about the legitimacy of democracy?

MANSBRIDGE: In the work that I do, I stress the fact that were going to need more and more government coercion as we go forward as a more and more interdependent society. Our structures of democracy, which basically evolved in the 18th century, are not sufficient to carry the load of the government coercion that we now need. We need much more robust democratic mechanisms than what we have. The structure of elections gives you a clear majority that is legitimate, in almost every case, but its not sufficient. If we think about climate change and the tremendous burdens we need to take on to reduce global warming, its clear that the world is not ready to take on those burdens and that our democracies dont have the capacity to create legitimate decisions on that scale yet. We need to have supplements to democracy.

GAZETTE: Citizens assemblies seem to help revitalize democracy, but theyre not new. Can you talk about their origins?

MANSBRIDGE: Ancient Athens had assemblies in which free Athenian men would get together to discuss and vote on matters of importance. The open-door assembly was supplemented by mechanisms of random selection, and the Greeks had a little machine called a kleroterion to choose the citizens through lottery. In a way, citizens assemblies are a revival of an ancient practice in Aristotles view, the quintessential democratic practice.

GAZETTE: What are the obstacles to adopting citizens assemblies in the U.S.?

MANSBRIDGE: There are many obstacles. Were very much in the experimental stages. It behooves human beings not to jump into big changes in democracy without having experimented quite a bit and having learned the appropriate lessons from that experimentation. Another obstacle is that at the moment, most citizens dont understand the concept of representation by random selection. They understand that its fair to distribute a prize by lottery or a burden, like the draft, by lottery. But the idea of how you would be represented by people chosen randomly is not something that most people understand in their gut.

I advocate, for the sake of experimentation, that public high schools could have first a student government elected in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester, one chosen by lottery, and find out how the two work. Now that might not be a good experiment because some adolescents might act out and not take being chosen by the lottery seriously, but if it did work, it would allow us to see the difference between an elected group and a randomly chosen group. And it would get people used to the idea of being represented through random selection. The other obstacle is that citizens assemblies are expensive because you have to coax the people to come and pay a stipend, transportation, child care, etc. These assemblies require giving up some time, because it takes time for citizens to become informed enough to deliberate in depth.

GAZETTE: How can citizens assemblies help reduce polarization in society?

MANSBRIDGE: The citizens assembly on Brexit I described came up with the idea of not leaving the European Union but putting in this three-month rule; thats a non-polarizing move that recognizes the genuine grievances of some people who were worried about immigrants taking their jobs. Thats one of the roles a citizens assembly can play. Getting citizens to listen to one another and see other peoples points of views can help society be less polarized. Its not a panacea, but its a step to restore civil dialogue.

I believe that citizens assemblies can make a difference on polarized issues. I would recommend that citizens assemblies be advisory for quite a while until we understand their dynamics, but they carry with them a great deal of legitimacy, and that thats tremendously important now as the legitimacy of democracy is plummeting across the world.

This interview has been condensed and edited for length and clarity.

Sign up for daily emails to get the latest Harvardnews.

See the original post:
Jane Mansbridge offers a solution to mending a riven democracy - Harvard Gazette

This post was coauthored byMelanne Verveer, executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and formerU.S. ambassador for global womens issues, andLucina Di Meco, cofounder of #ShePersisted Global Initiative.

Addressing the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in March, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris remarked that the status of women is the status of democracy and provided a strong message to the international community about Americas renewed commitment to gender equality and human rights.

More on:

Women and Women's Rights

Women's Political Leadership

Twenty-five years after Secretary Hillary Rodham Clintons historic womens rights are human rights speech in Beijing, important progress has been made in terms of womens representation in decision-making, but new challenges to womens rights and democracy have risen and remain largely unaddressed.

Women Around the World

Women Around the World examines the relationship between the advancement of women and U.S. foreign policy interests, including prosperity and stability.1-2 times weekly.

