Mediaboss Marketing

Stand back and stand by. Democracy is on fire.

If Democratic politicians, anti-Trumpers and progressive activists have been sounding the alarm for years, the threat is now imminent, the danger close: American democracy faces its gravest constitutional challenge since the Civil War.

President Donald J. Trump has trounced so many democratic traditions, flouted so many of its customs and thwarted so many constitutional imperatives that the civic fabric is now torn to shreds, perhaps irreparably so. He wholly owns the Republican Party, whose pols have become nothing more than a cynical claque, reflexively bowing before the emperor, defending his deranged excesses. His attorney general, William Barr, serves as the presidents consigliere recasting the Department of Justice, designed to ensure full equality under the law to all Americans, as the enforcement arm for Trumps corrupt schemes and petty reprisals.

Now the president is loudly and repeatedly suggesting that he may not adhere to a bedrock principle of this republic, a founding pillar of Western democracy: the peaceful transfer of power in the event of his electoral loss. While his rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, insists that Trump would not dare defy that principle, I am less sure. He has defied every other without consequence. Why would he suddenly respect the U.S. Constitution in November?

Days after the disgraceful shout-fest that billed itself as a debate, Trump has still not had the decency to clearly and firmly rebuke violent white supremacist groups, including the Proud Boys. Instead of condemning them, he issued what many white domestic terrorists heard as a clarion call, a command: Stand back and stand by.

According to several published reports, white supremacist groups celebrated Trumps command online; the Proud Boys, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group, immediately incorporated the presidents call to "stand by" into their logo. And what is the moment for which they should be ready?

The president has spent months trying to undermine the integrity of elections, insisting that mail-in ballots result in overwhelming fraud and threatening to send "sheriffs" to monitor polling places. But he hadnt made those outlandish claims in as significant a forum as a presidential debate until last Tuesday.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked the president whether he would urge his supporters to avoid "civil unrest" while waiting for the election to be independently certified. Instead, Trump said, "Im urging supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully. If its a fair election, I am 100% on board. But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I cant go along with that."

In other words, he will go along with the expressed intent of the electorate only if he is the presumed winner. If Biden wins ... stand by.

In an alarming article in The Atlantic, writer Mike Giglio revealed the existence of several nationalist militias ready to take up arms if things dont go their way. Their concerns are eerily similar to the plans that Trump claims the "radical left" and its Antifa allies will inflict on the country if Biden is elected: confiscation of firearms, anti-Americanism in public schools, a Green New Deal that will destroy single-family housing. Giglios report reinforced testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray, who testified last month that "racially motivated violent extremism" has made up the majority of domestic terrorist threats.

While militias are gathering their AK-47s and bandoliers, other Trumpists are gathering their cellphone cameras to barge into election offices and polling stations to intimidate voters, as the president commanded. In mid-September, Trump supporters disrupted early voting at a polling station in Virginia, waving flags, blocking easy access and yelling, "Four more years!" Some voters and county election staffers reported that they were intimidated by the crowd.

Trumpists wave American flags, denounce those who take a knee during the playing of the national anthem and bray loudly about patriotism. But they dont respect the nations values. Neither does the president. So stand back and stand by. They want to burn our democracy down if they dont get their way.

Continue reading here:
Stand by to protect democracy - Times Union

Democracy is the freedom of choice. It is the freedom of change, and a key to be utilized to mold a brighter future. I see our democracy our ability to hold an opinion, popular or not. It is the skin that protects our vocal cords, and the microphone that keeps our voices from being drowned out. It secures our vote and allows us to use that vote to speak out against injustice. The most important part of our democracy is the respect it secures for our human rights, but in the end it is an opportunity, and that opportunity can be ignored. If we do not take the initiative to nurture and cultivate our democracy it will grow weak. Even a tool as powerful as democracy is worthless when left unused.

