Mediaboss Marketing

When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total.

President Trump uttered these words at a news conference on April 13. Who knows how much he meant them? They were a seeming inversion of recent partisan politics as much as a false reading of the U.S. Constitution. As a friend of mine quipped, In what world do we live where Democrats advocate for local and state authorities, and Republicans are for expansive national authority against states rights?

Advertisement

But Mr. Trump may have spoken for many world leaders.

Around the world, governments are taking on new powers in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Elections have been postponed in at least 50 countries around the world. Governments have won expanded surveillance powers to monitor infected individuals in China, South Korea, Singapore and Israel. And there are new limits on freedom of speech (ostensibly to stop disinformation about the pandemic) in places like Hungary and Thailand. In Chile, Serbia and other countries, the military has been deployed to enforce public order.

[Explore all of Americas in-depth coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]

The temporary expansion of such powers is often necessary. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and even democracies sometimes need swift and robust responses from executive leaders and agencies. President Lincolns expansion of executive power and actions like the suspension of habeas corpus arguably saved the Union during the Civil War. But the violations of free speech and mass arrests by the federal government during the red scares after World War I and World War II seem less defensible in retrospect.

There is rarely a guarantee that new powers will be ceded after a crisis is over, and in some cases, the crisis may be used as a pretense for long-desired moves toward authoritarianism. The most-discussed example during the pandemic has been Hungarys Viktor Orban. The Hungarian prime minister is now essentially ruling by decree, with no oversight by the National Assembly and elections suspended indefinitely. And some of the powers granted to him by the Assembly seem to have little to do with the public health crisis, including enhanced control over the press.

Safety or public health crises should not become a pretext to tear down democratic institutions and practices, but that is often precisely what they are used for. They are what some social scientists call critical junctures: moments of fluidity and uncertainty when political actors can change institutions to their liking. In situations where the normal rules no longer seem to apply, the people in power can create their own rules.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by Americas writers and editors.]

It is admittedly hard to regulate when and how such emergency powers are used. By their very nature, such powers must often be broad and indeterminate. But we must define limits.

Carl Schmitt, a political theorist who supported the Nazi regime in Germany, is famous for his notion of a sovereign as he who decides the exception. This terse formula means that in moments of crisis, when the written rule of law is deemed inadequate for governance, the true sovereign brushes aside the liberal trappings of separation of powers, parliamentary democracy and so forth. That is, a great leader can and must act on his own will. His will is not bound by the law; it is the law.

But this theory, often called decisionist because of its emphasis on the decisions of romanticized leaders, fetishizes the will to the exclusion of reasonand especially the will of a strongman who seeks to remedy all the deficiencies, real and imaginary, of democracy. Such theories also normalize apocalyptic thinking: framing a theory of governance based upon the most extreme circumstances.

National governments should do what they think best in crises. This does not necessarily mean suspending democratic norms. Germany, for example, has been expanding testing for the coronavirus and vigorously enforcing social-distancing rules without having to give more policy-making powers to Chancellor Angela Merkel. But when a crisis calls for giving a national leader wider latitude, oversight and electoral accountability are key.

Legislatures and courts should do what they can to supervise the executives use of expanded powers, such as imposing sunset provisions that require the regular reauthorization of such powers. Looking to the post-pandemic future, they should investigate not only how those powers were used (or misused) but also how their countries can be better prepared for future pandemics.

But without such oversight, the truth of Mr. Trumps statement will come out. As the political scientist Greg Weiner said on Twitter, The thing is, his authority *is* empirically absolute if Congress or, here, governors decline to exercise countervailing power.

Mr. Weiner is pointing out the obvious: Throughout U.S. history, the presidency has grown in moments of crisis, most recently with the response after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to terrorism, and at each step of the way, Congress has been most obliging, through statutory delegation or the failure to exercise its oversight role. And as Mr. Weiner implies, a federal political system only works if state governments fight against the centralization of power in Washington, D.C. In other words, even if you disagree with some of the actions of, say, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, you should be grateful that he is offering a countervailing force to the national government.

That brings us to the most fundamental source of democratic accountability: voters. In nations with functioning democratic institutions, it will ultimately be up to voters to hold elected officials accountable for their use of power. But while Westerners sometimes view voters as atomized individuals, in fact they are part of families, neighborhoods, unions, parishes and other civil society groups. These are the forms of social life that so many around the world have missed during the pandemic, and hopefully the gradual end of social distancing will lead to their renewal. They will be needed to debate the policies enacted in response to the pandemic and to ensure that democratic values are restored and respected.

Recent decades have not been kind to democracy, and the pandemic threatens another rollback. It should be a clarion call for citizens around the world to take a more active role in the shifting fortunes of democracy in their countries and for international actors to play a supporting role in places where the absence of effective civil rights and liberties prevent an active civil society.

