Mediaboss Marketing

Global dissatisfaction with democracy has increased over the past 25 years, according to our recent report.

Drawing upon the HUMAN Surveys project, the report covered 154 countries, with 77 countries covered continuously for the period from 1995 to 2020. These samples were possible thanks to the combination of data from over 25 sources, 3,500 national surveys, and 4 million respondents.

Not surprisingly, the gloomy headline finding rising democratic dissatisfaction attracted the most attention. Less widely discussed, however, is the good news that a small sample of countries has bucked the trend, and have record high levels of satisfaction with their democracies.

Islands of contentment

Why are such countries the Netherlands, Denmark, or Switzerland able to achieve high and rising levels of democratic contentment?

There are four factors that stand out in explaining why some democracies have or have not experienced an eroding democratic satisfaction. These can be summarised by four Ps: polarisation, paralysis, perfidy (or scandal), and powerlessness.

First, countries with increasing polarisation show rising dissatisfaction. This is especially the case in majoritarian electoral systems that generate winners and losers, leaving close to half of the electorate dissatisfied following every election.

United States

Recent research shows that the US has had the largest increase in polarisation since the 1990s, and it is also among the countries with the largest increase in democratic dissatisfaction. Other majoritarian democracies, such as Canada and the UK, have suffered the same trend, though, on a more limited scale.

The countries such as Denmark or Switzerland, which we call the islands of contentment, on the other hand, have limited polarisation and use proportional representation. The political structures of these nations drive them towards more cooperative forms of politics, and they are often less complicated to govern.

Citizens abhor a political vacuum. Perhaps one of the clearest examples is the UK during the Brexit paralysis of 2019, in which the British cabinet and parliament were logjammed over whether to pass the EU withdrawal agreement, hold a second referendum, or call an election.

United Kingdom

The UK is not the only example: government shutdowns in the US under Bill Clinton in 1995-6, Barack Obama in 2013, and Donald Trump in 2018-9 did not increase public satisfaction. And in Australia, the revolving door of prime ministers between 2013 and 2018 has left many voters dissatisfied.

On the other hand, in countries where there is relative continuity in government, such crises are avoided. In Switzerland, the so-called magic formula coalition at the federal level almost prevents such crises by design and satisfaction has been rising.

Perfidy or, corruption and scandal is one of the strongest predictors of dissatisfaction with democracy. These can be short-lived, as with the UK parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009, which saw dissatisfaction temporarily spike, or rather longer in duration, such as the tangentpoli investigations in 1990s Italy which led to the collapse of the entire party system.

Inevitably, more extreme examples can be found in many emerging democracies. In Brazil, democratic dissatisfaction has soared since the start of the Lava Jato investigations in 2014. And in South Africa, a string of corruption revelations during the presidency of Jacob Zuma sent democratic dissatisfaction soaring to record highs.

South Africa

Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on the other hand are the first, fourth, eighth, and ninth least corrupt countries in the world, respectively, according to Transparency International.

Finally, citizens must feel that they have agency over the political process.

A clear example of powerlessness is where there is low electoral integrity. Elections are one of the most visible aspects of democracy, and unfair electoral practices decrease public satisfaction.

The unlimited money pouring into US elections since 2010, its demonstrably gerrymandered electoral districts, active voter suppression, and controversies in vote counting have left many disillusioned with the electoral process. Canada is better off, but the circumvention of election finance rules by Conservatives in the 2006 election campaign and Robocall scandal in the 2011 Canadian federal elections did not enhance public satisfaction.

By comparison, the Electoral Integrity Project run by Harvard and Sydney universities, gives Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg some of the best scores in the world.

Feelings of political agency require a sense of influence over domestic institutions, but also a sense that those institutions are in themselves sovereign. A number of the most satisfied nations in our study are either on the outskirts of the EU (Norway and Switzerland), or not in the eurozone (Denmark), projects that require substantial pooling of sovereignty in order to function.

Meanwhile, countries in southern Europe such as Greece, caught in the eurozone crisis, have experienced a profound breakdown in democratic satisfaction in recent years.

Bolstering satisfaction in democracy will require addressing multiple issues. But acknowledging that democratic discontent has deeper roots is a necessary starting point.

View original post here:
Where people are satisfied with democracy and why - The Conversation UK

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