Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

We are facing a danger to democracy, as the media are constantly reminding us.

Its Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans, says the press, the current president and the Democratic Party, who refused to accept the results of a fair election, are perpetrating the big lie and electing people to steal the next election.

For his part, Trump uses equally dramatic rhetoric, making unsubstantiated charges about the 2020 election and how he should be reinstated, and accusing his opponents of the big lie.

"For six straight years," he said at his Ohio rally over the weekend, "I've been harassed, investigated, defamed, slandered and persecuted like no other president. And probably like no one in American history These people are sick, sick."

A REVOLT AGAINST AMERICAS QUEEN ELIZABETH COVERAGE IS BUILDING, BUT CABLE NEWS CANT STAY AWAY

President Joe Biden, protected by bulletproof glass, delivers remarks on what he calls the "continued battle for the Soul of the Nation" in front of Independence Hall at Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, September 1, 2022. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

All this unfolds under the shadow of Jan. 6 Trump says he plans to pardon some of those convicted and the Justice Department probe of the former president, who took many top-secret, classified documents to Mar-a-Lago.

So were inundated with warnings about the threat to democracy as well as Trump, in a radio interview, saying there will be "big problems" in this country if hes indicted.

But whats increasingly happening is that this debate becomes conflated with ideological goals.

When President Biden gave his Philadelphia speech the one the White House insisted was not political he pivoted from attacking Trump World to saying that "MAGA forces" would take the country backwards "to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love."

In other words, youre an outlier if you dont agree with the Democratic agenda on abortion rights, birth control and same-sex marriage. But those, unlike the importance of democracy, are the subject of legitimate political debate.

I see the same two-step in a big front-page New York Times story titled "A Crisis Coming: The Twin Threats to American Democracy."

The first, "acute" threat is the familiar one: a growing movement inside one of the countrys two major parties the Republican Party to refuse to accept defeat in an election."

Then comes number two:

"The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion."

And what that means, according to the piece, is that Democratic goals, and the ability to elect Democrats, are being frustrated by our structure of government. The complaints here, some of which are familiar, are ultimately partisan, but smuggled in the Trojan horse of defending democracy.

The piece is by David Leonhardt, a former Washington bureau chief, a smart guy who makes some smart points. But he has to acknowledge that some of what hes complaining about is "written into the Constitution." So now the Constitution is a threat to democracy?

Facimile of The Constitution For The United States Of America Dated September 17, 1787. (Fotosearch/Getty Images)

Every schoolkid knows that America was created as a republic, and that the compromises that favor small states were adopted not just because they feared being overrun by the big states, but because it was the only way to pass the Constitution in 1787.

Thats why each state has two senators to offset the advantage for the big states in the House, where the number of seats is awarded by population.

The problem, the Times says, is that "in 1790, the largest state (Virginia) had about 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, California has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states." So when Biden won California by 29% and New York by 23%, the huge margins are "wasted votes" from the Democratic point of view.

And that gives the Senate "a pro-Republican bias," the paper declares.

Well, as JFK said, life is unfair. And good luck amending the Constitution on the makeup of the Senate, given that two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states would never go for it.

The same goes for the Electoral College. I wouldnt be upset to see it abolished tomorrow, though then presidential candidates wouldnt waste time campaigning in smaller states.

"In seven of the past eight presidential elections, stretching back to Bill Clintons 1992 victory, the Democratic nominee has won the popular vote," says Leonhardt. And yet, "two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote" namely George W. Bush and Trump. So that, ipso facto, is unfair to Democrats.

Except everyone campaigns to get to 270. And again, good luck getting enough support to junk the Electoral College.

LATEST TRUMP-BIDEN CLASHES HELP ILLUMINATE THE FASCINATION WITH A QUEEN

Geographic trends have also contributed, with Democrats tending to cluster in urban states and metropolitan areas, limiting their impact in the winner-take-all Electoral College.

As for the House, gerrymandering is a factor, and both parties have shamelessly played that game. But Leonhardt says Republicans have been "more forceful about gerrymandering" than the other party. Really? In April, New Yorks top court in the state where the Times is published threw out the Democrats attempt at gerrymandering.

Then we get to the Supreme Court, so out of step with popular opinion that it threw out Roe v. Wade. "Every current justice has been appointed during one of the past nine presidential terms, and a Democrat has won the popular vote in seven of those nine and the presidency in five of the nine. Yet the court is now dominated by a conservative, six-member majority."

Theres one legitimate beef here: The Republican essentially hijacked a SCOTUS seat by refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, then rushed through Amy Coney Barrett at the end of Trumps term.