Technological innovations, initially celebrated for their democratizing potential, have come under increasing scrutiny for their harmful effects on democracy, social cohesion, and womens rights.

While being part of a global online community has helped female activists rally against repressive governments, raise awareness on injustices, and call out sexual abuse through global movements like #MeToo, #NiUnaMenos and the Womens March, womens rights activists and some of Silicon Valleys most astute critics are increasingly calling out social media platforms for enabling sexism, misinformation, and violence to thrive, concealed by premises of freedom of speech and inclusivity.

Although online harassment against women manifests across the globe, it is particularly pernicious in the Global South. According to a recent analysis from the Economist Intelligence Unit, over 90 percent of the women interviewed in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East experienced online attackswith misinformation and defamation as the most common tactics.

Women in politics and journalists, particularly women of color, have experienced relentless, overwhelming volumes of online abuse, threats, and vicious gendered disinformation campaigns, framing them as untrustworthy, unintelligent, too emotional, or sexual.

More on:

Women and Women's Rights

Women's Political Leadership

In the United States, a coordinated campaign of disinformation and harassment was at work against then-Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris throughout the 2020 election cycle, disseminating lies about her record as a prosecutor and claiming she used sex to gain powerper the oldest, tritest tune in the misogyny playbook.

What happened to Harris is not an exceptionit is the norm, as large social media companies often do not grant public figures with the same (already very small) level of protection from abuse granted to other citizens. Loopholes in platform guidelines have allowed some authoritarian world leaders to use social media to deceive the public or harass opponents despite being alerted to evidence of the wrongdoing."

While most women restrict their online activity as a result of social medias toxicity, silence does not grant protection, as First Lady of Namibia Monica Geingos stated in a powerful video released on International Womens Day: When there was a clear social media campaign of anonymous WhatsApp messages specifically targeting me in the most disgusting ways, and I was told not to respond but to ignore and I did. But it was a mistake, your silence will not protect you; the insults just got worse and the lies became a lot.

The consequences are far-reaching.

The disproportionate and often strategic targeting of women politicians and activists discourages women from running for office, pushes them out of politics, or leads them to self-censor and disengage from the political discourse in ways that harm their effectiveness. The psychological toll on them and their families is incommensurable.

While sexist attitudes are integral to understanding violent extremism and political violence, they are just a part of the story.Research has shown that womens political leadership often represents a challenge to entrenched illiberal and autocratic political elites, disrupting what are often male-dominated political networks that allow corruption and abuse of power to flourish.

As women have been among the most outspoken critics of populist authoritarian political leaders in many countries, state-led gendered disinformation campaigns have been used to silence and deter them, stifling their calls for better governance. Vladimir Putin in Russia,Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey are just some of many leaders who have used gendered disinformation campaigns to attack political opponents and erode liberal values and democratic principles all together.

Building on sexist narratives and characterized by malign intent and coordination, gendered disinformation has also been employed by Russia to exercise influence and undermine foreign elections. The targeting of Hillary Clinton during the 2016U.S. presidential campaign, and, more recently, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya in Belarus and Svitlana Zalishchuk in Ukraine are prominent examples.

These types of attacks do not only represent a threat to the women they target.

Weaponized by malign foreign and domestic actors, these attacks threaten democratic institutions and have important ramifications for global peace and security and the broader human rights system. Yet while authoritarian leaders have heavily invested in troll factories that cynically take advantage of a technology that is particularly good at spreading misogyny and lies, female politicians and activists have largely been left to fend for themselves in an online world that is increasingly toxic and violent. America has a crucial role to play in promoting a new digital social contract that upholds democratic values and promotes womens rights, through a three-pronged strategy.

First, we need better standards for digital platforms that take into account the real-life harms and abuses that women face and to proactively address them from a product design and risk assessment perspectiveas opposed to content moderation only. Convening theNational Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse, proposed by President Joe Biden on the campaign trail, will be an important milestone in that direction.

