Mediaboss Marketing

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

Editors note:This must-read essay from David Corn first appeared in his new newsletter,This Land.Given the ongoing efforts by Donald Trump and his followers to undermine American democracy and Davids spot-on analysis, we wanted to make sure as many readers as possible have a chance to see it. This Land is a newsletter written by David twice a week that provides behind-the-scenes stories about politics and media; his unvarnished take on the events of the day; film, books, television, and music recommendations; interactive audience features; and more. Subscribing costs just $5 a monthbut right now you can sign up for a free 30-day trial of This Land here.

President Joe Biden, I fear, may be screwing up. Not with the infrastructure bills. The current deliberations do look messy, but theres still plenty of time to concoct a compromise that expands education, health care, and other important social welfare programs and includes climate change action. Biden, though, might be miscalculating on another critical front: saving democracy.

As I and others havenoted, the nation is undergoing a crisis, with Donald Trump and his Republican comrades attempting to undermine democratic structures and norms to rig the system in their favor. For years, Republicans have tried to implement voter suppression schemes and have relied on gerrymandering (as Democrats often do) to gain a political advantage that would allow their minority party to exert majority control. Theyve been striving to create apolitical apartheid. And Trump and his devotees have supercharged this GOP effort with the Big Lie offensive and the seditious attack on the US Capitol, aiming to subvert democratic procedures to accommodate authoritarianism. Trumps never-ending assault on US electionsclaiming they are fraudulent unless they produce the results he seeksis poisoning the political culture. He wants his followers to believe democracy doesnt work, for then he (or others) can justify resorting to other means to grab and retain power.

And theres a Plan B: If you cant delegitimize the system, take it over. Trump loyalistsincluding QAnoners and other extremistsare signing upas precinct volunteers who can help pick poll workers and members of boards that oversee elections. That is, they are burrowing into the election system at the ground level. This is a scheme championed by Steve Bannon, the Trump adviser whomTrump pardoned. (Last week, Bannon, after speaking to a GOP social club about preparing for the next Republican administration,tolda reporter, If youre going to take over the administrative state anddeconstruct it, then you have to have shock troops prepared to take it over immediately.) A number of pro-Trump election denialists are nowattemptingto win secretary of state races; this will permit them to control the election apparatus in swing states. Meanwhile, Trumpsters promoting his election fraud disinformation are still pushing for sham audits inPennsylvania,Idaho, and elsewhere. And so far legislatures in 16 states have passed measures toshift election authoritiesfrom governors and secretaries of state to the legislatures, increasing the possibility of partisan wrangling over vote tallies.

Its a war on democracy. Trump has recruited the national Republican Party, local state officials, and a wide assortment of extremists for this battle.

After the election, Trump conspired with a handful of henchmen to try to overturn the election. He pressured officials at the Justice Department to declare the results corrupt. He leaned on state officials, especially in Georgia. He recruited a conservative constitutional lawyer, John Eastman, who drafted amemocontending that Vice President Mike Pence could nullify Bidens electoral vote victory. It was essentially a blueprint for a coup. (Pence didnt agree with Eastmans argument.) Trump incited a riot that had the potential to thwart Congress certification of Bidens win. He failed in these rearguardand largely behind-the-scenesactions, though he and his lieutenants came within inches of triggering an all-out constitutional crisis.

Now Trumps assault on the political system is out in the open. He denigrates the electoral system, and he has succeeded in convincing tens of millions of Americans that it cannot be trusted. A CNN poll last month found that78 percentof Republicans believe Biden did not win, and 54 percent said there is solid evidence of that. (There is not.) Moreover, Trumps continuing status as the leader of the Republican Partyand as its top contender for the 2024 presidential nominationsignals that the encouragement of violence to achieve a political end is widely excused, if not outright accepted, within GOP ranks. Only56 percentof Republicans say it is very important to find and prosecute 1/6 riotersa drop of 13 points since Marchand 57 percent note there has been too much attention paid to the attack.

