Mediaboss Marketing

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday told CNN that America's ability to champion democracy and human rights worldwide was damaged via the violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6.

Citing the "major challenge" President Joe Biden faces in responding to the recent coup in Myanmar, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Blinken how the US can "speak with authority on democracy when people around the world saw our Capitol attacked and our democratic institutions pushed to the brink?"

The top US diplomat said, "There's no doubt that our ability to speak with that strong voice for democracy and human rights took a hit with what happened on January 6th and happened at the Capitol."

But Blinken went on to express optimism about the US, stating that he sees the "glass as half full on that" because "we had a peaceful transition of power pursuant to our Constitution."

He underscored that in spite of the attack on the Capitol, which resulted in five deaths, congressional lawmakers still returned and certified Biden's Electoral College victory as part of a constitutionally-mandated process.

"Throughout our history, we've had incredibly challenging moments, and sometimes we've taken our own steps backward. But what's made us different is our willingness, our ability, to confront these challenges with full transparency. We in front of the entire world. And that's very unlike other countries," Blinken added. "When they face challenges, they try to sweep everything under the rug, ignore it, repress it, push it back. We're doing this all out in the open."

Blinken conceded that the nature of American democracy can be "ugly" and "difficult," but emphasized that he still believes the US has a "strong story to tell about the resilience of democracy, the resilience of our institutions, and the determination of this country to always try to form a more perfect union."

The Biden administration has made restoring America's global standing a top priority after the Trump era, during which the US often took a unilateral approach to foreign affairs while routinely insulting key allies. Biden has already taken steps to join multinational efforts, including moving to rejoin the Paris climate accord and the World Health Organization.

"Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy," Biden said in a speech at the State Department on February 4. "We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday's challenges, but today's and tomorrow's ... We've moved quickly to begin restoring American engagement internationally and earn back our leadership position, to catalyze global action on shared challenges."

But after the major blows US democratic institutions took under former President Donald Trump, the new commander-in-chief faces significant challenges and limitations in defending democracy worldwide. This has already become evident with the Myanmar coup as well as the recent arrest and conviction of Kremlin-critic Alexei Navalny. There are growing doubts, which Blinken alluded to in his CNN interview, about America's ability to influence such situations.

There are signs the Biden administration is considering imposing sanctions in response to Myanmar's coup and the Navalny incarceration, but history has frequently shown they don't inflict enough of a cost to move the needle.

"We have fallen into this trap that sanctions are the easy answer to every problem," Ivo H. Daalder, the former US Ambassador to NATO and current president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, recently told the New York Times. "They demonstrate that you care, and they impose some price, though usually not sufficient to change behavior.''

Go here to see the original:
Blinken says America's promotion of democracy and human rights 'took a hit' with the Capitol attack - Business Insider

Honoring the Capitol Police officer killed in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently invoked the buildings symbolic role in American democracy.

Each day, when members enter the Capitol, this temple of democracy, we will remember his sacrifice, she said of the slain officer, Brian Sicknick.

Former President Donald Trump was impeached for inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol and is now on trial in the Senate. The insurrection has reaffirmed the buildings almost sacred status.

As the place where American deliberative democracy has been practiced for the past 230 years, the Capitol is in at least one respect a sanctified place. But as a historian of ancient Roman architecture and its legacy, I would argue that the architecture of Americas temple of democracy is in fact fundamentally anti-democratic.

The original design for the Capitol, proposed by the amateur architect Dr. William Thornton, was based on the ancient Roman Pantheon.

President Thomas Jefferson thought the Pantheon was one of the most beautiful buildings ever made: simple, elegant and geometrically perfect but also an engineering masterpiece, with the largest dome ever built in antiquity.

Jefferson believed an American Pantheon would bring beauty to the nation, aiding the moral and civic development of the American people. Since the United States had no domed buildings at that point, its construction would also show the young nation could be the equal of older, grander European nations.

Jefferson, a devoted classicist, knew the Pantheon had been built by emperors. Its original manifestation was devised in the year 25 B.C. by Marcus Agrippa the right-hand man of Romes first emperor, Augustus as a temple for emperor worship. It was redesigned by Hadrian around A.D. 126 to serve a function that remains enigmatic.