Second, we must make sure that women leaders and activists are deeply involved in the conversations on establishing new internet and social media standards and regulations, and that their unique perspectives are reflected in key fora like the Summit for Democracy. Similar to how womens participation in peace negotiations is essential for successful outcomes, womens leadership in designing a new digital social contract between tech companies, governments, and citizens will be key in building an online world that works for everyone.

Third, we must buttress women in politics and journalism, particularly those who are working in fragile democracies and often become targets of vicious state-sponsored disinformation and hate campaigns as a result of their engagement, such as Maria Ressa in the Philippines. Women working in politics and journalism must be provided with the tools, information, and the support network they need to respond to gendered disinformation campaigns.

In many fragile democracies, women are the beacons of liberal values. Ensuring that the internet is not used as a tool to defame, silence, threaten and de-platform them must be a priority for anyone who seeks to advance democracy, peace, and security.

Read more from the original source:
Gendered Disinformation, Democracy, and the Need for a New Digital Social Contract - Council on Foreign Relations

The revelations revealed on April 17 that Russia was behind the 2014 explosions at Czechias Vrbetice munitions depot continue to spread chaos. The Seznam portal dropped its own bombshell on Monday with a report that the deputy prime minister and interior minister, Jan Hamacek, had previously planned to use an April 19 trip to Moscow to offer to bury Pragues findings in return for 1 million doses of Sputnik V vaccine and a promise to hold a Russia-US summit between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden in the Czech capital.

The article describes secret meetings in Hamaceks office and claims that several of the military, police and security officials present have confirmed that Hamacek discussed the plan. The interior minister has rubbished the report, claiming that the cancelled trip to Moscow was planned as a decoy ahead of the revelations.

Hamaceks Czech Social Democratic Party (CSSD) junior partner in the ANO-led coalition decided the best defence is a good offence and promptly distributed a credibility barometer, noting five claims of inaccuracies from journalist Janek Kroupas work over the past two decades. Many on social media said it was a technique reminiscent of those employed by the former communist regime.

Prime Minster Andrej Babis said he believed Hamaceks version of events. Of course, if true, the scandal would not reflect well on his management of the government.

The opposition demanded Hamaceks head, but a special meeting in parliament on Tuesday produced little more than mudslinging. Hamacek now plans to sue Seznam. Its suggested a legal hearing would mean that the officials that attended the meeting, but who have refused to comment in public on what was discussed, will now be required to speak up. One thing everyone agrees on is that the disagreement and disarray consuming Czech politics since the revelations are a gift to Moscow.

Hamacek also demanded apologies from the opposition for suggesting he acted with anything but the best interests of the Czech Republic at heart. My own reputation and my partys good name have been damaged, so I have no option but to sue the authors of the article for slander and scaremongering, and I expect an apology from those of my colleagues who labelled me a traitor, he harrumphed.

The deputy prime minister needs to show hes putting up a good fight. He recently retained the leadership of the CSSD with a pledge to stem the partys haemorrhaging support by targeting the more conservative left-of-centre voters. That cohort is loyal to Milos Zeman, the Russia-linked president who has pressed the Czech authorities to start using the Sputnik V vaccine. He also sought to cast doubt on the revelations surrounding Vrbetice.

There have been suggestions that the reported offer of a tradeoff to Moscow sounds a lot like the sort of plan Zeman might dream up. Therefore, Hamacek could now do with distancing himself a little from the head of state.

But can he do it quickly enough? CSSD is at serious risk of failing to pass the 5 per cent threshold to enter parliament at the next election, and a vote could come sooner than thought, with new election laws that would allow the vote to go ahead set to pass on May 5.

The new legislation was ordered by the Constitutional Court and introduces a new method of converting votes into parliamentary seats that is a little less favourable to larger parties. According tomodels, had the new system been used in the 2017 election, the ruling ANO party would hold 69 seats instead of 78, with most other parties benefitting from one or two extra mandates.