This is a dangerous moment for the nation. As news coverage obsesses on the immediatethe tussle over the infrastructure bills on Capitol Hill, the rise in undocumented immigrants at the border, the debt ceiling dustup, the collapse of police reform negotiations, and so onthe media generally have failed to cover Trumps not-too-secret effort to break American democracy in a comprehensive fashion. The bogus audits draw attention, as do Trumps ceaseless and baseless claims of election fraud. But there is no overarching narrative focused on Trumps ongoing threat to democracy. This war in plain sight is not widely recognized.

Two weeks ago, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative who was a prominent cheerleader for the disastrous Iraq invasion, published a much-discussedpiecein theWashington Postdeclaring what some of us havepreviously pointed out: Our constitutional crisis is already here. Kagan opened by starkly observing, The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves. Trump, he correctly noted, is driving this conflict. The former guy and his Republican allies, Kagan wrote, are actively preparing to ensure his victory [in 2024] by whatever means necessary. He warned that the stage is being set for chaos and [m]ost Americans and all but a handful of politicianshave refused to take this possibility seriously enough to try to prevent it.

That may well include Biden. The president in July did deliver a passionate speech defending voting rights andderidedRepublican voter suppression and election subversion efforts. He asked the GOP, Have you no shame? And hecalledpassing legislation to protect and expand voting rights a national imperative. But that was months ago, and Biden has not yet wholly engaged in this fight to preserve democracy. He has not told the people the full story: Trump is imperiling the foundation of the American political system. He has not brought attention to the menace at hand.

Only Biden has the standingthe megaphoneto fully sound the alarm and convey this distressing narrative to a wide audience of Americans. He needs to connect the dots for the public, to clearly identify the various interlocking aspects of this struggle, and to call out Trump and the Republicans for more than their obvious voter suppression billsto name what they are doing as a treacherous assault upon the republic.

There are certainly reasons why Biden might not want to leap into all-out combat against Trump and the GOP at this moment. As a candidate, he vowed to pursue compromise with the other side and to attempt to repair the partisan wounds of the country. Blasting Republicans as a clear and present danger to the United States would not be in sync with that theme. And Biden is hoping to preserve some degree of Republican support for at least one of his infrastructure measures. Perhaps he figures there will be time to ring this bell after he pockets a few more legislative victories and before the next election.

Yet Trump and his cultists have already gained ground in this fight, as Kagan detailed. Should Biden wait much longer, it could become too late. The Republicans are further ahead in their campaign to rig the system than the Democrats are in blocking them. Texas Republicans, for instance, are well into their latestgerrymandering spreeto diminish the voting power of communities of color. Enacting measures that bring much-needed programs to the public is vital for Biden and the Democrats. Before the midterm elections next year, they must demonstrate to voters they can deliver. But there is nothing more in the self-interest of Democrats than to thwart the Republican crusade to manipulate electoral machinery for their benefit.

Without a functioning democracy, it will be impossible to do much about the pressing matters the nation faces: climate change, income inequality, racial justice, future pandemics, and much more. The top priority of the president referenced in the presidential oath of office is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is his chief obligation. Biden certainly takes this charge seriously. But the 46th president has yet to publicly reveal he realizes the scope of the all-out political warfare underway and that the fate of the United States depends upon the outcome.

The rest is here:
The Democracy Crisis: Could This Be Joe Biden's Big Mistake? Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Archaeological remains, studies of ancient texts push back the origin of democracy in India a lot before Greece and Rome

The Prime Minister of India asserted at the United Nations General Assembly that he comes from the land which is known as the Mother of Democracy. His very statement triggered a debate if India actually can be considered as the mother of Democracy.

But whatever the opinion one may own, with a given amount of empirical and textual pieces of evidence, it is impossible to deny that the idea of democracy was first practiced and theorised in India.

I look to inspect every probable shred of evidence around the origin of the idea of democracy.

Athenian Democracy and India in the same period

We are told that Greek, and more precisely, Athenian Democracy was the first form of direct democracy. The latest available records say that it came under Cleisthenes around 2.528 kya (thousand years ago) in Athens.

He is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy". Aristotle mentions in his book VI, that Athenian Democracy had the feature to randomly select ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices. The legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens too existed. We are also told that all the eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly that had the role to set laws of the city-state.

But there is a catch here. It is important to clarify exactly who were the Athenian citizens? The citizenship didnt include women, slaves, foreigners, and youths below the age of military service.

