Mediaboss Marketing

From Richard Nixon slowly backing his way into resignation for a botched burglary to Bill OReilly denying charges of sexual harassment while losing sponsors and, eventually, his job at Fox News, the consequences of failing to confront the truth have proven to be debilitating. Whatever ones agenda may have been before beginning a cover-up, its achievement will certainly be sidetracked by the time and effort required by the evasive action.

This same danger exists for the Chicken Littles now crying about the sky of representative democracy falling because the state legislative and budgetary process has failed to enact the will of the people as expressed in several citizen-initiated referendums passed in November. Why bother to vote, they cry, if the Legislature and governor can simply ignore the peoples wishes as expressed in an election?

Because democracy is complicated, and we shouldnt give up on it so easily. And, more importantly, as Abraham Lincoln said, democracy is an ongoing experiment. It is not simply an elaborate game with clearly defined rules that periodically announce the beginning of a competition and inexorably count the scores and declare winners and losers. It is, rather, an organic, evolving social enterprise.

Those who cite election results they find unsatisfactory as reasons to stop participating in the system are giving up on it. Also, complaining about election results is rather like trying to cover up a lie it is essentially trying to fool oneself, trying to evade the truth rather than face it.

Last November, a plurality of Maine voters approved citizen initiatives to legalize recreational use of marijuana (49.5 percent) and to add a surcharge to the state income tax for some taxpayers and dedicate the resultant revenue to K-12 education (49.7 percent). A bare majority (50.3 percent) approved a system of ranked-choice voting, and a clear majority (54.5 percent) approved an initiative to raise the state minimum wage. None of these initiatives came close to winning a majority of the full number of Maine people eligible to vote in November.

Yes, you may say, but those people chose not to participate in the election process. True, but does that make their will irrelevant to the programs that state elections create and change? Hardly. Especially when these same nonvoters drive the roads, send their children to school, seek publicly provided health or social services or respond to public opinion surveys. Their will, however expressed, is part of the messy, organically evolving society our democratic institutions must struggle to understand if they are to survive.

Democratic institutions exist for all of the people all of the time, whether or not they participate. Indeed, our democracys single greatest achievement has been the continued growth over the centuries of the extension of democratic rights to people from whom they were once withheld.

In addition, these citizen initiatives came to the ballot in large part because their most highly motivated supporters became frustrated with the failure of their elected representatives to enact their proposals through the traditional method of proposing and submitting a bill, subjecting it to public hearings as well as majority votes by both houses of the Legislature and approval by the governor. Should these same supporters be indignant that over a third of the Legislature still disagrees with some or all of the initiatives they proposed? Hardly.

The citizen initiative and approval by elected representatives are alternative methods for expressing the will of the people. As such, the rise and fall of one or the other method as a preferred avenue for certain groups of the people may create incentives and disincentives for their political actions. However, to conclude that one particular election result destroys the reason for participating in the process in the future is to give up on democracy too easily.

Are legislators going to say, Why bother to show up for committee meetings and votes when the people are just going to overrule me anyway? Perhaps a few the increasing acrimony of all political activity is clearly making public service as an elected official less desirable. However, such a conclusion would be an equally distressing sign of civic-minded people giving up on democracy.

In short, supporters of citizen initiatives who thought they won in November and that they lost this month would be wrong to walk away saying, I give up on this democracy stuff; its all rigged.

That response is understandable. But, like the temptation to cover up a mistake, it would be dishonest. It would be lacking in the courage required to face the truth that, despite the election results, they had not convinced a sufficient number of participants in our ongoing experiment in governance to succeed. And that realization success is not measured by winning any particular election is the stuff on which our dreams of democracy are ultimately built.

Charles Lawton, Ph.D., is a consulting economist. He can be contacted at:

[emailprotected]

See the original post:
Charles Lawton: Don't give up on democracy just because it's complicated - Press Herald

Its the casualness with which theyre saying it that is truly disturbing. Im beginning to think that Brexit may never happen, said Vince Cable on Sunday morning TV, with expert nonchalance, as if he were predicting rain. He echoed Newsnights Nicholas Watt, who a few days earlier informed viewers that there is talk in some quarters that Brexit may not actually happen. Leaving the EU? I think that is very much open to question now, said Lord Heseltine last month, with imperious indifference. He could have been asking a minion to pass the butter.