But luck is also involved: Jimmy Carter didnt get a high court appointment during his term. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to retire when Barack Obama could have named her successor. Ah, but if only "Senate seats were based on population," maybe none of Trumps three appointees would have been confirmed. Seriously?

Activists flocked to the Supreme Court following the overturn of Roe v. Wade on Friday, June 24, 2022. (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)

Whats more, the Supreme Court is periodically out of step with public opinion in ways that can be good. Did a majority of the country favor integrated schools at the time of the Brown v. Board of Ed in 1954? Of course not.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

In only one instance does Leonardt take a swipe at his own side: "Some on the left now consider widely held opinions among conservative and moderate Americans on abortion, policing, affirmative action, Covid-19 and other subjects to be so objectionable that they cannot be debated." That is stifling open debate and here comes the qualifier "in the view of many conservatives and some experts."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So: If we awarded Senate seats based on population and threw out the Electoral College, Democrats would win more presidential elections and be able to appoint more Supreme Court justices the real agenda here. Too bad the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia were so misguided.

These are all points that have been debated for a very long time, and given that pesky Constitution, are not going to change. But does that kind of help-the-Democrats argument really constitute a threat to democracy?

Howard Kurtz is the host of FOX News Channel's MediaBuzz(Sundays 11 a.m.-12 p.m. ET).Based in Washington, D.C., he joined the network in July 2013 and regularly appears on Special Report with Bret Baierand other programs.

Read more from the original source:
The latest threat to democracy? The language of the Constitution is hurting Dems - Fox News

The January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol sparked an ongoing debate about how widely held democratic values are in the United States and what can be done to strengthen those values. One commonly proposed prescription is revitalizing public education about the duties, as well as rights, of citizenship in democratic societies. It is a familiar theme in American history with some of the earliest efforts to publicly fund education in the 19th century having civic education as a leading rationale.

In a paper published this monthin the American Political Science Review, Kenneth Scheve, Dean Acheson Professor of Political Science and Global Affairs and Faculty of Arts and Sciences dean of social science, and his co-authors examine whether these efforts in the early republic worked. Did state funding of education nurture a culture of participatory democracy?

Scheve, a faculty fellow with the Institution for Social and Policy Research (ISPS); Tine Paulsen, assistant professor of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California; and David Stasavage, Silver Professor of Politics at New York University, utilized a natural experiment in which some towns in Central New York were provided additional financial support for education based on funds established when the area was first being settled.

Analyzing outcomes from the mid-1800s by comparing neighboring regions that differed in access to a geographically determined external source of education funding, the authors found that greater public funding of primary school education led to improved earnings, lower inequality, and higher voter turnout. The authors argue that the historical circumstances that led to sharp differences in public education funding in these towns allow for the differences to be interpreted as the causal effect of greater education spending.

We interpret this result as suggesting that, in this case, we have an example where even if initial endowments were favorable to democracy, creating a participatory democratic culture depended on subsequent political choices, and perhaps the most important of these was to educate the population, they wrote.

Examining gubernatorial elections in 1842 and 1844 and the presidential election in 1844, the researchers found that residing within the towns receiving additional public education funding contributed to a 3-percentage point increase in eligible voters casting ballots. This was true even as those elections were very competitive and overall turnout was high.

Our findings support the view that maintaining democracy requires active investments by the state, the authors wrote. Something that has important implications for other places and other times including today.

Read more here:
Did Publicly Funded Education Promote Democracy in Early America? | Institution for Social and Policy Studies - Yale University

Major Garrett and David Becker open The Big Truth, half a love letter to democracy and half a warning about its ailing state, with a bit of speculative fiction about the ways a contested election could destabilize the country, rend states apart, and ultimately lead to a national divorcethat is, a second American civil war. The great cleaving could be closer than we think, the authors write. But while they were putting pen to paper, they struggled a bit with the hypothetical. We asked ourselves, Are we being too dramatic? Garrett told me, reflecting back on the period. Hell, I feel now like we were unduly restrained.

Garrett, chief Washington correspondent for CBS News, and Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, followed that line of inquiry with me in an interview, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, ahead of their September 20 book release. Democracy, they told me, has become existentially endangered by Donald Trumps baseless claims of election fraud. And while both men laid out various ways the country could be fought back from the breach,Becker also said that their optimism is being fundamentally challenged right now. (The authors arent the only ones concerned: Democracy Challenged is how The New York Times put it on Sundays front page.) Ive been someone who people dont want to invite to parties lately, Becker said. Because Im a little bit depressing.