While all the brackets are perfect but they not considering women and slaves gives an absolute notion of how the democracy of Athens insured non-democratic nature of itself. Athenian men believed that women were less intelligent than men and therefore, similarly to barbarians and slaves of the time. They were seen incapable of effectively participating and contributing to public discourse on political issues and affairs.

Perhaps that was the reason that when Greeks came in contact with Indians they were surprised to see the non-discriminatory form of democracy in and around the period of Alexander. Arrian writes in Indika about India in the period of Alexander that:

The Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, much less a countryman of their own.

Diodorus who is said to have visited India, around two centuries after Alexander talks that a high-level democracy of Indians existed and was peculiar to the Greeks. He too saw the difference of non-existent slavery.

And of course, women had a very respectable position in society in that period and earlier. The literature proves this case quite aptly. The thirty-seventh sarg of Ayodhya Kand (Ramayan), tells us that Sita was asked to sit on the throne by Vashistha in absence of Shri Ram. Even if one wants to reject this as mythology (although it is considered as Itihasa for Bhartiya Civilisation), the case is clear that for all practical purposes women saw a respectable position in society. In the same period when Athenian Democracy saw females as barbarians, Queen Mgvat of the Vatsa Mahajanapada ( oligarchic republics) ruled as proxy while her son Udayana was held captive by a rival king. And she was very well respected in society. While there were sanctions against the participation of women in the Athenian Democracy & deprivation of rights, pastamba Sutra (probably conceived in the same period) in Bharat says the following for females:

A man is not allowed to abandon his wife (A 1.28.19).

He permits daughters to inherit (A 2.14.4).

There can be no division of property between a husband and a wife because they are linked inextricably together and have joint custody of the property (A 2.29.3).

Thus, a wife may make gifts and use the family wealth on her own when her husband is away (A 2.12.1620).

Women are upholders of traditional lore, and pastamba tells his audience that they should learn some customs from women (A 2.15.9; 2.29.11).

It becomes clear from the above argument that not only democracy (Diodorus 2.39) existed in India in the period of the Athenian Democracy, but women had a very respectable position (unlike Athens where they were not considered even Athenian) and slavery remained an alien concept.

Now before dwelling deep into the Indic idea of democracy, let us first see what the latest researches have to say about proto-democracies.

Proto-Democracies

We have pieces of evidence of "governing by assembly" in ancient Phoenicians. One such piece of evidence is the story of an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician around 3.1 kya. The trader had got stuck in some problem and the king had got matter settled by hearing in an assembly.

According to Thorkild Jacobsen, a form of "Primitive Democracy" existed in pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia. But many scholars have denied recognising it as democracy. They see the case of Mesopotamia as a struggle where common men appear more like pawns than sovereign authority.

One such scholar is Bailkey who says that the period of Gilgamesh etc, reflects a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noblemen.

Then we find the important case of Sparta. It rose around 2.7 kya which showed the trait of the oligarchy but still, slavery existed and slaves were not part of democracy. Unlike Athens, women enjoyed a respectable position in society and one can say that this was the only place in the west around that era that had no discriminatory acts against females. We also have the case of Rome. A form of democracy existed here too around 2.52 kya. But again citizenship and hence legislative rights were only limited to the free Romans. Slaves were considered as a commodity and after being free, the rights did not come to them.

The case of India as the first land to see democracy

THOU, mighty Agni, gatherest up all that is precious for thy friend.Bring us all treasures as thou art enkindled in libation's placeAssemble, speak together: let your minds be all of one accord,As ancient Gods unanimous sit down to their appointed share.The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thought united.A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your general oblation.One and the same bt your resolve, and be your minds of one accord.United be the thoughts of all that all may happily agree.

Rig Veda (10.191.1-4, was sung at beginning of the Republican Assembly in ancient India).

The arguments in the above section show us that there was no solidified form of democracy anywhere on earth before 3-2.5 kya. So, of all the empirical shreds of evidence, one of the strongest among all is the excavations that happened recently in Rakhigarhi. The team led by Dr Shinde discovered the footprints of panchayat at this site which dates back to 5.0-5.5 kya. Is it not strong enough evidence to start talking of India as being the mother of democracy?

