Mediaboss Marketing

Sundays article by James Carville provides an open window into how mean and vicious Democratic Party rhetoric is. One can begin with Carvilles assertion that There is only one moral imperative right now, for the fate of the American democracy: defeating Donald Trump. Thats all that matters.

Carville writes that to him it is plainly clear Trump is the most dangerous president in modern American history, that Trump is odious, has broken the law and is racist. Carville only needs to look in the mirror. This from a Waylon Jennings song "what I call my brother on, he has every right to call on me."

Carville vows to support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. Socialist Bernie Sanders? Socialist Elizabeth Warren? Clueless Pete Buttigieg? Corrupt Joe Biden? Any one of the socialist loose cannons roaming the halls of Congress like AOC?

Carville writes that he is simply looking out for the future of our country. Like heck! It is power they want and come hell and high water they will do anything to get it, as they attempted to do in the 2016 election.

Democrats will continue to bash Trump because he is outperforming beyond expectation. He is exposing the swamp as he said he would and that has them horrified.

Carville further believes that the Senate should have removed Trump from office and he should be shackled in a prison cell. Why? Because the Democrats say so? That they had the evidence to impeach him? Evidence is not proof. Evidence leads to the proof. Evidence based on lies, innuendoes, hearsay and half-truths prove nothing.

And that is all that the House Democrats had to impeach Trump, evidence that did not lead to the proof. If anything above the law occurred, it was the Houses impeachment trial. What a farce. And they claim the Senate trial was unfair.

Was it Trump that colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? No evidence to prove it. There is ample evidence Hillary and the DNC colluded against Trump to rig the 2016 election. Did Trump act out a quid pro quo with Ukraine? No factual evidence. There is evidence that proves Joe Biden did. There is also evidence that Ukraine tampered with the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Carville, democracy is bedridden, but far from being on life support. The type of support democracy needs is for Democrats to join the Republicans in solving national problems with health care, infrastructure, immigration reform and to end corruption in politics. One final disagreement, its Donald Trump and the Republican Party that is the only thing separating our country from the abyss.

TERRY DANTIN

professor emeritus

Thibodaux

See original here:
Letters: James Carville proves Democratic rhetoric is mean, their facts thin - The Advocate

President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden assures supporters the primary is still 'wide open' in lengthy phone call: report Warren: We are watching a descent into authoritarianism Collins: Trump 'angered by impeachment' MORE is a populist. He draws his strength from those who are angry with the way our government is working and tired of the pablum offered in lieu of authentic answers to problems real people face. In that sense, he provides a great service to our republic. He holds a mirror to the politics-as-usual crowd and what is seen is not pretty.

When James Madison University professor Dr. Dan Schill and I conducted the CNN focus groups for the 2016 election, our very first observation was that voters were angry. Some were angry about medical coverage, others over military benefits, some over issues like abortion, still others over tax burdens. Anger united them.

To many, eight years of Obama was a failed promise. That makes sense when you consider that expectation for how a black president would run the country were exceptionally high. Surely, he would change the way America is governed.

Surely he would right the wrongs of almost a hundred years of black under-representation and help women find their rightful place in leadership. It was expected that he would also hear the pleas of those whose voices were not heard. Try as he might and he did try eight years was insufficient to turn the tide. No doubt he had to play by the established rules of politics and in so doing became seen as just another politician.

The 2016 election showed that an insider even one as qualified as Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonCNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting Trump says he'll debate eventual Democratic nominee Bull meets china shop: Roger Stone controversy follows a familiar pattern MORE was not the answer. No, they wanted to change.

Into that mix came candidate Donald Trump. Love him or loathe him, he is a shrewd master of communication. Hes the one who took a show like The Apprentice and made it spectacle TV.

Hes the one who saved the dying sports wrestling industry and made it profitable again and while he was there, found that naming opponents essentialized them into perceptually defeatable characters (Little Mario, Low-Energy Jeb Bush, Rocketman, Pocahontas). Winning is addictive and perhaps nothing could be as luring to Trump as touting his successes.