The passage of the new laws raises the likelihood of early elections. The Communist Party (KSCM), which previously supported the minority government, said last month it would agree to a no-confidence vote if called. However, the centrist opposition has been wary that without new election laws in place, power would pass to the president. With that risk now reduced, the opposition could make a move to force a vote before the scheduled election in October.

Certainly, it could be a good time to strike for the opposition. Data released this week from aEurobarometer surveytaken in February suggests that Czechs now have the EUs lowest level of trust in their government at just 19 per cent. On the other hand, no more than 15 per cent trust parliament and only one in ten has any belief in the countrys political parties. The data reveals the depths to which Czech cynicism has descended. The EU average for trust in government sits at 36 per cent; average trust in parliament is one percentage point lower.

Buffered by Pragues poor performance in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Czech reading of trust in the government dropped by more than half compared with the last Eurobarometer reading taken in summer 2020. Satisfaction with the countrys coronavirus measures fell in the same period from 71 per cent to just 24 per cent.

Yet it seems the novel coronavirus is also proving something of a vaccine against Euroscepticism. The survey shows that Czech trust in the EU grew by 9 percentage points to 48 per cent, the highest reading for eight years. Hence, the Czech Republic has lost its long-held Eurosceptic crown to Greece, where just 37 per cent of the population trusts Brussels. Italy, Austria, France and Cyprus are also less impressed than the Czechs.

A slim majority of Czechs remain wary, but the pandemic does appear to have convinced many that such small countries have many benefits to gain from a multilateral world. Czech trust in the UN grew 12 percentage points to 57 per cent, and respondents also expect the EU to provide access to vaccines and establish a common European strategy to deal with similar crises in the future.

Read this article:
Democracy Digest: A Week of Illiberal Rants, Threats to Sue And Hands Across the Aisle - Balkan Insight

Voters arrive at the Eloy City Hall polling location on November 3, 2020, in Eloy, Ariz. (Photo by Courtney Pedroza / Getty Images)

Sitting at a table outside a Starbucks caf in a strip mall in the impoverished Maryville neighborhood on the west side of Phoenix, City Council member Betty Guardado tells her story.

The 44-year-old, with short hair pulled back and dressed casually in T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, says she grew up in South Central Los Angeles, in an immigrant household. After high school, she got a job as a housekeeper in a hotel, and by the late 1990s was working as a union organizer and as a volunteer on a number of political campaigns.

In 2007, Guardado moved to Phoenix to be with her husband and work full-time on organizing local hotel workers. At the time, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was marketing himself as Americas toughest sheriff, and his deputies were pulling over anyone and everyone whom they thought looked Mexican and demanding to see their papers. Youd get pulled over every two seconds because of the color of your skin, she recalls. To counter such practices, Guardado and her union colleagues concluded that they had to flex their electoral muscles and began working on voter registration. In Maryville alone, they expanded the number of Latino voters from about 300 to about 5,000, Guardado says.

Ten years after arriving in town, Guardado decided to run for the City Council district in Maryville, looking to highlight the economic neglect faced by the neighborhood, the lack of basic infrastructure such as banks and anchor businesses, and the fact that her story was similar to that of many others who live there. Look, Im a working-class mom just like you, she would tell residents. I struggle to pay my bills. I only have a high school diploma. I dont have a higher education.

It was a long process from the time she decided to run to the night in 2019 when, in a special election called to replace the sitting councillorwho was running for mayorshe received 63 percent of the vote. A year later, in the regularly scheduled election, she was reelected with 69 percent. Her victory marked a profound turning point for Phoenix, showcasing the hard-won power of working-class immigrant voices in a city that has long slighted the rights of both workers and immigrants.More From the Left Coast

But that shift, so liberating to many, has proven terrifying to the old-guard GOP in the state, who have grown used to electoral cakewalks and arent the least bit happy about the newly competitive nature of Arizona politics. That unwillingness to countenance progressive political change has reared its head recently in a particularly ugly manner.