Perhaps, it might not be convincing enough so let us look at more textual evidence. As a starter, it would be good to give an overview of few important definitions.

1. Democracy: It is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

2. Republic: It is a form of government in which "power is held by the people and their elected representatives".

3. Gana-Sangha: The word Gana, in general, refers to any association of men formed for the attainment of the same aims. The word sangha in means association, assembly, company, or community. In general Gana-Sangha or Gana-Rajya translates to, (rule by) tribal assembly.

While the first two words dont find origin anytime before 2.5 kya, the third word Gana-Sangh/ Gana-Rajya finds the existence with the same meaning in the oldest extant Indo-European text, Rig Veda (3.26.6).

If I refer to the works of Shrikant Talageri, and try to merge them with the recent genetic discoveries of Rakhigarhi, out of India migration became evident and we find that those who came to be known as Greeks too have ancestral roots in the northern belt of India. It means that if the idea of Gana-Sangha was existing in Rig Veda, the idea must have travelled with the migrating tribes. People must have one thing clear in mind that what we see as the geographic boundary of Bharat today was not the same millennia ago. The existence of a 5.5 kya old panchayat block in Rakhigarhi further reinforces the claim that the idea of democracy was certainly brewing here and we currently do not have any evidence to nullify this claim.

Now let us look at more textual evidence for Gana-Sangha.

Pini talks of the concept as, Sanghoddhau gaa praansayo. We find the Bhishma explaining the policies of the Ganas in Shanti Parva of Mahabharat. The great Sangam literature and Silapathikaram talk about the Ganas. The Buddhist literature Mahabagga mentions an officer tracking the number of ganas and their koram in the Rajasabha. The Buddhist texts like Pali-pitaka, Majjhamnikaya, Mahabagga, Avadana Shataka talk extensively about Ganas and Sanghas. Records state that we had more than a hundred Gana-Sanghas existed in the time when Buddha lived.

As per the Kalchakra traditions, he lived at least 2.9-3.0 kya. It goes way before Mesopotamias proto-democracy too. Back then, early democratic republics were known as Gaa-rjyas, which meant "rule of the assembly". Do we find this term any different from demo-kratia?

If we again go back to Rig Veda, we find mention of words like Sabha (big assembly of people), Samiti (smaller gathering of people) & Rajan (leader). The Rig Veda (10.173) also tells us that the Rajan was elected member and chosen by the representative of the people in Samiti.

According to the Atharva veda, 3.5.6-7, the Rajan was elected by seven representatives of people known as rjakta (the kingmakers). They were representatives of fishermen, chariot-makers, black-smiths, intelligentsia, the kings of other states, charioteers and the village headmen. According to Atharva veda, 6.88.3, Samiti had the right to dethrone the Rajan. Atharva veda, 5.19.15 also observes that the Rajan was to be dethroned should he transgress the rights and privileges of a learned Brahmin. According to Atharvaveda 7.12.2; 10.8.24; 12.3.46, Sabha was a place of debate and discussions.

So all these arguments make a case very clear that an absolute and sophisticated form of democracy existed in Bharat long before Athens or Sparta etc. And at the same time, there was no notion of second-class citizenship for women as it was in Greece and slavery was a completely alien concept here.

Based on these ideas of democracy, multiple Janapads and later Mahajanpads came into existence. They were no different than what we know as the Republic today. Of all, Vajji Mahajanapada of Licchavis came to be known as one of the greatest. Right now we have very few texts available to talk about how exactly they operated. According to Cullakalinga Jtaka and the Ekapaa Jtaka, the Licchavi had 7,707 Rajas. They met annually to elect one of their members as ruler and a council of nine to assist him. They are mentioned in Arthastra (ch. XI) as a republic (gaa sangha), whose leader uses the title of rjaabdopajvinah. Mahparinibbna Suttanta, Dgha Nikya, Manusmriti (X.22), Paramatthajotik, too talk about their democracy.

The Kalpastra of Bhadravhu refers to the nine Licchavi gaarjas who along with the nine Malla gaarjas and the eighteen K-Koala gaarjas formed a league against Magadha.