Enter the populist president. The Art of the Deal made manifest in politics is an effective strategy for winning, but it has its costs. Populism is not defined by party affiliation, rather it is a particular strategy of expression. It begins by unifying the discontented until a rupture occurs in the political structure that leads to a deeper sense of animosity.

Studies of populist movements over time show this technique inevitably breeds contempt among leaders and followers alike. The movement defines itself as the underdogs and strikes at the powerful who are, of course, the source of most misery. The result is that the group becomes hostile, angry, and agitated. Although people have many sources of discontent, the populist unites them as a We people against a targeted source of our misery. In the past, communism, the demon rum and even racists/racism have been blamed for our national discontent.

We often lack an appreciation for the power of communication. The current populist movement would probably have emerged even if Donald Trump did not lead it. The conditions were right for someone to step forward. People are discontented and now they no longer feel alone but are empowered by a person who models that anger and resentment.

Unfortunately, that has led to our current crisis incivility. Most would agree there is a deep chasm in the country between various political ideologies and between their leaders.

The last couple of weeks bear witness of a fissure in our society.

Perhaps politics can be expected at a State of the Union address (although this year it seemed to be the State of Disunion), but the blatant challenges to the faith of others is a cutting sword.

When a president and Speaker of the House avoid shaking hands at a speech, well, thats politics. But to fail to shake hands and even avert the other at a prayer breakfast meant to unite that speaks to a wound that cannot be healed.

The keynote speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast was not President Trump, although, given the amount of news coverage he received, you might have thought so. The keynote speaker was Arthur Brooks.

Not so long ago, Brooks led a think tank working on conservative issues. If you havent read his book or listened to his podcast, you should. You may be inspired by his decision to leave politics-as-usual and make his lifes mission to heal our deep divisions. His seminal message at the prayer breakfast was to love one another.

He even asked the crowd of some 3,500 to do one thing: make a pledge to another person to stop the culture of contempt this election season by steadfastly refusing to enter into its practices. That is a message we can all use but it is ineffective in allaying the fears of populist movements.

So, is there a way out? Yes. And it originates with those in power. A mirror is now held up to those who govern. Problems are now being heard and need to be addressed. Much as you might be tempted to blame Trump, you can only blame him for taking advantage of a situation created by what is seen as an unresponsive ruling class.

Break the bonds between voter dissatisfaction by addressing their concerns directly. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) modeled that in her response to Trumps State of the Union address. As she showed, it takes more than words; it takes action. Blur the lines between us and them. Attack the problem, not the movements leader. This is not a winner-take-all strategy.

It preserves the tension between the government and the governed. It is a race to the middle where the steadfast movement toward a better society exists. It does not suggest that all problems are solvable, but that the effects will be lessened. Perhaps we should thank Trump for forcing us to take a look at ourselves. We can indeed do better.

Rita Kirk is director of the Maguire Center for Ethics & Public Responsibility as well as an Altshuler distinguished professor in Corporate Communication & Public Affairs at SMU Dallas.

Here is the original post:
Trump's mirror on democracy | TheHill - The Hill

BATAVIA Nate McMurray, making another run for the New York 27th Congressional District seat, officially received the backing of 27th District Democratic chairs Thursday night.

Party leaders in the district met in the Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites Conference Room to nominate McMurray, former Grand Island town supervisor, as their candidate for the April 28 special election. McMurray, who lost to former Congressman Chris Collins in 2018 by a little more than 1,000 votes, is running against state Sen. Chris Jacobs, the Republican nominee in the special election.

I want to say thank you. I know how hard this is to do, to come out here in the middle of the cold, first of all, and I want to thank all the chairs for all you do, McMurray told the Democratic leaders gathered.

We have a real chance here and I understand fully the obligation and the duty of being a two-time nominee at this crucial time in our countrys history, he said. I take it very seriously. I put my whole soul into it. I know that Im unorthodox sometimes, but Im certainly not reckless.

McMurray said the country needs a different way one that includes more people and respects more people.