They say it matter-of-factly, sometimes a little gleefully. As if it wouldnt be a disgrace, a black-mark-against-the-nation disgrace, if Brexit were not to happen. As if failing to act on the wishes of 17.4 million people the most populous democratic demand in the history of this nation wouldnt represent one of the worst snubs to the democratic ideal in the modern era. This is the bottom line: if Brexit doesnt happen, then Britains claim to be a democratic nation will be called into question. Our democracy will be compromised, perhaps beyond repair.

That politicians can breezily flirt with the idea of reneging on the wishes of 17.4 million people tells us what a dire state the democratic ideal is in a year on from the referendum. A year of legal challenges by filthy-rich businesspeople and chattering-class rage against low information voters has left not just Brexit beaten and bruised, but democracy too. When people say, Yeah, that Brexit thing, it might not happen, and its probably just as well, I hear: Democracy is a mistake. To try to block Brexit is to display an alarming disregard for what is perhaps the most important idea of the enlightened era: that the people should shape the political fate of their nation.

Cable says Brexit is just too complicated. The problems are so enormous, he said on Sunday. He echoes various experts, or what Plato had the honesty to call philosopher-kings: people who believe their cleverness makes them better at political decision-making than the plebs. Brexit is hideously technical, experts say. The British people have unleashed a process potentially as complex as it is unpredictable, they whine, and so perhaps we should call it off. Others say Brexit was based on lies about NHS funding, immigration numbers, a future of milk and honey etc and thats why it shouldnt happen. It would be mad to let Britain be shaped by a referendum result that was the handiwork of myth-making demagogues.

Bless them, they think these are original arguments, when in fact such haughty disdain for the demos and its political choices is as old as democracy itself. In the 1840s, when the Chartists demanded the vote for working-class men, they were told they lacked ripened wisdom and thus were more exposed than any other class to the vicious ends of faction. That is, they were easily bought off by demagogues. When women demanded the vote, they were told that an excess of sympathy in their mental constitution meant they lacked logical power and judicial impartiality. In the Brexit era, that is said about all voters, female and male, which is a progress of sorts, I guess. Brexit has brought outthe lowest human impulses, saysIan McEwan. Cheers Ian.

That the arguments against Brexit the masses fell for misinformation, it was a howl of rage, etczzz sound so similar to old arguments against democracy is not a coincidence. Because the railing against Brexit is fundamentally a railing against the idea that we should entrust the political future to ordinary people which is otherwise known as democracy.

Some angry Remainers say: Are you saying we cannot argue against Brexit? Doesnt democracy mean being free to express political opinion? Of course! People absolutely have the right to weep and wail and take to the streets over Brexit. To say they hate Brexit and wish it would die in a ditch. To exaggerate the impact Brexit will have on the economy and political stability. My personal view is that such Remoaning adds enormously to the gaiety of the nation. Its cute and hilarious that people who call themselves progressive should now devote their lives and Twitterfeeds to bitching about the demos. But heres the thing: if youre using your clout or influence or money to ensure that Brexit doesnt happen, then you arent engaging in democratic debate youre seeking to overturn a free and fair democratic decision. Youre saying you know better than the masses. You are thwarting the democratic process.

We have to get real. If Brexit doesnt happen, democracy will be gravely wounded for a generation. The people will receive loud and clear the message that they dont really matter. Sure, well still have General Elections and pick our MPs. But the Brexit betrayal would rankle for decades, a sore on the body politic, a niggling reminder that when democracy returned a result that the political class didnt like, Britain flinched, and turned its back on democracy. Brexit must happen. It simply must. Because 17.4 million people want it, and democracy needs it.

See more here:
If Brexit doesn't happen, then Britain isn't a democracy - Spectator.co.uk (blog)

Sekulow: Comey 'Illegally Leaked Information' About Trump Meeting

AP Stylebook Instructs Writers Not to Use Words Like 'Pro-Life,' 'Refugee' & 'Terrorist'

Former presidential candidate Howard Dean claimed that a "criminal enterprise" is now controlling the United States.

Dean, formerly the governor of Vermont and chair of the DNC, said President Trump is a liar - especially when it comes to Russia - and everyone knows it.

He was reacting to new reports alleging Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian attorney last summer in an attempt to find out damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

"The real savior for democracy is going to be Robert Mueller. He's going to find out what the truth is," said Dean on MSNBC.