See the original post here:
Around the world, democracy is at risk from the coronavirus - America Magazine

First, consider the bold display of guns along with the presence of far-right militia groups. Disturbing photos of men carrying assault rifles suggest meanings far beyond an assertion of the right to bear arms. Instead, these acts create an atmosphere of threat. I read them as a statement about the readiness to use violence as a political tool.

Poll: Most WA voters wary of reopening economy too soon

Some speakers made explicit threats. Take, for example, state Rep. Robert Sutherland, a Republican from Granite Falls, who spoke at the rally in Olympia on April 19 with a pistol tucked into his pants. Sutherland warned the governor, You send men with guns after us when we go fishing, well see what a revolution looks like. He then added, You send your goons with guns, we will defend ourselves. At a protest at the Arizona state Capitol, a speaker was recorded threatening violence against Democrats, should they not be voted out of office.

I am not alone among my friends who fear that if Trump loses the November election, violence will follow. In a country that has already experienced multiple deadly eruptions of politically motivated and hate-filled violence, any mixture of a display of armed force with a political event should be loudly condemned. I could find no statements from the network of right-wing organizations promoting the protests that disassociate themselves from the brandishing of weapons.

Never forget how violence has been used throughout history as a technique to terrorize subjected peoples, intimidate opposition, create an atmosphere of crisis and acquire power. Violence should be understood as a crucial instrument of far-right movements. Fascists in the 20th century employed violence with great success.

Second, although stated in a way that relies on plausible deniability, Trumps tweets calling on protesters to LIBERATE Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia should be viewed as incitements to violence. Gov. Jay Inslee got it right in responding that Trumps statements are fomenting domestic rebellion and could lead to violence. Weve seen it before, he added.

Yes, we have from Trump himself on several, well-documented occasions. I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldnt lose any voters, he once declared. Trump wasnt asserting a legal point that as president he could not be prosecuted; he directly linked an imagined act of violence to his popularity. Last year, he warned that his supporters among the police, military and bikers dont play it tough until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. On the campaign trail in 2016, he urged people to beat the crap out of protesters. At a rally for a state senator in Missouri in 2018, Trump said his opponents were lucky that were peaceful. Inslee understands that when gun-toting demonstrators are encouraged by the president, they gain legitimacy and momentum. Lone terrorists have already taken the cue.

Finally, we need to ask: Liberate from what? Everyone wants the lockdowns to end. The right-wing Trump agenda, however, attempts to turn our collective suffering into resentment directed at Democratic governors. It is one dimension of a larger politics aimed at the so-called deep state, claimed to be an oppressive force that robs individuals of their liberties and personal responsibility. Democratically controlled state governments not Trumps failure of leadership are now held responsible for the painful consequences of state efforts to mitigate the pandemic.

At bottom, the radical demand to reopen the economy in spite of public health entreaties relies on an implicit and unstated brutality. How many people would the radical reopeners be willing to sacrifice? How many parents and grandparents would be allowed to perish? How many medical workers and other first responders? How many Black and Latino citizens? Are they simply in denial or have they adopted the ruthless logic of social Darwinists and eugenics? Thankfully, most Americans want the restrictions to continue until safety can be assured.

Lets not confuse the need to reopen the economy as soon as humanely possible with the crass opportunism of these far-right and Trump-promoted protests. In a life-threatening and life-taking pandemic, our first obligation is to protect the healthy and treat the sick. Social solidarity requires protection of the most vulnerable among us, as well sustainable cash assistance and food aid to the millions of people hurt by the shutdowns.

Lastly, may we embrace the radical hope that the lessons of social solidarity will stay with us beyond our present crisis. Are the demands for economic and racial justice, and preventing climate catastrophe,any less urgent? Or the need to confront those who would destroy our democracy in service of power and greed?

Once again we must reclaim the prophetic voice of Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1967 called upon Americans to end the unjust and life-destroying Vietnam War: We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.

Read more here:
Opinion | Protesting stay-at-home orders threatens our health and democracy - Crosscut

One of the few positive features of the coronavirus pandemic is that oil prices have fallen to lower levels than at any time since 1999. Low oil prices are good for democracy, peace and economic growth.

From the Gulf War in 1980 until 2000, oil prices were low, lingering around $18-$20 per barrel. This was a wonderful period. The world went through the third wave of democratization, as Samuel Huntington named it. This democratization started in southern Europe independently of the oil prices. But in the 1980s the Latin American military dictatorships collapsed in external debt crises caused by low commodity prices, and from 1989-1991 democratization took off in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

But how do low oil prices breed democracy? By and large, rich states are democratic with good rule of law, but there are exceptions. The seven steady exceptions of relatively rich countries that are authoritarian are Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Singapore. Singapore is a tiny anomaly, led by an authoritarian leader who appears to have been honest and wanted to do good for his people, while the other six are typical authoritarian kleptocracies, where the ruler thinks of only himself and his relatives.