But the stupendous grandeur of its dome and its adornment in marble quarried and shipped from across the Roman empire leads most architectural historians to agree that the Pantheon celebrated Romes global dominion.

Indeed, Jefferson very likely chose to model the Capitol after the Pantheon because of, not in spite of, its imperial associations. He envisioned America as an empire for liberty a force bringing civilization westward.

Jeffersons American Pantheon was never realized.

Subsequent architects substantially altered the design, and what little progress had been made was halted in 1814 when the Capitol was burned by British invaders joined by some of the very slaves who built it in the War of 1812.

The new Capitol that emerged from the ashes, completed by Charles Bulfinch in 1826, was already too small for the fast-growing Congress of the fast-growing United States.

From 1856 to 1866 the architect Thomas U. Walter substantially expanded and reconcieved the building. His vision of the Capitol was inspired by the most celebrated domed buildings of the time: St. Peters Basilica in Rome, St. Pauls Cathedral in London and the Church of Sainte-Genevive in Paris, among others.

In these baroque cathedrals, towering domes signified the ruling power of monarchs and popes. They were meant to awe people with their splendor and magnificence, and in so doing to command subservience.

The U.S. Capitols architecture is certainly awe inspiring.

But its design history does not exactly embody the values of a democratic government by and for the people.

Today, the Capitols authoritarian architecture is enhanced by its imperial setting. The Capitol sits atop a terraced hill overlooking a broad promenade of open lawns, tree-lined boulevards, reflection pools and hundreds of monuments and memorials: the National Mall.

This landscape was created as part of a 1901 plan to beautify Washington, D.C., whose monumental core was then filled with slum housing and railyards. A team of leading architects revived Pierre LEnfants original 1791 master plan for the city.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

In LEnfants original vision of Washington, D.C., the Mall was to be a large formal public garden inspired by the manicured gardens of Versailles, a private escape for Frances ruling class. Versailles was designed in the mid-17th century to distance the lites of the royal court from the dreary, dirty city and rough, rude commoners.

Unlike Versailles, the National Mall was intentionally made public. But when people gather there to protest, theres still a tension between that orderly space and a disruptive but essential democratic activity.

The Capitol, long known as the peoples house, has never really embodied democracy in its appearance.

After the insurrection of Jan. 6, the Capitol became a military encampment, and a security fence went up around the building. The sacred symbol of American democracy has become a fortress the latest addition in a history of anti-democratic design.

See more here:
Is the US Capitol a 'temple of democracy'? Its authoritarian architecture suggests otherwise - The Conversation US

Policyeven good, popular policyplays a limited role in moving the electorate. Critics of the Democratic Party, particularly those on the left, will often point out that ballot initiatives for progressive policies outperform Democratic candidates. In Florida, more than 60 percent of voters backed a minimum-wage hike, while Biden and down-ballot Democrats got rinsed.

Left-wing critics argue that if Democrats would throw themselves behind popular, populist economic messagingthings like the minimum wagetheyd have more success with some of the voters drawn to Trump. Theres a lot to that! But Biden actually supported a minimum-wage increase, and he spent some time discussing it in the second presidential debate.

What if those kinds of policy fights offer only limited returns? What if we are conflating two different issues? What if the overwhelming number of Trump supporters simply wont vote to give control to the Democratic Party, even if the party is pushing agenda items they like? What if the driving imperative for the large majority of votersbut particularly for those on the aggrieved rightis that they want their people in control?

The contemporary GOP is on a strange trajectory. Republicans are growing more radical, extreme, and dangerous on core questions of democracy, the rule of law, and corruption, while simultaneously moderating on policy in some crucial ways.

The Republican Party is a fusion of two distinct elements with very different desires. The first is the donor class, a combination of self-serving plutocrats and genuine ideologues who are also very rich and who possess extensive and granular policy aims. Their main goals are tax cuts, deregulation, and resistance to redistribution of any kind. These goals account for the two main domestic-policy pushes during the Trump administrations first two years, when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House: repeal of the ACA and massive corporate tax cuts. But after failing to accomplish the first and succeeding at the second, the GOP made little further effort to legislate. The donor class is more focused on the courts, where it can achieve a huge part of its objectives; the Senate spent much of its energy over the next two years confirming conservative judges.