Dean said even Trump's supporters know he doesn't tell the truth, but they back him anyway.

He said it's "beginning to look more and more" like Russia influenced the outcome of the presidential election, citing the "drip, drip, drip" of reports on contacts between the Kremlin and the Trump team.

Earlier today, the Russian lawyer who met Trump Jr. denied she has links to the Kremlin and denied ever possessing dirt on Clinton.

A lawyer for Trump Jr. said the president's eldest son "did nothing wrong."

MSNBC Guest: Trump's Warsaw Speech 'Fulfillment of Bin Laden's Ideology'

Hannity: 'Destroy-Trump' Media 'Foaming at the Mouth' Over Trump Jr. Report

Dem Strategist: Trump's Poland Speech Contained 'Dog Whistles to White Nationalists'

Continued here:
Dean: 'Criminal Enterprise' Running the Country, Mueller Will Save ... - Fox News Insider

Republica

I do not see any significant deviation from universally agreed norms of democracy and human rights in Nepals constitution.

The recent local elections after a hiatus of two decades augur well for consolidation of democracy and acceleration of development in Nepal. They bring us full circle back to when democracy and development were beginning to take root at the local level in the mid-1990s. Undoubtedly, some new progressive features have been added to make democracy more inclusive and egalitarian under the new constitutional dispensation than two decades ago. But it is fair to assume that most such progressive measures would have evolved peacefully without the trauma of a fratricidal civil war if the self-corrective mechanisms of genuine democracy through periodic elections had been allowed to mature.

However, Nepals Maoists, who had done poorly in the 1991 general election, had no patience for what they derided as bourgeois democracy. Citing some real and many exaggerated imperfections of liberal democracy, they launched a brutal armed insurgency rudely interrupting both peaceful evolution of democracy and efforts to build the foundations for economic development and social progress, especially at the local level. Euphemistically labeled Peoples War, the Maoist insurgency deceptively co-opted such terminology as inclusion, equity and social justice that are the ideals of a well-functioning democracy. But true to their ideological conviction that power comes from the barrel of the gun, the Maoists prescribed armed violence as the only way to achieve these ideals. Their clever use of revolutionary slogans and utopian promises attracted significant following of innocent people, especially from Nepals many ethnic and regional groups and other communities that were historically marginalized. They also mesmerized some nave donors and diplomats into giving the Maoists and some like-minded ethnic/regional activists undue benefit of doubt and encouragement.

Jandesh vs Matdesh

During the protracted peace process and drafting of the new constitution, some members of the international community insisted on consensus and compromise as the sacred mantra. Many diplomats and scholars of countries whose own constitutions were ratified by much smaller majorities, castigated Nepals constitution adopted by nearly 90 percent of democratically elected peoples representatives as non-inclusive and elitist. Many self-proclaimed progressive commentators, and ethnic and regional activists, considered this as the international communitys endorsement, albeit inadvertently, of what the ex-Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai cleverly articulated as the primacy of jandesh (peoples aspirations) over matdesh (voters verdict).

Granted, Nepals new constitution is not perfect, as is the case with constitutions of all other democracies. As a long-time UN official who strongly believes in universal norms of human rights, I deplore some clauses in Nepals constitution, particularly those containing discriminatory provision with regard to gender equality in acquiring citizenship by birth and naturalization. This must definitely be rectified. However, except for this single and serious flaw, I do not see any significant deviation from universally agreed norms of democracy and human rights in Nepals constitution compared to those of most other established democracies.

On the contrary, though at times clumsily worded, Nepals constitution is remarkably progressive, inclusive and full of affirmative actiontake the mandatory requirement for the President and Vice President, top leaders of the national parliament and local assemblies, as well as of provincial and municipal governments, to be from different gender and identity groups. It is exhilarating to witness, not just in theory but in actual practice, an unprecedented number of women, including from the historically deprived Dalit community and other marginalized groups, recently elected to local governments.