Aldon Aquarian, Cass High School, GA

The biggest threat to democracy is not being open to listening and hearing out someone, regardless of whether you want to agree or disagree with them. I feel that the nuances of many issues are lost in this way, as people are too quick to judge those different from them. Having healthy and open discussions with each other is the key to keeping our democracy alive. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy having conversations with people whose ideologies and opinions greatly differ from mine as I gain perspective and understanding

Lucy Wu, Valley Stream North High School

A few years ago I became passionate about the Israel Palestine conflict. I wanted to do anything I could to help so I began the search for an activism group that was seeking to help those most hurt by the conflict, the Palestinian peoples. I found a group called Kids for Peace and the next thing I knew I was on a plane to Washington, DC. I had two weeks there where we would meet with professors, religious members, and people who came from both sides of the issue. They were all able to help us form our strategy to convince Senators why they should support our emergency relief bill for residents in the conflict area. We spent days in congress lobbying to dozens for Representatives and Senators trying to convince them to help those we thought needed it the most. A few months after the trip we heard the news that $50 million in aid had been approved. It was extremely rewarding for me to know that something that I took part in would go on to help so many people who didnt have a voice of their own.

Summit Sularz, Burlington, VT

Mr. Lewis echoes Martin Luther Kings sentiment about having a moral obligation to speak up and act when we see injustice. I agree with this idea, as tolerating injustice leads to a passive society that is willing to make minimal reforms to flaws in its political system. Many ordinary people have been speaking out against injustices. Currently, attention is being drawn to the racism in the United States justice system I participated in direct action against anti-black racism through protests, monetary contributions to organizations, and introspection into my own racial biases. However, becoming an anti-racist is a lifelong process, and I will have to continue to make efforts throughout my entire life.

Karina Johnston, Glenbard West HS

My generation has turned to their platforms to inform about topics including racial justice, climate change, COVID updates, economic issues, womens rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and the Trump administration Although social media is a great informative tool, the real work the work of Dr. King and John Lewis and the strengthening of democracy takes place in ones house, community, school, place of worship, workplace, and, most importantly, at the polls and in the legislative process. For underage people, there are various ways to contribute: become a poll worker, help the campaigning process, advocate for policies in local government, engage in voter education, encourage older peers to vote, research candidates, volunteer to help register people to vote, etc. For those over 18, they can and should use their vote. This is how we rise to the challenges. This is how we strengthen our democracy.

Caitlin Baln, South Burlington, Vermont

I believe that my generation is doing its part to maintain democracy in the United States. Since the Black Lives Matter movement took off to the levels it did in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, people in my grade have been voicing their opinions on the things that need to be changed in our society on a daily basis. They have been using platforms like Instagram and Facebook to voice their opinions on the ongoing injustice in our country. Even though they still do not have the right to vote yet, they still have voiced their opinions through social media the exact thing that civil rights icon John Lewis called on our generation to do. Lewis said that he knew he wanted to fight for change from the young age of fifteen, which is about the age that people in Gen Z are right now. Democracy, by definition, is allowing the people to have a say in social issues, and people voicing their opinions on social issues is the perfect example of democracy, as the great leader John Lewis did before his recent death.

Sam Casas, Glenbard West HS, Glen Ellyn, IL

I believe that our generation has risen up to the challenges that Mr. Lewis described in his essay. Especially in the past few months, all around the country our generation has taken part in and organized protests against police brutality and the social injustices we see in our country today. Our generation is using social media, which the past generations did not have as much access too, to make sure that our voices are heard and accounted for. Senator Lewis was strongly against violence and I believe our generation is doing a good job of peacefully protesting for change. With the 2020 election approaching this November, our generation is pushing everyone who is eligible to vote to do so, doing their part to strengthen the democracy and let their voices be heard. Our generation still has a lot of work to be done: however, I believe Generation Z is on the right track.

Jack Hasselbach, Burlington, VT

Continued here:
What Students Are Saying About Democracy, Caring For Plants and Flights to Nowhere - The New York Times

Pro-democracy protests are growing in size in Thailand, with demonstrators seizing on the momentum to challenge the legitimacy of their playboy sovereign.

Since July 18, protesters have amassed daily in Bangkok, demanding free elections, a new constitution, and an end to the harassment of activists by the military. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people rallied at the city's Democracy Monument on Sunday, according to reports.

In recent weeks, reform of the monarchy has joined the list of demands for manydemonstrators.

The country has operated as a constitutional monarchy since 1932 after a revolution ended absolute rule.

Many people in Thailand do not dare to criticize their monarchy due to the country's strict lse-majest laws, which make it illegal to insult, defame, or threaten any member of the royal family. Criticizing the monarchy is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

King Rama X has come under attack in recent months for fleeing the country during the coronavirus pandemic.

