Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump listens to a demonstration during the "American Leadership in Emerging Technology" event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2017.Jabin BotsfordThe Washington Post/Getty Images

In 1997, Fareed Zakaria wrote an important article for Foreign Affairs detailing the rise of illiberal democracy around the world. He contrasted the term with liberal democracy, which he described as marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms what might be termed constitutional liberalism is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. He then wrote a book on the subject.

Twenty years later, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted out the following: years ago @FareedZakaria wrote the book re illiberal democracies. i never thought this would fit the US but we r getting too close 4 comfort. I am a big fan of Richard (and Fareed), but I disagree with Haass on this one. America remains a strong liberal democracy however messy and dysfunctional even in the age of Donald Trump. Heres why.

1. Free Press Endures

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the press has been aggressive in fact-checking and challenging him at every turn. At times, a bit unfair; 80% of the coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, compared to just 41% for President Obama's. Many U.S. journalists have decided that professional responsibility demands a much more confrontational approach to this White House. The result has been coverage that is sometimes unfair and over-the-top. This drives Trump up the wall, because theres little he can do about it. In an illiberal democracy, the state uses all sorts of tools to dominate the press and shape public opinion. Trump has friendly news outlets that help maintain support from his base, but the rest of the media is in no danger of falling under Trumps sway.

2. Americans Love Going to Court

Americans go to court. A lot. And a lot of Americans become lawyers. As of 2009, for every 100,000 people, the U.S. has 380 lawyers. For comparison purposes, Japan has just 23 lawyers per 100,000 people; France has 70 (2010 and 2006 figures, respectively). More important than the number of lawyers is the continued faith Americans have in the legal system as of 2016, 61% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government, as opposed to the 51% of people who are confident in the executive branch and 35% of people who trust the legislative branch. In a liberal democracy, individuals and organizations can slow and alter the crafting of law and regulations by tying things up in court. And Americans are game in the first two weeks of Trumps presidency, his Administration was sued 55 times (compared to five lawsuits over the same time against Obama and Clinton, and four against George W. Bush).

3. The Courts Remain Independent

And the courts continue to limit executive power. In an illiberal democracy (see Russia and Turkey) the fix is already in when the gavel falls. For example, to tighten his grip on power, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has purged the judicial system in Turkey after last summers failed coup attempt, banishing more than 4,000 judges and prosecutors (25% of the countrys total). Trump would probably settle for ditching the judges that have struck down his travel ban no fewer than eight times in various courts (and by both Democratic and Republican-appointed judges). Maybe add the federal judge that blocked the Administrations ability to withhold funds from sanctuary cities , jurisdictions which ban law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, or arresting people for immigration enforcement.

4. There's No Deep State

To hear Trump and his surrogates tell it, any political defeat or unflattering news story about him should be attributed to a deep state hell-bent on trying to oust him. But there is no deep state in America, just a deep bureaucracy. Its made up of professional civil servants who have dedicated years of their lives (in 2015, a full-time permanent federal civilian employee had an average of 13.7 years of service ) to specific policy goals, whether from the left or right. Asking career officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to suddenly stop believing in climate change because the man elected in November doesnt much care for science was never going to get much traction. There are obviously people in the White House and throughout the executive branch that are sabotaging political and policy moves they believe harm the nations interests, as they define them. Vladimir Putin doesnt have this problem.

The bigger problem may be that the state isnt deep enough: As of this week, the Trump White House has only managed to confirm 44 of the 558 Senate-confirmable positions in the federal government. One hundred and five people have been formally nominated, five are awaiting nomination, and 404 jobs have no nominee whatsoever. Obama had confirmed at 170 by the same time into his own presidency; George W. Bush, 130.

5. Congress Has Its Own Agenda

Finally, Republicans in Congress have an agenda: Repeal Obamacare as they promised; roll back Obama-era regulations; and cut taxes. If Trump can help, great. If they can do it entirely without Trumps input, that might be even better. And if they start to believe that Trump will prevent them from passing their agenda and maybe cost them control of Congress? Theyll cross that bridge only if they feel they have to. But they are not a rubber stamp, as in an illiberal democracy. And the Senate voting 98-2 for more sanctions against Russia (and congressional oversight over them) last week against Trumps wishes offers more proof.

Any democracy can become illiberal. But its dangerous to argue that Trump has already created one. If illiberalism one day really does threaten Americas constitutional liberalism, it will be that much harder to raise the alarm if the charge has already been raised and dismissed.

See original here:
5 Reasons Why America Is Still a Strong (If Dysfunctional) Liberal Democracy - TIME

Rev. William Barber, the activist preacher known for helping to lead the fight against strict voter laws in North Carolina, will march with other faith leaders in Washington on Friday to mark the fourth anniversary of the 2013 Supreme Court decision that all but neutered the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The march comes after two of victories for voting rights advocates in North Carolina, where Barber is the outgoing head of the state chapter of the NAACP. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature had relied on racial gerrymandering in how it drew two congressional districts. In a separate case, it let stand a lower-court ruling that found a state voting law which required strict identification, reduced the early-voting period and barred same-day registration discriminated against African American voters.