Vanity Fair: I want to begin on a high note. You write in the book that you harbor deep, but not debilitating fears about the future of American democracy. What gives you cause for optimism? Why arent the concerns debilitating, since so much of what you describe here is pretty frightening?

Major Garrett: What gives me optimism is the longevity of our country. We have stared into abysses before and pulled back from them. I know thats an overused metaphor right now, and I know there have been barrels upon barrels of either ink or the digital equivalent spilled asking when America will pull back from the current abyss. So the question persists. Why are you optimistic? Well, 100,000 people in 2020 signed up to be poll workers for the first time, jumping into a breach of a situation that was not familiar to them. Not because they were going to get paid, not because they were going to be lionized in their community. Not because they were going to get a promotion. But because it mattered at a very basic civic level of accountability and participation. And Im gonna bank our countrys future on their optimism.

Now, having said that, I know some of them didnt get what they bargained for. They didnt sign up thinking that they would be harassed, followed from their polling place to their cars, or people who train them and who they look up to being harassed, threatened, and the like. So its a wobbly moment, and Im not going to suggest to you it isnt a wobbly moment. But I have an innate, enduring confidence in the American experiment. And that American experiment is having oxygen breathed into it in a way that to some is unfamiliar, but I believe is deeply strengthening. The concepts and the language we have always used around democracy are now being applied. And people are at the table, because theyve been elected to be at the federal level in ways we havent seen before. Thats not easy, but its real, and that participation and that visibility and that representation, in the modern sense, sends signals to people long underrepresented that this is actually real. And the notion that they have a stake in that reality is much more tangible. Does that please everyone? No. Does it get it closer to what we have long aspired to and said we believe in? Yes. And I believe my optimism is rooted almost entirely in that.

David Becker: Yeah, I have a similar thought. We are in a perilous moment in American democracy. And it is easy to focus on those who failed to stand up for democracy when given the opportunity, and we do in the book. But whats also sometimes somewhat harder is to note the large numbers of people who have stood up, and often at great personal peril to themselves, often at great political peril to themselves, often at physical peril to themselves and their families. To do the right thing, to stand up for an election. That was the most transparent, secure, and verified election in American history, even when their candidate lost. And that is in the best tradition of American democracy. And we havent had to see many people courageously stand for that in the past, because it was never a question with candidates and their supporters about whether or not they would accept the results of elections.

Threats to democracy, stress tests on the electoral processobviously, nothing new. You write about several of them: 1876, 2000. What was different about 2020? And, obviously, looking forward at the challenges were facing in 2022, 2024, and beyond?

Read the original here:
We Have Stared Into Abysses Before and Pulled Back: Looking for Flashes of Hope as Democracy Frays - Vanity Fair

For a girl raised on a West Virginia farm, the youngest of seven children, it may seem surprising that elections have always fascinated me.

I vividly recall accompanying my parents to the polls in a small nearby town. They would greet and chat with the poll workers and receive their ballot. I would go in the booth and carefully follow each race as my dad marked them off. When I asked why he didnt vote for someone who was running unopposed, hed reply, We dont want him to think everyone is for him, that way hell work harder.

When my older sister said she was running for student body president of her high school, and would be the first girl elected if she won, my excitement only grew. She wonand her victory set me on my own path, too. Though I lost every race for class president in my freshman, sophomore and junior year, finally won for student body president my senior year. I was hooked.

I carried that determined mindset when I auditioned to be the Mountaineer Mascot at West Virginia University. It didnt enter my mind that gender might play a role. Yet I was greeted with chants of, Back to the kitchen, go back to the kitchen and go make babies.

Despite the reaction, I was chosen to represent my university and state as the first female mascot in the universitys historya role that came with great responsibility and public outcry.

After college graduation, I continued in the public eye as a local television reporter and anchora jobthat sent me around the state telling stories of West Virginia and her people. It ultimately allowed me to cover the West Virginia legislaturean eye-opening opportunity to see up close how the legislative process works.

I knew then I had the capability of serving the people of West Virginia in elective office. Government shouldnt be a hands-off, secret system where only a few are allowed to participate. I saw the need for different voices and ideas.

So, I gave up my news anchor job and ran for secretary of state in 2004 where no incumbent was running. The 2000 presidential election, that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, showed us all the importance of election integrityand the need for a strong leader committed to ensuring that voters were empowered.

I lost that statewide race by 1,108 votes. If you ever wonder if your vote matters, this is proof! One more vote in each precinct and I would have won. Never deterred, four years later I ran again and won.