Thailand's King Maha Vajiralongkorn presents a gift to his queen Suthida at Ampornsan Throne Hall in Bangkok at their wedding on May 1, 2019. Bureau of the Royal Household via AP

King Rama acceded to the throne in 2016, but has spent large chunks of his rule in Europe.

He has been in Germany since at least March. Multiple news outlets reported earlier this year that he was waiting out the pandemic with 20 female companions in a four-star hotel in the the Bavarian Alps.

After news of King Rama's flight, the hashtag #WhyDoWeNeedAKing began trending on Thai-language Twitter.

Last Wednesday, members of the Free People protest group held a press conference where they reiterated their demands for the government, but did not directly attack the monarchy.

The group said their dream of a constitutional monarchy "is possible under the constitutional process in a democratic system which gives power to the people," the Bangkok Post reported.

"Once the constitution is rewritten, every true demand of the people will be spoken of and recognized," they added.

"Moreover, under the constitution, all are equal without any exception."

King Rama X of Thailand. Getty Images

Critics of the country's 2017 constitution say it is weak and allowed Prayut Chan-o-cha, the current military-backed prime minister who oversaw the new constitution, to win the 2019 election with ease.

The law preventing criticism of the monarchy has led to protesters using Harry Potter references as a front for their discontent.

As Insider's Jacob Sarkisian previously reported, they dressed up straw man as Voldemort, the villain of the novels, and carried banners urging the removal of "he who must not be named.

Pro-human rights protesters carried signs reading "trans witches are witches" and "trans wizards are wizards."

Here is the original post:
Thai protests swell, mocking King Rama and challenging the monarchy - Insider - INSIDER

It is easy to dismiss a Green politician campaigning for a fair voting system as self-interested, but this is not about my job, my party having a fair share of power, or even the gross injustice of my vote in parliamentary elections having been trodden into the dirt in every election over the past 40 years. It is about claiming the right to live in a democracy: that is a duty not just for me but for every British citizen.

The impact on the Green Party of first-past-the-post (a horse-race, not a democratic ballot) is made clear in the Electoral Reform Societys analysis of the 2019 general election Voters Left Voiceless, showing that a full 98.5% of Green votes were ignored, i.e. had no impact on the final outcome and 96.2% of Green votes were unrepresented, i.e. were cast for candidates who were not elected. It takes more votes to elect a Green than to elect a politician from any of the parties in the Westminster Parliament. According to analysis by the House of Commons Library, In 2019 the Conservatives got one seat for every 38,264 votes, while Labour got one seat for every 50,837 votes. It took many more votes to elect a Lib Dem (336,038) and Green MP (866,435), but far fewer to elect an SNP MP (25,883).

First-past-the-post elections are what a game theorist would call repeated games: as somebody who supports a party that is neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee you get the opportunity to be beaten up repeatedly. We can all recall the feeling that comes when a general election is announced: first the excitement unavoidable for a political hack, and then the sense of doom at what the two-party squeeze will do to you and your voters. The outrage of tactical voting voting against your interests and your better judgement because the electoral system forces you to is a torture unique to majoritarian systems like ours. It is a torture that should be put back in the middle ages where it belongs. As 21st-century British citizens we should have the right to make a free choice at elections what else can democracy mean if not that?

This bruising experience also explains why Greens have been at the forefront of building cross-party cooperation. In 2017 we made the case for a Progressive Alliance, an electoral kamikaze strategy that gave our loyal voters an excuse to abandon us when the two-party squeeze came on. In 2019, we were part of the pro-Brexit Unite to Remain process, with the Liberal Democrats standing aside for us in 10 seats, including my own in Stroud. As a proof of concept for cross-party cooperation this was powerful, but without Labour we didnt have sufficient power to shift any seats.

So why do Labour repeatedly refuse such cooperation even when, as the data above show, their votes are also under-represented by an electoral system that works primarily for the Tories? During the fevered election campaign in Stroud I was amazed to hear a Labour councillor I had worked with closely saying that our cooperation on the local council would be blown apart unless I stood down, depriving the thousands of Green voters in Stroud of the right to make a free choice. At the time I dismissed this as absurd hyperbole but I now see it as an insight into Labour party thinking.