There is abundant literature that can be put across in support of the existence of sophisticated democracy in ancient India lot before the Roman and Greek. And not an article but a complete book can be written for the subject.

Conclusion

With the existing bulk of shreds of evidence in the current time, it becomes clear that India, that is Bharat seems to be the mother of democracy. The archaeological remains of Rakhigarhi, genetic studies of Rakhigarhi, texts of Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, Buddhist texts, Jain text, etc, when overlapped together push back the origin of democracy in India a lot before Greece and Rome. And interestingly, even though some form of democracy existed in the West, it was not without slavery; a practice which was alien to India in words of Greek historians themselves.

Read the original post:
PM Modi's 'India is the Mother of Democracy' comment isn't far from the truth - Firstpost

Pachappa Camp in Riverside was a far cry from the buzzy, bustling Koreatowns we know today.

Founded in 1905 as the first Korean settlement in the United States, it was a small community of about a few hundred laborers next to a heavily used set of railroad tracks, just down the street from Chinese and Japanese settlements. There was no alcohol, fighting, gambling or drugs allowed, and everyone was encouraged to wear white.

The camp was named Dosans Republic, after the Korean independence activist Dosan Ahn Chang Ho, who was drawn to Riverside by the highly lucrative citrus trade.

Ahn founded an employment agency for Korean laborers that eventually became a highly complex and self-governed settlement. Dosans Republic had no running water or electricity, but the principles of governance honed there became the building blocks for modern South Korean democracy, according to a forthcoming paper from UC Riverside professor Edward Taehan Chang.

Dosan Ahn Chang Ho had a vision of establishing a model community. He was experimenting with it at Pachappa Camp, Chang said.

Chang encountered the previously undiscovered settlement on a 1908 insurance company map, a tiny dot labeled Korean Settlement. He found an archive of a Korean newspaper, Sinhan Minbo, which revealed aspects of life and suggested that Korean Americans at Pachappa Camp and elsewhere helped found South Korean democracy. The settlement is the subject of an exhibit at UC Riverside opening Oct. 16 called Pachappa Camp: The First Koreatown in the United States.

Dosans Republic had elected officials; taxation; a separation of powers among judiciary, executive and legislative bodies; as well as two police officers with the power to search and enter private residences.

Life in the settlement was strict. Anti-Asian sentiment was a real danger, and the camps restrictions on alcohol, gambling and drugs were an attempt to emphasize that Korean Americans could contribute to a civilized society. Many laws focused on propriety. No Korean was allowed to leave their house unless properly dressed, and Korean women were not allowed to smoke in public. Those who partook in drugs and alcohol were subject to a series of increasing fines.

At the time, Korea was under Japanese control, and Korean independence activists around the world were raising funds, organizing and lobbying for political support. South Koreas eventual democratic republic was organized in a series of meetings around the world. One of the most foundational meetings took place in Riverside, Chang said.

In 1911, the third national convention of the Korean National Assn. met in Pachappa Camp and passed 21 articles of governance that later appeared in documents central to South Korean democracy. The convention elected a central council that would oversee the various chapters of the KNA around the world and advocate for Korean independence.

The Korean National Assn., a political organization with chapters in major Korean settlements around the world, was functioning as a de facto government of Korea while it was under Japanese rule.

The KNA represented Korean Americans in international affairs and incidents. When an angry white mob chased Korean American workers from Hemet, U.S. officials reached out to Japanese consular officials to negotiate, prompting an outcry from Korean Americans. The KNA successfully lobbied Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan for Koreans in the United States to be recognized as Korean subjects, not Japanese.

After a cold spell decimated Riversides navel orange crop in 1913, the residents of Pachappa Camp left to look for work in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In 1918, the Riverside chapter of the KNA closed. In the late 1920s, Ahn was falsely accused of being a Bolshevist and deported from the United States.

Two commemorative plaques are all that remain at the site that was once called Pachappa Camp. The site is now an oil pumping station.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Pachappa Camp was later settled by Japanese and Mexican immigrants, and in the 1950s the land was redeveloped by an oil company. Today the land is primarily occupied by a Southern California Gas Co. facility. The nearby railroad tracts have gone quiet, replaced by the muffled roar of the 91 Freeway.