As for the partys base, what policy issues are MAGA rally-goers wound up about? Not the deficit or taxes, and not the ACA. In the past, those issues gave expression to their underlying grievances, but no longer. After the election, one GOP polling firm asked Republicans about their biggest concerns for a post-Trump Republican Party. Forty-four percent wanted a party that would fight like Donald Trump, while only 19 percent worried that a post-Trump GOP would abandon Donald Trumps policies.

And what were Trumps policies, exactly? In a few places, he deviated from GOP orthodoxy, particularly on trade and, to some extent, immigration. Polling showed that his views on these issues were quite popular among his target audience even before he took office, so in that crucial respect, Trump did move the GOP toward its voters. But I think the lesson is larger here: As long as a Trumpist GOP is sticking it to the libs, standing up for its heritage and identity, and, crucially, using every possible tacticincluding flatly antidemocratic onesto battle for power, the modern base of the GOP is willing to accommodate, or even heartily support, all kinds of wild deviations from conservative orthodoxy. If Trump had come out strongly for a $15 minimum wage, the partys base would have backed him.

Read the original here:
The Republican Party Is Radicalizing Against Democracy - The Atlantic

In 2017, a handful of individuals were arrested in the Hart Senate Office Building for reading scripture aloud. They were protesting the GOP-backed tax bill, which they felt was unfair to the poor. They engaged in peaceful civil disobedience, and they paid the price of arrest.

Last month, thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol carrying bats, nooses, and Zip Tie handcuffs. They were there to stop the transfer of power from one president to the next. They assaulted Capitol Police, broke doors and windows, ransacked offices and hallways, and hunted for lawmakers who were poised to certify Joe Bidens win. This violent mob ultimately left three officers dead and at least 134 injured. Will those who instigated and participated pay a price?

Governance by and for the people coupled with the rule of law are what separate democracies from dictatorships. Americans love to proclaim that no one is above the law, but Republican legislators have shown this to be more brag than fact. This was most evident in their refusal to hold Trump accountable for his criminal conduct before, during, and after Impeachment #1. Instead of learning his lesson, as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) incorrectly predicted, Trump became increasingly brazen in his corruption.

Even before the election, Trump and his backers started throwing spaghetti at the wall. Repeated often enough, the lie about voter fraud just might stick. After he lost, they filed 62 lawsuits, 61 of which were dismissed by state and federal judges, including Trump appointees. They demanded recounts, all of which upheld Bidens win.

In a phone call that was recorded (whoops), Trump pressured Georgias top election officials to flip 11,780 votes. He tried to get state legislators to intervene. And then, with time running out, Trump invited his disciples to the White House and whipped them into a frenzy.

We will never give up. We will never concede, he told them. We will stop the steal.

Trump urged them to stage an insurrection. In footage of the ensuing carnage, rioters screamed that Trump had sent them. Yep, he gave them their marching orders. But instead of leading the charge as he said he would do, Trump stayed behind to watch it unfold on TV (imagine that) and to petition Republican senators to delay the count of Electoral College votes. Having organized the coup, he did nothing to stop it and resisted sending in the National Guard.

Meanwhile, elected lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence barely escaped with their lives.

Trump and his rioters committed treason, which Merriam-Webster defines as the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and other legislators who perpetuated The Big Lie are also guilty of treason. Words have consequences, and actions do too in countries that uphold the rule of law.

It is not an overstatement to say that the future of the United States lies in the hands of Senate Republicans. Might they finally put the Constitution and their country above political self-preservation? Pundits arent betting on it, pointing to Republicans in the House who voted not to certify Bidens win just hours after the attempted coup.

Will Republican senators prove Trump right when he stated that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it? Or will they apply the system of checks and balances they inherited from our Founding Fathers? If they dont, what will prevent future presidents from abusing the power and privilege of their office? Trump remains a danger because of his insatiable need for applause, wealth, and absolute authority; conviction would keep him out of public office. It would prove that ours is a true democracy, based on equality and accountability.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, one of the clergy arrested for reading Bible passages aloud in 2017, wrote last year that we are in a Bonhoeffer moment. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a young German pastor who opposed the Nazi movement and paid with his life in a concentration camp.