Two months of intensity and then weve got six more months of intensity, he said, referring to the time leading up to both the special election and the general election. So everybody, are you ready? Lets do it!

After speaking to the group of party chairs, McMurray said the campaign should be a public process. He said he has asked Jacobs about debating.

I asked my opponent to have eight debates. He refuses to do it, McMurray said. If we had those debates, people would watch. Lets talk about the big ideas. Lets not call each other names. All he has is calling me names. Lets stop that. Come out in the open. Talk to me. Talk to the public.

The Democratic candidate said he needs the residents of the 27th District to say, Lets talk ideas, not name-calling.

Democracy is people power. The only people who can fix this situation are the people, McMurray said. I need the people to say, This is important. We cant simply go through the motions ... and not talk about the things that affect us. I will fight for health care for every single American. I will fight for Social Security. I will fight for Medicare and Medicaid things that President (Donald) Trump is cutting. Dont believe me, read his budget. Its in his budget.

At Thursdays meeting were the following Democratic Committee chairs: Michael Plitt (Genesee County), Judith Hunter (Livingston), Jeremy Zellner (Erie), Jeanne Crane (Orleans), Brittaney Wells (Monroe), Cynthia Appleton (Wyoming) and Francine DelMonte (Niagara County vice chair). Ontario County Chair John Hurley joined the meeting by phone.

Plitt said the vote was unanimous.

Nate was our person. Its his platform that hes going to protect Social Security. Hes going to work to improve health care, Plitt said. We just want representation, unlike with Chris Collins where we were really never represented. We want somebody whos going to fight for the 27th and not necessarily just the president.

The fork ratings are based primarily on food quality and preparation, with service and atmosphere factored into the final decision. Reviews are based on one unsolicited, unannounced visit to the restaurant.

Go here to read the rest:
McMurray gets Democratic nod for Congress in NY-27 - The Livingston County News

Brazils democratic institutions are under attack. Since taking office, the Jair Bolsonaro administration, helped by its allies on the far right, has systematically undermined cultural, scientific and educational institutions in the country, as well as the press.

Early on, prominent members of Bolsonaros political party started a campaign to encourage university and high school students to covertly film their teachers and denounce them for ideological indoctrination. This persecution campaign, ominously called School Without Party, created a sense of intimidation and fear in educational institutions in a country barely three decades out of an oppressive military regime. Last month, Bolsonaro suggested that the state should censor textbooks to promote conservative values.

The Bolsonaro administration has made it clear it will not tolerate deviation from its ultra-conservative politics and worldview. Last year the administration fired the marketing director of Banco do Brasil, Delano Valentim, for creating an ad campaign promoting diversity and inclusion, which was then censored by the government. Later that year, as Brazils Amazon forest burned at an alarming rate, Bolsonaros administration retaliated against scientists who dared to present facts. Ricardo Galvo, the former director of Inpe (National Institute for Space Research), was removed from his post for releasing satellite data on deforestation in the Amazon.

The government is also dangerously hostile to the media. On 21 January this year, the federal prosecutors office opened a baseless investigation into the American journalist Glenn Greenwald and his team for participating in an alleged conspiracy to hack the cellphone of Brazilian authorities. The prosecution, a clear attack on freedom of the press, was a response to a series of exposs that Greenwald and the Intercept published concerning possible corruption in Bolsonaros inner circle.

This is not an isolated case. Government officials throughout the country, from regional courts to the military police, have taken it upon themselves to ideologically defend Bolsonaro and curtail free expression. In 2019 alone, there were 208 reported attacks on media and journalists in Brazil.