Pachappa Camp existed for just over a decade. So why does it matter? Why do the histories of any immigrant enclaves matter?

To me, places like Historic Filipinotown, Pachappa Camp and Chinatown are the most powerful and tangible reminders we have of the fact that the freedoms that Asian Americans have in this country were not gifts of political benevolence. They were the hard-won spoils of a long struggle for civil rights by people of color in America. These histories of Asian American civic engagement may be buried in the archives of foreign-language newspapers, hiding in old maps or redeveloped into a gas facility, but they are there nonetheless.

See original here:
Column: The first Koreatown in America, and Riverside's role in South Korean democracy - Los Angeles Times

In todays deeply polarized political and social environment, having a conversation with someone with different opinions can seem like an impossible task.

The University of Virginias Democracy Initiative has partnered with StoryCorps One Small Step program to facilitate such fraught conversations and help individuals with opposing views find common ground.

Melody Barnes, executive director of UVAs Karsh Institute of Democracy and co-director of the Democracy Initiative, talked about the overarching goal of the new partnership.

We know one conversation cant change the longstanding challenges our country and our communities must confront, but One Small Step is one, small step forward. Its an opportunity to create dialogue, perhaps find that you have something in common with someone surprising, or to disagree productively and with respect. One Small Step complements our research, teaching, policy and public engagement efforts, she said.

The Democracy Initiative and One Small Step will host a launch event Wednesday at 11 a.m., featuring a discussion between StoryCorps founder Dave Isay and UVA President Jim Ryan. Barnes will moderate. Students who have participated in One Small Step also will talk about their experiences with the program. Laurent Dubois, Bicentennial Professor and director of academic affairs at the Democracy Initiative, will moderate the student discussion. The event will be offered in person at Carrs Hill, as well as online. Registration is now open.

At the event, the Democracy Initiative and One Small Step will recruit community members to participate in recorded conversations. They plan to conduct more than 250 conversations with a wide range of participants at the University and in the Charlottesville community. Participants will be recruited directly, as well as through partnerships with local organizations. The Democracy Initiative also intends to use the conversations in an upcoming podcast.

Since its founding in 2018, One Small Step has worked to facilitate conversations with the goal of reminding individuals of their common humanity. One Small Step initially launched in four cities: Richmond, Virginia; Wichita, Kansas; Birmingham, Alabama; and Shreveport, Louisiana. Charlottesville will be the fifth and UVA is its first academic partner.

Samyuktha Mahadevan, the One Small Step program manager, talked about the inspiration for the program.

Cultural and political tension is nothing new, but the 2016 election heightened concerns, and thats when StoryCorps decided to act. StoryCorps has always been about storytelling and helping people feel connected to one another. After noticing increasing feelings of us vs. them and hoping to help individuals see the inherent worth in every person, the StoryCorps team created One Small Step, she said.

A number of recent events, both in Charlottesville and at the national level, have highlighted the need for greater dialogue in American society and politics. Mahadevan emphasized the significance of the partnership in the local community and at UVA.

Charlottesville has been at the center of the national reckoning on racial and social justice, and UVA is uniquely positioned to help study and respond to the moment. One Small Step is an investment in the health of the community and our democracy, and we hope that people benefit from participating in meaningful engagements with one another, she said.

The Democracy Initiative views the partnership with One Small Step as a cornerstone of both its programming and its mission. Barnes noted how feedback from students shaped the decision to partner with One Small Step.

Two years ago, we asked UVA students about their views on democracys biggest challenges and the kind of work they hoped the Democracy Initiative would do, she said. During those sessions, a wide range of students consistently told us that theyre concerned about our democratic culture and are looking for more opportunities to engage a variety of viewpoints.

The partnership also represents an achievement for the UVA strategic plan. One of the key initiatives of the 2030 Plan is the Good Neighbor Program, which emphasizes increased collaboration and engagement between UVA and Charlottesville. The program, as well as the partnership, both look to highlight local challenges and the need for improved communication.

Barnes emphasized how the Democracy Initiative and One Small Step will look to engage the broader community on a range of topics.