Many Labour MPs will say that they support proportional representation, but their party policy is still to support the first-past-the-post system, a position that Yanis Varoufakis has called contemptible. But it is not irrational. Labour are consciously choosing to allow these dangerous Conservatives to hold power because they fear loss of the power granted to them by the two-party system. No doubt their private polling confirms what analysis by ERS for the Green Party makes clear: 8% of Labours voters in 2019 would have voted Green under a fair electoral system.

The Electoral Reform Society ran an interesting statistical analysis projecting seats if people had expressed their preference under an Additional Member System (Like the Scottish parliament). It suggested that the Green Party would have achieved 38 parliamentary seats and that AMS would have knocked the Tories back to 284 seats, depriving them of an overall majority and making a coalition government essential. I would choose such a Parliament and a non-Tory coalition government; but Labour would rather let the Tories into power than share power.

Because in my South West home citizens choose to exercise their right to vote for a range of parties, more votes are thrown away by our anti-democratic system here than anywhere else. The Electoral Reform Society used a metric to demonstrate this called the DV score showing the extent to which an election result deviates from proportionality, i.e. from what it would look like if seats were proportional to votes gained by each party. In England, this DV score is highest in the South West at 34.6 compared with 17.5 for England as a whole, indicating that a third of the seats in our region were unearned, and unearned by Tories who ruthlessly exploited the first-past-the post system to hold 48 of the 55 seats in our region on barely more than half the vote. Ironically, given that Labour continue to refuse to support proportional representation in spite of increasing pressure, it is Labour voters who are more disenfranchised than voters for any other party.

The partys review of the 2019 election was honest about the scale of the task ahead of Labour in winning in 2024: they will need to make 82 net gains for even the slimmest of parliamentary majorities, with a rise in Labour support as large as that seen in 1997. The sad thing is that Labour still believe they must go it alone, set on taking this risk against massive odds rather than cooperating with others. We simply cannot risk the damage this will do to our country and must all mobilise for a united front in the next general election. This could be based around a shared platform of constitutional reform and a pre-election arrangement so that only one candidate supporting these vital reforms was opposing the Tory in each constituency.

Of course, when we talk about electoral reform we are just at the tip of the iceberg of the fundamental transformation that our political system is crying out for. The absurd mash-up of toffs and cronies in the House of Lords is even more anachronistic, even more anti-democratic. And the absence of a written constitution means that authoritarian politicians like Johnson can try it on with ruses like proroguing Parliament, hoping the apathy or weariness of the people will allowing the outrage to pass. I would also support much wider use of citizens assemblies as an addition to, not a substitute for, representative democracy, as they were used in the Irish abortion referendum. The exact content of the joint platform for constitutional transform is open to debate. The urgent necessity of agreeing it is transparently clear.

In their book How Democracies Die, US political scientists Levitsky and Ziblatt give examples of how, in various different societies, democracy was saved by politicians who were committed to it putting their differences aside and working together in the interests of the democratic system itself. In the UK our task is somewhat different: we need democrats to come together to build democracy for the first time in the UK. As Gandhi said when asked what he thought of British civilization: I think it would be a good idea.

Read more:
Progressives must rally together to demand democracy - Open Democracy

The political and ideological project being implemented by Polands populist governing party, Law and Justice (PiS), has a long way to run. The re-election of the partys candidate Andrzej Duda to the presidency last month has merely ushered in a new chapter and it will be even more demanding for liberals than what went before.

International attention may be focused on Belarus, but in Poland, ministers have just announced an autumn agenda which involves a simultaneous attack on the judiciary and the independent media. It coincides with intensifying pressure on the LGBT+ community in the form of verbal assaults from PiS figures. Demonstrations in cities across the country against the pre-trial jailing of an LGBT+ activist have led not to dialogue, but to the heavy-handed arrests of dozens more.

Yet Duda, who stood on an anti-LGBT+ platform, ended his campaign with a puzzlingly emollient statement. If anyone felt offended by my action or words during these [last] five years, not only in the campaign, he said, please accept my apologies.

His side ran a brutal campaign. Not a single impartial report about an opposition candidate was carried by the main state television news programme in the run-up to the vote. Dudas main opponent, Rafa Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, was routinely dehumanised and lied about.

So why was Duda apologising? Some observers assumed that he wanted to signal a genuine change, a wish to heal the polarisation in Polish society. In our view, Dudas words carried less the spirit of Gandhi than Oscar Wilde, whose advice was to always forgive ones enemies, because nothing annoys them so much.