Serving as secretary of state was a perfect combination for me: a chance to promote the state, become an inclusive leader, innovate, take chances and push beyond expectations of the states smallest constitutional office.

Because it was a constitutional office, I had more independence and control. So, I invested in the employees by offering them training, sending them to out-of-state conferences, and providing raises where possible. This prepared them for unprecedented asks I had of them and, in turn, make our office a leader in elections across the country. We were the third state in the country to pass bipartisan automatic voter registration legislation. We implemented online voter registration, conducted a pilot project for military internet voting, and established ballot tracking measures. We improved our website for greater transparency and information and saved the office money all at the same.

I realized I do lead differently than my male counterparts. I focused on inclusion and empowerment of my team. I was content with not having all the answers and allowing others to lead projects. A true leader is one whose vision (and employees) can continue when you are not in the office.

It is not always easy being a woman leader, especially if you dont have others around you. I was fortunate to have a strong core of women whom I could trust and depend upon.

After being defeated in my third term, I joined the Brennan Center for Justice as manager for state advocacy. I am fortunate to now share my experience as a practitioner with advocates and academics who every day put their heart and soul into upholding our democracy. In addition, I am a resident fellow at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Institute of Politics where I mentor undergraduates and conduct study groups on election administration. More than academic study, its an opportunity to work with young women and men and model how they can participate and make a difference.

We need heroesand we need to be heroes, as uncomfortable and unwelcoming as it may often be. This installment of Women & Democracy uplifts many of these stories. I am proud to be in the company of these women leaders.

Care about U.S. democracy, womens leadership and fair representation? We do too. Let Ms. keep you up to date with our daily + weekly newsletters. (Or go back to the Women Saving Democracy essay collection.)

Read the rest here:
Put Heart and Soul Into Upholding Democracy: An Election Official on What It Takes - Ms. Magazine

So Ted Budd refuses to commit to accepting the election results in November. When asked why, his campaign manager claimed without evidence that Cheri Beasley, the Democratic nominee and a former State Supreme Court justice, might try to disenfranchise voters, according to theNew York Times. Budd also voted against certifying the election after Joe Biden won.He is more committed to Donald Trump and his movement than he is to democracy or our Constitution.

I would love to see some North Carolina reporters delve more into Budds response and see if its more widespread among Republicans. How many of the Republican candidates for down ballot races are going to accept the results? Budds response should really be a focus of this campaign until hes ready to clear it up.

Budds response is disturbing, but not surprising. The GOP is radicalizing quickly as Trump continues to turn up his rhetoric. At a rally in Pennsylvania earlier this month, he called President Joe Biden an enemy of the state. In Ohio this weekend, he laid out a dystopian view of America where the FBI is engaged in police state activities and the crowd responded with a new one-armed salute, eerily reminiscent of the one seen at Nazi rallies in the 1930s.

Republicans have a long history of downplaying their worst instincts. Right now, formerly mainstream Republicans complain that the criticism of Trump is overblown and that Democrats are somehow worse. Lindsey Graham is the poster boy for the Trump GOP. He knew the truth about Trump when he said that he wouldnt vote for him in 2016. That Lindsey Graham told the truth about Trump but told a lie about himself. I think Donald Trump is going to places where very few people have gone and Im not going with him. Trump has certainly gone where very few people have gone, but Graham and the whole mainstream GOP has gone right down that road with him.Trump is exactly the same guy he was in 2016. Its the GOP that has changed.

Back before Republicans had power in North Carolina, Democrats warned that if the GOP took control of the legislature, Republicans would cut funding to schools and universities. Republicans claimed Democrats were using scare tactics and that the GOP would do no such thing. Since theyve been in power, per pupil spending has dropped and theyve dramatically cut funding to the UNC system.

In the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans denied that they wanted any sort of national ban on abortion. They claimed they just wanted to give power back to the states. Now, Graham and his compatriots are calling for a national ban on abortion.

Republicans have spent decades deriding Democrats warnings about the GOP cutting social security and Medicare. They called it Mediscare and assured the voters that Republicans had no plans to cut the entitlement programs. Now, Senator Rick Scott has released his plan that would do just that.

The media needs to step up right now. They have clear questions for Budd. They have a long history of Republicans saying one thing and doing another. Now, they have candidates who could determine control of the Senate refusing to accept democracy. As Graham said, Trump has taken us where very few people have gone. Somehow, we need to get out of here.

Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >

Read the original post:
Ted Budd is a threat to democracy - PoliticsNC