We respect those who live, work and study in Charlottesville their experiences, perspectives and history and One Small Step is intended to capture the dialogue that follows when individuals have the opportunity to engage with one another, she said.

See the rest here:
UVA Democracy Initiative and StoryCorps to Focus on Tough Local Conversations - UVA Today

Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang is leaving the Democratic Party for a new way "Forward."

Yang hopped on the phone with Fox News on Thursday to discuss his new book, "Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy," his departure from the Democratic Party, and his push for the nation to adopt rank-choice voting.

"Our country is facing a lot of challenges, and I think that more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that were not being set up for success, starting with the fact that were being pitted against each other and see other Americans as our mortal enemies when theyre not," Yang told Fox News.

ANDREW YANG QUITS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, CALLS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Yang said his book reflects on his "experiences running for president," wanting to share what he "learned about both why it feels like we cant come together and then what we can do to change it."

The Democrat-turned-independent said he wanted people "to understand what its like to run for president" and for them "to understand why it feels like were stuck."

"Were stuck because the system is designed not to work, really," Yang said. "And if you have a system thats dysfunctional and designed not to work, then expecting it to work will actually make you more and more angry and frustrated over time."

"Whats needed is to actually change the system so that our legislators incentives are tied to us and our lives and how were doing and what we think as opposed to who its tied to right now," Yang continued.

Yangs new book coincides with his launch of a new political party, the Forward Party. He told Fox News he believes America needs "a third party" and compared a third party to an alternative to two companies.

"Im an entrepreneur and I want everyone to reflect on: If you showed up to a marketplace and there were two companies, and then 62% of people wanted an alternative to those companies," Yang said. "Wouldnt you want there to be at least a third choice? And I think a lot of Americans are on the same page."

"We can see that the current system is not working, that were losing a lot of common sense, that there should be a common-sense, middle-ground party," Yang continued. "And thats what the Forward Party is."

Yang also said his new party is an "inclusive popular movement" open to registered members of both parties.

In his blog post announcing his departure from the Democratic Party, Yang encouraged his supporters to stick with their respective parties, claiming they would become "disenfranchised" if they left due to the heavy presence of a single party in an area.

ANDREW YANG PROMOTES INCLUSIVE NEW THIRD PARTY, SLAMS CURRENT POLITICAL DUOPOLY: IT'S NOT WORKING

Yang stuck by his call for supporters to stick with their parties, saying the "practical truth" is that "many people, if they were to change their party registration, would have no ability to vote in any of their local elections."

"Again, that is the way the system is set up. Its unfortunate, but were not impractical at the Forward Party," he said. "Were not going to tell you, Hey, give up your ability to influence whats going on in your community. You can help the Forward Party achieve its goals and maintain current party registration."

"The goal is to make it so that you have a vibrant system that allows for more independents, but asking someone to reduce their ability to participate before we make that change is one of the reasons we have to work as quickly as we can," Yang added.

Yang also advocated for the national adoption of ranked-choice voting, saying the system enables people "to be able to vote for whoever you want and no one can accuse you of being a spoiler or wasting your vote."

The former Democrat claimed that "83%" of congressional elections are decided "before the general election in the primary" due to the seat being a safe seat for one party and that "most people don't even have two choices" in an election anymore.

"So if you have somewhere between one choice, which is not a real choice, which is where most people are, then you have a stuck system," Yang argued. "If you have ranked-choice voting, you can vote for whoever you want and, even if they only get like a handful of votes, then you're not hurting anyone because you can just rank the Republican or whomever second."

Yang also said that Americans are "being manipulated and being told that the problem is the other side" when the political system "is set up both to make us more and more upset over time and also not to make any meaningful progress on any of the issues that most Americans care about," which he revealed was a factor in his exit from the Democrats.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Yang told Fox News that his new party is already seeing support after its launch and that the party plans to "elevate" both Republican and Democratic candidates "who are for these principles of having a more vibrant democracy that reflects different points of view and gives every American regardless of party affiliation a say in their representation."

"Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy" hit the shelves Tuesday and can be found on Amazon.

Houston Keene is a reporter for Fox News Digital. You can find him on Twitter at @HoustonKeene.

See original here:
Andrew Yang explains why he's leaving the Democratic Party - Fox News