Still, Barber, president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, and interfaith movement, said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that efforts to make it harder for people of color to vote are continuing and the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions will not aggressively challenge stricter voting laws enacted largely in states controlled by Republican legislatures.

The truth is homegrown voter suppression poses a greater threat to U.S. democracy than Russian election tampering, Barber said.

Voting rights advocates have said that the 2013 decision, Shelby v Holder, resulted in a slew of new laws restricting access to voting. The law, one of the landmark pieces of civil rights legislation, protected African Americans and other people of color from discriminatory practices in states. The court decision effectively struck down a requirement that states with a history of discrimination seek prior approval from the Justice Department before making changes in voting laws and procedures.

In the 5-4 decision, the majority essentially argued that the countrys racial climate had changed since the law was enacted and that Congress should come up with new criteria to determine which states needed extra scrutiny. So far Congress has not moved to restore that provision of the Voting Rights Act, called Section 5. Barber said that issue also will be addressed in remarks before the march, scheduled to start at 10 a.m. and circle the Supreme Court.

For nearly four years, the leadership of the Senate and the House have not brought for one bill to fully restore the Voting Rights Act, said Barber said. This is the real hacking of our democracy; the real hacking of our election system.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, as of May, at least 99 bills to restrict registration and voting have been introduced in 31 states, and more than a third of those bills have seen some type of legislative action. The center notes that although bills introduced to expand voting access outnumber those that would restrict access, more legislation to limit participation is advancing toward passage.

Trump has falsely claimed that millions of people voted illegally in the presidential election, citing it as the reason he lost the popular vote. He has created a commission charged with studying both voter fraud and suppression.

Under former president Barack Obama, the Justice Department frequently sided with voting rights advocates in challenging voting restrictions, but less than two weeks after Sessions took over the department, it dropped its position that Texass strict voter ID law was intentionally discriminatory against voters of color.

Myrna Perez, who directs the voting project at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said civil rights lawyers have been fighting Texas officials for five years over the voter ID law.

Weve won this case several times, she said, but state lawmakers respond with a new law. What I think is really salient about this is that one of the things that Section 5 did was prevent the kinds of gamesmanship were seeing right now.

Penda Hair, legal director of Forward Justice, a law, policy and strategy center focused on civil rights and social change in the South, agreed that getting rid of the pre-clearance requirement has made it harder on lawyers to fight the states.

In states around the country, she said: Courageous clients . . . have go through years of litigation. Previously, the burden would be on the state to go the Justice Department to prove that the changes they wanted to enact were not discriminatory, she said. The burden that has been put on private activists to do what the Department of Justice used to do is tremendous.

See the original post:
Activist calls voter suppression greater threat to democracy than ... - The Denver Post

We imagine democratic failure as being some spectacular, singular event a violent military coup or the declaration of martial law. But in a country like the United States, democratic failure is likely to look a lot less interesting.

Thats because over the past few decades, countries that have drifted away from democracy have typically done so through a process called democratic backsliding the slow erosion of a countrys democratic institutions by its elected leaders. Populist leaders in countries like Turkey and Venezuela have used their power to make gradual, often legal changes to undermine restraints on their authority rather than pursuing a dramatic power grab.

When political scientists warn that Donald Trump poses a threat to American democracy, theyre usually referring to backsliding. Trump shows a deep distrust of Americas democratic institutions he criticizes sitting judges, questions the legitimacy of an election he won, and punishes news outlets he believes cover him too harshly.

That kind of behavior poses a real challenge for journalists.

Modern news media is designed to bombard viewers with breaking news and discrete pieces of information that briefly capture audiences attention. But democratic backsliding doesnt work that way it happens slowly, through a series of steps that seem legal and benign in a vacuum but end up doing tremendous damage in the aggregate. This means news outlets are unlikely to point out that democratic backsliding has started until its too late.

Watch the video above to see how Trumps anti-democratic impulses can slip under the medias radar.

See the rest here:
The decline of American democracy won't be televised - Vox

Voters cast their ballot in the national election at Cannon Pavilion on Nov. 8, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Darren HauckGetty Images

Whitford, a retired professor of law from the University of Wisconsin, is the named plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Gill v. Whitford.