Concentrated oil incomes breed authoritarianism. Part of the explanation is that after they have been established, oil revenues require little work, making it is easy for a ruler to seize oil rents. To the extent that a dictator distributes oil rents to his underlings, it appears charitable. People all too easily accept that oil rents belong to the monarch. If a government is being financed through taxes on the citizens, people demand much more from the government.

The empirical evidence is strong. In 2017, the authoritative non-governmental organization measuring democracy, Freedom House, reported that it was the12th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Over the period since the 12-year global slide began in 2006, 113 countries have seen a net decline, and only 62 have experienced a net improvement. When oil prices are high, authoritarian kleptocracies thrive and consolidate their power.

Fortunately, commodity prices do not stay high forever. Commodities move in long-term cycles of 25-35 years. From 1981-2000, oil prices were low, but then they rose and stabilized at a high level from 2001-2014. Finally, in 2014 oil prices collapsed and now they are likely to stay at a low level for a decade or so regardless of what OPEC does.

The world experienced a massive commodity boom from around 2000 until 2014. The underlying condition was Chinas enormous investment in infrastructure that consumed 30-50 percent of major raw materials. Admittedly, Chinas share of oil consumption is less, but Chinas big investment drive propelled the global demand for most commodities. Today, no similar demand for commodities is apparent, suggesting that oil and other commodity prices are likely to stay low for years.

A long-lasting low oil price will have major global consequences. It is a destabilizing force. When oil prices fall, fragile authoritarian kleptocracies tend to collapse. At present, quite a few relatively developed and diverse but authoritarian oil states look vulnerable, notably Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Russia. The destabilization of any of these authoritarian states would probably be good for democracy.

The weakening of the oil states would also be good for peace, because few spend as much on armaments or pursue as aggressive a foreign policy as they. If oil price stays low, would Russia and Iran be able to afford the wars in Syria? Or would Saudi Arabia continue its unsuccessful but very cruel war in Yemen. And would the many involved parties really care about fighting in Libya if its oil is no longer valuable? Probably not. All the aggressive parties, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia would have fewer resources to pursue such foreign wars.

Lower oil prices would also have beneficial effects in the West. In the United States, the oil billionaires overwhelmingly oppose climate change. If a few of them go bankrupt, they would not be able to spend all that much money on their opposition to climate change policies, and the U.S. would be likely to adopt more sensible climate policies. It is argued that higher oil prices would reduce the consumption of oil, but that is not quite true. The oil importing countries in Europe have far higher oil prices than the United States because of high oil taxes. If the U.S. oil lobby is weakened, the United States could introduce carbon taxes, which would reduce the U.S. usage of fossil fuels.

Low oil prices are also good for economic growth. High oil prices breed rents, and rents usually go to vainglorious conspicuous consumption of the very rich rather than to investment, taxes, public expenditures and public goods.

The obvious policy conclusion is that the United States must not bail out Big Oil. At present, several proposals are being discussed, all of which run against ordinary free market principles. One idea is to regulate the transportation and thus production of oil, giving an advantage to the production of expensive oil. Why would anybody do that? Another bad idea is to prohibit the importation of oil or introduce high import tariffs. Why should ordinary Americans suffer in order to further enrich the wealthy oil barons? A third proposal is to bail out the big loss-making oil companies, as might already be the case. The richest and most harmful should not receive public funding or any other form of state protection. Public funds should go to people, the poor and unemployed, not to wealthy or inefficient corporations.

Thus, let us hope for a decade of low energy prices.

Anders slund is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. His latest book is Russias Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.

Excerpt from:
Low oil prices are good for democracy and peace | TheHill - The Hill

The first major crisis of the post-American world is ugly and is going to get worse. A pandemic required a pan-planet reaction. Instead it found Pangloss in the White House blowing smoke and insisting, as disaster loomed, that it was still the best of all possible worlds in America.

Theres not been even a hint of an aspiration of American leadership, Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister, told me. That is fundamentally new.

It is. The worlds American reference point has vanished. The prize for greatest disappearing act of the coronavirus crisis goes to Mike Pompeo, the American secretary of state.

Into the global vacuum has stepped, well, nobody. No amount of flag-waving Chinese officials disembarking from planes onto European soil with offers of masks and ventilators can obscure the fact that all this began with a biological Chernobyl in Wuhan, covered up for weeks as a result of the terror that is the currency of dictatorships.