Obsessed with amendment

Most of the current demands for constitutional amendments that are being pressed by those claiming Nepals constitution as non-inclusive are matters relating to political choices and preferences rather than non-compliance of universal norms of democracy and human rights. Some of these demands may well be justified, but these need to be pursued through the normal instruments of democracyelections, referendums and peaceful negotiations and persuasion not through threats of agitation, boycott of elections or obstruction of democratically elected parliament and other institutions. It is time for Nepalis to shun our obsession of seeking solutions to all our problems through constitutional amendments. A constitution can only go so far, and dumping in the constitution a laundry-list of all our aspirations will only make it unwieldy, unimplementable and lead to greater disappointment and cynicism in the future. A constitution is not self-executing and even the most progressive constitution in the world cannot guarantee good governance. The fact that many rights and norms already enshrined in the constitution and laws of Nepal are not fully implemented calls for other remedies including the evolution of democratic culture and respect for the rule of law in our society, rather than endless constitutional amendments.

Indeed, our struggle now should focus on securing good governance and rule of law through legislation, education, and holding elected officials and other decision-makers accountable to the word as well as the spirit of the progressive features of the constitution. Border blockades, forceful closure of schools, health centers, public transport and other basic services that hinder ordinary citizens from exercising their civic rights have no justification in the name of inclusion, consensus, compromise or any other pretext.

Celebrating diversity

The largely peaceful conduct of the first two rounds of local (village and municipal) elections in May and June 2017 has given Nepal a rainbow of highly inclusive local governmentswith 40 percent of elected officials being women, many of them in leadership positions. A significant number of the elected women are from the historically most marginalized Dalit community. The high voter turn-out, exceeding 70 percent, and election of candidates from Nepals diverse mosaic of ethnic communities, including religious and linguistic minorities roughly in proportion to their population in the country, is a tribute to the inclusive nature of Nepals new constitution.

Future elections will undoubtedly further empower those elected from the historically marginalized communities to attain higher leadership roles as they gain more experience and can challenge their peers and rivals from the traditional elite with greater confidence. The fact that the newly elected local governments will have significant power of the purse and authority over decision-making on matters concerning peoples well beingfor example over basic education, health services, local infrastructure and management of natural resourceswill give these entities real teeth, thus bringing government services closer to the peoples door-steps. These achievements are worth celebrating, but we should be prepared for new challenges that are likely to emerge.

This is first of a three-part article on emerging national politics following the two phases of local elections

The author is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and author of Lost In Transition: Rebuilding Nepal from the Maoist mayhem and mega earthquake (2015)

kulgautam@hotmail.com

Visit link:
Democracy, revitalized - Republica

Trump has spoken with far greater affection for Putin, Saudi princes and the right-wing nationalists now in power in Poland than for democratic pluralists such as Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron. At the G-20 summit, in fact, both Merkel and Macron sounded more like post-World War II American presidents than Trump did.

And the ambiguity about what Trump said during his two-hour meeting with Putin about Russian meddling in the 2016 election (the administration denied that Trump had accepted Putin's denials, as Russia claimed, but its own account of what Trump actually did tell him was hardly reassuring) only underscored the president's reluctance to confront the Russian leader on anything. Trump gave Putin exactly what he wanted was the headline on a commentary in the New York Times by Russian writer and dissident Masha Gessen. It was hard to deny its truth.

In his speech in Polandon Thursday, Trump did commit himself to the Western alliance, but in an otherwise gloomy, backward-looking and Manichaean address.

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive, Trump said. Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? If we fail to defend what our ancestors" passed down to us, Trump warned, it will never, ever exist again.

To which one might respond: Yikes! Trump's words were remarkably similar to Bannon's pronouncements in a speech to a traditionalist Catholic group in Rome in 2014. Bannon spoke of a Judeo-Christian West that finds itself in a crisis and confronts a new barbarity" that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years."

This dire view should remind the democratic left and the democratic right that while they have disagreed on many aspects of American foreign policy over the last two decades, they share some deep allegiances. These include a largely positive assessment of what the modern world has achieved; a hopeful vision of what could lie before us; a commitment to democratic norms as the basis of our thinking about the kind of world we seek; and a belief that ethnic and religious pluralism are to be celebrated, not feared.

They also see alliances with fellow democracies as serving us better than pacts with autocratic regimes that cynically tout their devotion to traditional values as cover for old-fashioned repression and expansionism.

Democrats have many incentives for opposing Trump. But it's Republicans who have the power that comes from controlling Congress. Their willingness to stand up to a president of their own party could determine the future of democracy and pluralism. He is, alas, a man whose commitment to these values we have reason to doubt, and his European jaunt did nothing to calm those fears.

E.J. Dionne's email address isejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne. (c) 2017, Washington Post Writers Group

Read more here:
Allies for Democracy? - Commonweal