Dudas speech was another scene in a long-running piece of theatre that has played out since 2015, orchestrated by Jarosaw Kaczyski who leads PiS. Since this spectacle began, the Polish media have poured out endless streams of vitriol about the judiciary or minorities including refugees and the LGBT community. In requesting forgiveness, Duda was signalling that not everything said before the vote should be treated seriously.

But his statement itself should be taken seriously. It is a sign of our political times. Moreover, this is where Poland usefully illustrates a broader global phenomenon that we could call populistainment.

The phenomenon applies as much to Donald Trump, Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdoan or Thierry Baudet, the leader of the populist Forum for Democracy in the Netherlands. Essentially, it means that the media becomes a theatre for an ongoing performance aimed at capturing and keeping the audiences attention.

Of course, entertainment is nothing new in politics. The citizens of Rome were distracted by bread and circuses. In the 1990s, prominent politicians started to literally perform (Bill Clinton playing the saxophone), disco dance (Aleksander Kwaniewski), or simply import showbusiness into politics via television (Silvio Berlusconi). Some academics used the term politainment to characterise that era.

Populistainment is a new stage in this process. If democratic politicians in the past used entertainment to warm up their image and appear more human to better to sell their ideas, populistainment turns that on its head. In the populist playbook, entertainment eclipses ideology and such traditional political activity as building party structures. Social media turbocharges the trend and takes it on to another level.

It should be stressed that this new form of political entertainment does not necessarily mean amusing the audience. The comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Ukraine showed that entertainers do sometimes win elections. But populistainment can also involve arousing fear, outrage and contempt.

The PiS strategy in Poland is a classic example. Whether raising alarm by claiming that the opposition will remove child support or by scapegoating LGBT people, Germans or Jews, the PiS has since 2015 ensured it commands public attention at all times. The party strategy is twofold: first leap forward by attacking someone, then leap back and a call for responsibility and community. Duda recently did exactly this: after attacking LGBT people, he called for tolerance just days later.

The most fundamental consequence of populistainment is the marginalisation of truth in the public discourse.

Research by a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology on true and false news disseminated via Twitter proves that false rumours affect not only elections, but economic and investment decisions. On an unprecedented scale, politicians are competing for public attention. Populistainment is changing not only our politics, but our world in general.

This is not just a question of political style. Populists like Kaczyski, Hungarys Viktor Orbn, and Trump also have a political agenda. They want to subordinate state institutions and the media to their parties or a small circle of power. In Poland, populistainment is used as a veil for the overhaul of the judiciary, just as the PiS version of democracy is used as a veil for authoritarian behaviour. Populists know from neuroscience that serving up dopamine is one of the best ways to keep our easily bored brains hooked. They deliberately turn public debate into a chaos of inflamed emotions, defensive reactions and rumours.

And he populists strategic use of entertainment to win poses a fundamental challenge to defenders of liberal democracy. Calling populists fascists and authoritarians stopped making an impression on voters long ago. However justified, it became repetitive, uninteresting and therefore, unfortunately, ineffective. If liberal democrats dont learn about the power of spectacle in the era of dopamine politics, they will fade into irrelevance. And if populism is about creating a spectacle that depicts liberal democracy falling apart, liberalism must provide an alternative spectacle.

Issues-based campaigns, focused on positive ideas for the future are an option. Trzaskowski tried this in the Polish presidential race, with his New Solidarity slogan, an idea meant to be unifying and hopeful. After his defeat, Trzaskowski announced plans to build a social movement. Whether or not he succeeds depends on whether he will be able to provide a robust and inspiring alternative to the reactionary PiS vision for Poland.

Another solution is to have the courage to speak about the things that cause public discontent, fear and frustration. Populists are not afraid to speak about peoples emotions and often win because of it. Liberals should not try to manipulate emotions, but rather work with them. Fear can be translated into courage, loss into hope, and anxiety into creativity.

Unless the PiSs opponents can provide their own winning vision along with a healthy dose of entertainment, they risk losing the chance to shape Polands future for at least the next decade. Globally, liberals risk the same fate.

Jarosaw Kuisz is a historian, editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Karolina Wigura is a historian, political editor of the Polish weekly Kultural Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Visit link:
In Poland we've become spectators at the dismantling of democracy - The Guardian