The Asian powers that have emerged best from this disaster are the medium-size democracies of South Korea and Taiwan. The great competition of despots and democrats for the upper hand in the 21st century is still open.

The Great Depression that began in 1929 produced two distinct results on either side of the Atlantic. In the United States, it led, beginning in 1933, to Roosevelts New Deal. In Europe, it led to Hitlers rise to power in the same year, the spread of fascism, and eventually devastation on an unimaginable scale.

This time, as the coronavirus stops production and leaves more than 26 million Americans newly unemployed while in Europe it causes salaries to be nationalized, in the words of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the effects of an economic collapse not seen in almost a century may be flipped.

Donald Trumps United States, which the German magazine Der Spiegel now calls the American patient, is ripe for an authoritarian lurch.

Awash in Trumps lies, battered by the virus, buried in incompetence, lacerated by division and ruled by a lunatic unbound, the country approaches an election in November whose theft, subversion or postponement are credible scenarios. Nothing in Trumps psyche allows him to conceive of defeat, his familys prospects out of power are dim and crisis is the perfect pretext for a power grab. War and this pandemic has similarities to one fosters executive aggrandizement, as James Madison warned.

Trump embodies the personal and societal collapse he is so skilled in exploiting. Insult the press. Discredit independent judges. Remove the checks. Upend the balances. Abolish truth. Pocket the system step by step. Mainline Lysol. Dictatorship 101.

Europe is a different story. Its division between the prosperous north and the poorer south sharpened by the pandemic, and its fracture line between the democracies of Western Europe and the illiberal or authoritarian systems of Poland and Hungary further exposed, the continent faces a severe test of its capacity for unity and solidarity. It has underperformed, but I would not write it off.

The initial European reaction to the pandemic was weak Lombardy will not soon forget its abandonment and the European Unions response to the March 30 assertion of near-total autocratic power by the Hungarian leader, Viktor Orban, was pathetic, equivalent to appeasement.

For the Union to commit to providing billions of dollars in aid to Hungary through the Corona Response Investment Initiative on the very day Orban began ruling by decree for an indefinite period was mad, bad and dangerous, as Jacques Rupnik, a French political scientist, told me. Orban is a politician Trump admires.

But in Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, Europe has again discovered a leader inspiring in her candor and sanity and steadiness. Cometh the hour, cometh the woman.

European societies, with their buffering welfare states that are covering the wages of laid-off workers and providing universal health care, are better prepared than the United States for a disaster on this scale. Governments and the European Central Bank have now mobilized massive resources.

Macron, in an interview with The Financial Times, has made the argument that the virus should ultimately reinforce multilateralism and herald the return of the human over the economic or, roughly interpreted, European solidarity over American unfettered capitalism.

Certainly, the underpaid first responders, garbage collectors, farm workers, truckers, supermarket cashiers, delivery people and the rest who have kept people alive and fed while the affluent took to the hills or the beaches have delivered a powerful lesson in the need for greater equity and a different form of globalization. People suffocate from Covid-19. They may also suffocate one day, as Macron pointed out, from an overheated, overexploited planet. Whether the lesson will be heeded through a radical rebalancing, both personal and corporate, is another story.

What is clear is that if the European Union does not stand up for liberal democratic values, those values will be orphaned in the menacing world of Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping.

I said the great 21st century democracy-dictatorship battle is far from over. Emergencies serve autocrats but can also demonstrate the failings of their systems and provoke radical rethinking.

The pivotal date in the struggle is now Nov. 3. If Trump wins, assuming the election is held, and Pangloss continues his assault on truth, the Merkel-Macron democratic camp will struggle. If Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, wins, the United States will not recover an American-led world, because that world is gone forever, but the return of American decency and principle will make an enormous difference. To begin with, autocrats will no longer have an American carte blanche.

The virus is attacking an incoherent, deglobalized world, Bildt said. And as long as that is the case, the virus wins.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Continued here:
Despotism, Democracy and the Coronavirus - The New York Times

It is estimated that we need 4 billion dollars so that all states can prepare for elections by mail, a real necessity in this time of the pandemic to ensure our democracy.

The numbers of voters disenfranchised by not preparing for voting by mail could be in the millions. That is not how democracy is meant to function.

Not making it possible for every voter to have a voice is criminal. The money Congress already passed $400 million begins the process, but we need to make sure everyone can vote by mail, vote early, and have the opportunity to vote on election day, including in person.

Congress must pass the additional funding needed to make sure our elections in November include everyone eligible to vote to have that opportunity. Make calls, get involved, be proactive. We cannot be apathetic to this issue. Voting is our way to bring about change. Do your part, please.

Here is the original post:
Democracy in the time of coronavirus | Letters to the Editor - Napa Valley Register