Maricopa County, Ariz., which consists of Phoenix and the surrounding suburbs, has been in the news this week for a hyper-partisan, pro-Trump audit that GOP state legislators approved as a way to recount the votes, and politically challenge the results, of the 2020 presidential election.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The audit is nonsense from start to finish. Its being run by a gaggle of conspiracistschief among them the QAnon-believing executives of a Florida-based company called Cyber Ninjas that is providing the technical expertiseand alt-right activists. It operates on the assumption that fraud did take place and that the job of the audit is simply to find a way to count votes differentlya way that says Trump won the state. It wont alter the outcome of the election, since Congress certified that outcome and Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States. But it will serve to further fracture the politics of the state and of the country, feeding Trumps die-hard base with more red meat to further their conspiracist fantasies.

This isnt just a waste of taxpayer money; its desperately dangerous stuff, part of the GOPs post-election drift ever further into loony tunes territory. This week, the House GOP, including minority leader Kevin McCarthy and party whip Steve Scalise, have begun explicitly orchestrating the removal of Liz Cheney from her Conference Chair leadership role in the partynot because they disagree with her stance on signature ideological issues (shes as conservative as they get) but because shes been unwilling to toe the personality-cult line when it comes to perpetuating Trumps Big Lie about the 2020 election. Also this week, onetime GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was mightily booed by delegates to his own state partys convention when he had the temerity to say that he wasnt a huge fan of the twice-impeached POTUS 45.

Now dont get me wrong, I dont have much sympathy for Romney or Cheney. Anybody who expects anything better of the GOP at this pointwho rationalizes their continued membership in a party defined by fanaticism, conspiracism, anti-science irrationalism, and personality cultismreally doesnt have a leg to stand on when those fanatics turn their cudgels against them. But the treatment meted out to Cheney and to Romney does speak to a monstrous crisis: The GOP, one of the two great governing parties in the United States, is now a profoundly antidemocratic force in the world.

In fact, in state after GOP-controlled state, and in the offices of members of Congress and state legislatures around the country, support for voter suppression laws has become de rigueur, a sort of after-the-fact homage to Trump and to Trumpism. Its as much of a litmus test for the GOP these days as, say, belief in the science of climate change is for Democrats; the difference being, of course, that the Republican litmus test is based on nothing but a lie. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently wrote that Trumps Big Lie has devoured the GOP, and that the political behaviors growing out of this act now threaten the very survival of American democracy. Republicans are going full speed ahead to try to ensure, by any means necessary, their minoritarian dominance of the political process in coming electoral cycles.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

In Arizona, where the GOP has managed to lose two US Senate seats, the presidential election, and numerous local and state-level offices in recent years, the narrow GOP majority in the Legislature is trying to rig the system by rolling back the states long-standing commitment to easy-access mail-in voting, and by imposing ever more onerous ID and other requirements on those trying to exercise their franchise. So far, at least 23 voting-related bills have been announced in the past couple months. Some of themsuch as the one that would allow Arizona legislators to simply ignore the will of the voters and appoint their own electors to the Electoral Collegeare so batshit crazy that, in all likelihood, not even the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, would sign them. But many of them will soon become the law of the land.

All of which makes Maricopa County, dominated by the sprawling Phoenix metro area, particularly interesting. The GOP and its phony auditors are fixating on looking for voting irregularities there because it is as a result of deep shifts in Phoenixs political preferences that the state party and its nativist flag bearers have been handed one humiliating defeat after another in recent years.

A decade ago, Phoenixs nine-member City Council was reliably Republican. These days, it is strongly Democratic. As its political composition has shifted, so too have its political priorities. Guardado talks about how the council has approved paying the water bills of poor residents during the pandemic, and how it has begun paying for swimming lessons for low-income childrensince death by drowning, in pools and in rivers and gullies, is a big problem for young people in the desert state. She talks about her ambitions to put in place meaningful programs to tackle homelessness; she speaks with pride about the $15-per-hour living wage that the council passed for full-time city employeesand the ongoing efforts to expand this to include part-timers as well; and she discusses the urgent need to invest in expanding the citys light-rail public transport system, and to bring economic development plans to fruition in poorer parts of the city.