On 16 January, Bolsonaro and the then special secretary for culture, Roberto Alvim, filmed a joint broadcast that laid out their ideological plans for the country. They praised the conservative turn and the resumption of culture in the country. The next day, Alvim went further: during a video segment to announce a new national arts award, he made apparent allusions to Nazi principles and lifted phrases from the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Domestic outrage and international condemnation caused Alvim to step down. But Alvim was merely giving voice to Bolsonaros far-right political project, which continues in full force: a continuous affront to freedom of expression, justified in the name of national culture. Public institutions that represent Brazils multicultural heritage the Superior Council of Cinema, Ancine, the Audiovisual Fund, the National Library, the Institute of National Historical and Artistic Heritage (Iphan) and the Palmares Foundation for Black Culture have faced censorship, funding cutbacks and other political pressure.

The Brazilian film-maker Petra Costa, director of the documentary The Edge of Democracy, currently has a chance of becoming the first female Latin American director to win an Oscar. Yet Bolsonaros secretary of communication recently used his official Twitter channel to disseminate a video attacking Costa as an anti-patriot spreading lies about the Bolsonaro government. Similarly, the feature films Bacurau, Invisible Life and Babenco received international acclaim at the Cannes and Venice film festivals, but Bolsonaro has declared that no good films have been produced in Brazil for a long time.

The Bolsonaro government is also working to reverse several important social achievements of the last two decades, including affirmative action. Between 2003 and 2017, the proportion of black students entering Brazilian universities increased 51%; the Bolsonaro regime wants to roll back this progress. Bolsonaro and his ministers routinely disparage ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community all while ignoring the violence and criminality of rightwing paramilitary militias.

This is a government that has no development plan for its people. Instead, the Bolsonaro regime is engaged in a dangerous culture war against contrived internal threats. It denies global warming and the burning of the Amazon, despises leaders who fight for the preservation of the environment, and disrespects the culture and environmental preservation carried out by indigenous communities.

We fear that these attacks on democratic institutions may soon become irreversible. Based on the most extreme and narrow conservative principles, Bolsonaros project is to change the content of school textbooks and Brazilian films, restrict access to funding for scholarships and research, and intimidate intellectuals, journalists and scientists. We ask the international community to:

Pressure Brazil to fully respect the universal declaration of human rights, and thereby respect freedom of expression, thought and religion.

Finally, we call on human rights bodies and the international press to put a spotlight on what is happening in Brazil. This is a grave political moment. We must reject the rise of authoritarianism.

View original post here:
Democracy and freedom of expression are under threat in Brazil - The Guardian

Americas two major political parties have collapsed.

The triumph of Donald Trump in 2016 was a sign of many things, but first and foremost it was a rejection of the Republican party by Republican voters. Democratic voters are poised to perform the same exorcism today using Bernie Sanders as their vehicle.

It is difficult to understate how radical these departures are.

The nomination of Trump in 2016 and the potential nomination of Sanders in 2020 would mean that both political parties turned their backs on their most recent two-term presidents. It would mean a wholesale rejection of everything each party had stood for as recently as a few years ago.

This is not normal.

Ronald Reagan is understood as having transformed the Republican party, but in the summer of 1980, he was actively discussing the possibility of having former president Gerald Ford join his ticket as the vice president. (Ford would go on to speak at the 1988 and 1992 Republican conventions.)

When George H.W. Bush ran for president in 1988, Reagan loomed over the entire affair as a promise to America that Bush would continue his legacy. Indeed, Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Ford remained beloved figures in Republican politics: Every four years the party would genuflect before their images at the national convention.

Once in a while a former nominee or president would hang in the background, or participate only by video, or appear as part of a B-roll package. But even when they skipped the convention, as George W. Bush did in 2012, they werent banished. The party embraced every former Republican president and nomineeBob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Right up until 2016.

In 2016 the only living former Republican presidential nominee willing to support Donald Trump was Dole. And Trump clearly wanted no part of them. Republican voters, asked to take sides in this divorce, threw in their lot with Trump. As a matter of style, ideology, and history, it was a complete rejection of Republicanism as it had existed as recently as eightor even fouryears prior. At a primary debate in South Carolina, Trump suggested he was willing to see George W. Bush impeached for the Iraq warand Republican voters sided with the Bad Orange Man.

To take it a step further: It is unlikely that any of the three former Republican presidential nominees alive today will ever be welcomed to speak at another Republican National Convention. Because the party has not just moved on from themit has turned its back.