Is our democracy destined to fail because of apathy and the surrender of our values? Or was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman correct when he testified, during Trumps first impeachment, that in America, right matters? What kind of society do Americans really want, and what are ordinary citizens willing to do to protect it? Although U.S. senators are jurors in the upcoming trial, their constituents need to weigh in. We, the people, must decide.

Erin McKay is a resident of Cortez.

Link:
Erin McKay: Will we protect our democracy? - The Journal

A Committee of Five, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston, worked together to write the U.S. Declaration of Independence. They are among the leaders known as Americas Founding Fathers.

The Declaration of Independence states a list of wrongs done against the people of the newly formed states by Britains king. They include the dismissal of Representative Houses repeatedly because they resisted the loss of the rights of the people.

The Declaration also notes that any form of government gets its powers from the consent of the governed.

Democracy was a dirty world

Some experts note, however, that the men who would go on to write and sign the U.S. Constitution were some of the richest people in America. They also say these same men were not fully open to democratic ideas.

Andrew Wehrman is an associate professor of history at Central Michigan University. He says the leading Americans who wrote the Constitution did not think of the new country as a direct democracy.

It was never meant to be a sort of direct democracy, where all Americans would get to cast a ballot on all issues, he said. Instead, Wehrman believes that they thought the vote was for the wealthy and educated.

Wehrman also says the founders expected common people, the poor and uneducated, to take part indirectly. This would be through their local government, at town halls and meetings, and through protest actions like boycotts. They were very concerned about rule by a mob.

Wehrman said some of the founders thought that democracy was a dirty word. Even John Adams, he notes, did not want poor people or women to vote.

Bruce Kuklick is a retired professor of American history at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He says the framers of the Constitution had a very different idea of democracy than Americans do today.

The founders didn't want this sort of democracy at all. The Constitution is written so that citizenship rights are very, very limited, he said. Because once you let everybody participate You're likely to have people come to power who appeal to the frenzy of the masses.

Wehrman notes that the framers of the Constitution saw to it that only one part, or one branch, of the federal government, the House of Representatives, was elected by the people in a direct vote.

The Electoral College chooses the president. The presidents select the Supreme Court justices and, until the early 1900s, senators were selected by state legislatures. It was only after the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 that U.S. senators were afterwards elected by direct popular vote.

Wehrman says leaders like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed that state legislatures had gone too far and that too many people were voting in elections.

For example, New Jersey gave the right to vote to people who lived in the state and met a property requirement. That included women and African Americans, who were able to vote from 1776 until 1807, when the state restricted voting rights to white men.

They (the founders) thought that there were too many voices in the state legislaturesthat they were beholden to the interests of the common man, Wehrman said.

What would the founders think about modern America?

So what would people like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and the other framers of the Constitution think about America today?

I think they would all be sort of delighted that the general framework that they created is still in action, Wehrman said.

They might even be open to change. After all, they included a process for amending the Constitution. They made changes in the early days of the Republic with the ratification in 1804 of the 12th Amendment. It established separate Electoral College votes for president and vice president. That change kept political adversaries of opposing parties from serving in the same administration as president and vice president.

But even with these facts, Kuklick believes, the Founding Fathers would be considered reactionaries today.

[They] didn't want what came to be. He added that in the 1800s, America changed from having a limited group taking part in government to one that people now completely accept as being the democratic way.

Democracy in action today might not be exactly what the founders expected. However, some experts say that money and power continue to play an important part in U.S. politics.

Im Jill Robbins. And I'm Mario Ritter.

Dora Mekouar reported this story for VOANEWS. Mario Ritter Jr. adapted it for VOA Learning English with additions from the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Hai Do was the editor.

________________________________________________________________

consent n. permission for something to happen or to be done

sort (of) n. a certain kind of something

framers n.(pl.) often used to describe the writers of U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution; literally people who build the structure, frame, of a house

frenzy n. wild or uncontrolled activity

ratification n. the process of making a major legal document official by signing or voting on it so it becomes law

beholden adj. owing to a favor, gift or loyalty to someone or something

delighted adj. pleased, happy with something

adversaries n. (pl.) an enemy or opponent

reactionaries n. a person who strongly opposes new political or social ideas

We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments section, and visit our Facebook page.

Here is the original post:
What Did Democracy Mean to the US Constitutions Writers? - VOA Learning English