Phoenixs example shows that when politicians address real-life concerns of ordinary people, the politics of a place can change rapidly and profoundly for the better. Thats the lesson the Arizona GOP, with its phony audits and its dozens of voter suppression bills, cant stand. As it can no longer win elections on the merits, it is trying to secure power by rigging the system to curtail the franchise.

Read more from the original source:
The Arizona GOPs Attack on Democracy - The Nation

During his anything-but-typical address to a joint session of Congress, President Biden used the word democracy, over and over again.

Some were run-of-the-mill evocations, as was the case when he spoke of revitalizing our democracy a promise made by more than one more president, and a bromide meant to soothe the nations soul. Others were more grave, as when he spoke of the Jan. 6 sacking of the U.S. Capitol, calling it the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.

But one mention of democracy in Bidens prime-time address really stood out. It came toward the end, as he spoke of the challenges facing the country as it stares down geopolitical allies who are hoping for our failure as a nation. But he could just as well have been speaking of the forces at home who similarly are hoping for his administration to fail, abetted by the aspiring autocrat in exile in south Florida.

Can our democracy deliver on the most pressing needs of our people? Can our democracy overcome the lies, anger, hate and fears that have pulled us apart? Americas adversaries, the autocrats of the world, are betting we cant, Biden said. But we have to prove them wrong. We have to prove democracy still works, that our government still works, and we can deliver for our people.

Its no secret that democracies around the world are under siege, and that the promises of authoritarian regimes are appealing to a certain segment of the population.

Look no further than the surging popularity of French presidential candidate Marine LePen. On Capitol Hill, there are such Trump-aligned Republicans as Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who recently pushed the repulsive replacement theory during a House committee hearing.

Future historians will judge how democratic governments around the world respond to these threats. And the price of failure is high.

During his speech, Biden again appealed to Republicans to join in working to find compromise on the sweeping reimagining of the economy thats been the hallmark of his first 100 days. But he also made clear that he was ready to move on without them.

I just want to be clear, from my perspective, doing nothing is not an option. Look, we cant be so busy competing with one another that we forget the competition that we have with the rest of the world to win the 21st century, he said, warning that Chinese President Xi Jinping is deadly earnest on becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world. He and others, autocrats, think that democracy cant compete in the 21st century with autocracies because it takes too long to get consensus.

He made the same appeal to Americans, particularly those who did not vote for him, to join in that effort, evoking President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he did so: in America, we do our part. We all do our part. Thats all Im asking. That we do our part, all of us. If we do that, well meet the central challenge of the age by proving that democracy is durable and strong. Autocrats will not win the future. We will. America will. And the future belongs to America.

In any other time, an American president would not be required to make such an emotional and urgent appeal for his fellow citizens to rally around, and support, the foundational values of our nation, the ones that we drum into our childrens heads in civics class.

But as the last four years, capped off by the eruption of violence and treason at the Capitol on Jan. 6, have shown, these are not ordinary times. And while Biden evoked the memory of Americas 32nd president to make his case, Ill evoke the memory of another, the 16th, from whom Republicans, who have wandered so far, to make mine.

Speaking in Gettysburg, Pa. on Nov. 19, 1863, President Lincoln exhorted Americans to highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thats the debt we owe those weve lost during the COVID-19 pandemic; for the American service members who laid down their lives to preserve our democracy. Thats the democracy that Biden is betting on.

And then, as now, it will take all of us to make sure that American democracy survives.

An award-winning political journalist, John L. Micek is Editor-in-Chief of The Pennsylvania Capital-Star in Harrisburg, Pa. Email him at jmicek@penncapital-star.com and follow him on Twitter @ByJohnLMicek.

Go here to see the original:
Biden says he wants all of us working on Democracy - Bainbridge Island Review