This state of affairs would merely be an object lesson about the power of demagogues and the fragility of institutionsexcept that its happening again.

Four years ago, Barack Obama was universally beloved by Democrats. He was finishing an eight-year administration that was regarded by the party as hugely successful. There had been no wars; the economy had been steadily improving for nearly the entirety of his term; Obamas term had been decidedly liberal, if not overtly progressive.

Then Obamas hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton, lost the 2016 election. His vice presidents candidacy in the 2020 election is in deep trouble. And the favorite to win the nomination is a democratic-socialist who didnt even belong to the party until he decided to run against Hillary Clinton and whose campaign is fixed around an explicit rejection of the Obama era.

This is not normal, either.

Take Jimmy Carter. By just about every measure, he was a failed president. Yet the Democratic party never cast him out. Just four years after losing to Reagan, Carter was addressing the DNC from the podium in Chicago. He was welcomed back in 1988 and given a prime-time speaking slot in 1992 even as Bill Clinton was consciously transitioning the party away from Carters brand of 70s liberalism.

Bill Clinton was impeached and disgraced when his vice president, Al Gore, ran for the White House in 2000. Clinton was frustrated that Gore didnt use him more on the campaign trail, but it wasnt like the almost-former president was being disavowed: He delivered a major address at the 2000 convention in Los Angeles, to rapturous applause from the crowd. Then he was back at the 2004 convention. And 2008. And 2012. And 2016. Always the belle of the ball.

Historically, the Democrats have been less worshipful of their losersno one ever asked for Fritz Mondale or Mike Dukakis to come in for curtain calls. But in 2008, John Kerry was up on stage in Denver helping to put Obama over.

And Obama, obviously, did everything he could to help Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Yet here we are, four years later, and Democratic voters are moving toward a candidate who complains that no matter who is elected president, things always stay the same. Who complains about the party on whose ticket he is running. Who promises a revolution.

A serious question: If Bernie Sanders is the nominee, will Obama, or the Clintons, or any former Democratic presidential nominee attend the convention and speak on his behalf? Would Sanders even want them to?

After all, Bernies revolution is, explicitly, a revolution against them and the Democratic party they built.

Having one political party hijacked by an outsider with no ties to the partywho turns every living presidential nominee into a persona non gratawould be strange.

Having two of them hijacked in that manner would be indicative of something quite important.

Having these hijackings occur over a single four-year period should terrify us.

Political parties are mediating institutions. They temper passions within the electorate because they have entrenched, legacy structures of personnel and tradition and ideology. They are, in a sense, part of the democracy of the deadone of the mechanisms by which we give over parts of our agency in the present to the vast numbers of people who came before us, won triumphs, made mistakes, and learned lessons.

The story of our ageif I had a nickel for every time Ive written thisis the failure of our institutions.

But our political parties havent just failed. Theyve collapsed. Almost simultaneously.

Thats not good. But whats really bad is that the parties didnt just implode and disappear, leaving room for new institutions to flower and replace them.

No.

What has happened is that the parties have become zombie institutions, retaining the support personnel and dumb-pipe logistical power they once had, but without any connection to the traditions and ideologies that once anchored them.

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is really even a party anymore. Theyre both ghost ships, floating in the fog, waiting for some new pirate to come aboard and take control every four years so that they can use its abandoned cannons to go marauding.

If America were Sweden, none of this would really matter. But we are a country of 330 million souls, with the most dynamic economy on earth and the most disproportionate military advantage humanity has ever seen.

And we are in the process of knowingly destroying the political parties that make governing this leviathan in a responsible manner marginally possible.

The reason we should be terrifiedand I wish I had a nickel for this, toois not because of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. They are only symptoms.

All they did was ask their fellow Americans whether or not theyd like to destroy their political institutions. Its The People who said yes.

The problem is us. Always.

Link:
The Democratic Party Is Collapsing. Just Like the Republican Party Did. - The Bulwark