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule in a landmark partisan gerrymandering case, in which I am the named plaintiff. At a trial in front of three federal judges, two of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, the evidence clearly established that Wisconsin has one of the most partisan perhaps the most partisan legislative gerrymanders in the nation. As the trial court found, this gerrymander effectively guarantees Republican control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature for a decade, no matter what happens in Wisconsin elections. It also guarantees that Republicans will control the legislature that drafts the next apportionment after the 2020 census, perpetuating the problem into the next decade and beyond. The trial court found that this entrenchment of Republican control was unconstitutional, that it deprived millions of Wisconsin citizens of their rights. Similar processes deprive voters, some Republican and some Democrat, elsewhere in the United States.

This extent of partisan bias in Wisconsins legislative apportionment became clear in the first election after the current legislative districts were adopted: In November 2012, Democrats won two major statewide elections and a clear majority of the Wisconsin statewide vote for state Assembly candidates, yet won only 39 of the 99 Assembly seats. Not only is there bias, but there are also few competitive Assembly seats. In 2014, Republicans won a clear majority of the statewide Assembly vote, yet gained only three more Assembly seats. The only legislative elections of consequence in Wisconsin are partisan primaries general elections rarely matter.

The consequences of this unfair districting are many. Because Wisconsin had been politically competitive between the parties for decades, it has often been recognized for its bipartisan consensus on public policies. Now it has become much more ideologically driven, and efforts to obtain bipartisan consensus on legislation are almost non-existent. A state that once prided itself for strong public schools and a world-class public university system now sees devastating cuts to education and ideological fights about education policy. There is also substantial underinvestment in vital infrastructure like highways; Wisconsin is now rated as having a rural highway system as bad as any state in the country. Out-of-state special interests are buying changes in regulations that allow industrial users to operate high capacity water wells and to mine frac sand in ways that damage our rich heritage of wetlands, trout streams and clear blue lakes. And this is just a partial list of the unfortunate product of the legislatures elected under this biased legislative apportionment.

Another clear consequence of the unfair districting has been to discourage Wisconsin Democrats from participating in the many activities of democracy. Now 77 and retired, I was raised in Wisconsin and have lived virtually all my life here. I have been a loyal Democrat since I was a boy working with my mother on a campaign to recall Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. I have stuffed envelopes, knocked on doors, donated to and raised money for candidates. I have worked on campaigns in many districts throughout the state because my goal has always been to elect Democratic majorities in the two branches of the state legislature. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. This is to be expected in a politically competitive state. What is not acceptable is what Wisconsin Democrats now face: Since the 2012 election, we have had no chance to elect Democratic majorities in the Legislature, even when we win big electoral majorities.

Partisan gerrymandering is not just done by Republicans. In some other states, where Democrats are in political control, gerrymanders disadvantaging Republicans have been adopted. And in those states, Republicans have no chance to achieve their policy goals through the persuasion of voters. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.

In democracies, electoral majorities should govern (subject to very important and constitutionally protected minority rights). But we plaintiffs there are twelve of us, from various parts of Wisconsin, all Democratic activists like me just like those Republicans in some other states, no longer have a chance to change the political direction of our state. We may be able to persuade a majority of our citizens to our points of view, but nothing will change. The legislature itself is committed to preserving its advantage and cannot be expected to undo their gerrymanders. And unlike a few states, Wisconsin does not have voter initiative, a process that has allowed citizens in California and Arizona to enact non-partisan districting commissions and remove from legislatures the ability to gerrymander.

As a country, we need the Supreme Court to restore fairness in elections by setting some limits on the degree of partisan bias in legislative districting. In purple states, both parties compete for statewide offices. Both parties should also have a chance to elect state legislative majorities. Anything else is not democracy. Yet there is no remedy for excessive gerrymandering other than Supreme Court action.

Voters should choose their legislators. Instead, in Wisconsin and in many other states, legislators have chosen their voters.

Follow this link:
Why Wisconsin Is Not a Democracy - TIME

White House counselorKellyanne Conway expressed frustration Friday at being asked repeatedly what President Donald Trump was doing to discourage future election interference by Russia, eventually suggesting that Americans who doubted Trump could win the election similarly interfered in the democratic process.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the White House had received intelligence from the CIA last summer that showedRussian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyber campaign to disrupt the 2016 election, with the goalofhurting Hillary Clintons chances.

In an appearance on CNNs New Day, Conway was asked for the White House response to the report.Instead, she pointed to various officials who she saidhad confirmed that there had been no evidence of collusion, number one, and number two, that this didnt have an impacton the electoral result.

Youve got everyone saying that there is no nexus, that not a single vote changed and were going to stand by that, she added. We know that Donald Trump won fairlyand squarely, 306 electoralvotes had nothing to do with interference.

Host Alisyn Camerota tried to steer the conversation to the question at hand: The Posts report on the evidencethat Putin himself had ordered the election interference.What is the current White House doing about this? she asked.

Well, Alisyn, the Presidenthas said previously, and hestands by that, particularly asPresident-elect, that he wouldbe concerned about anybodyinterfering in our democracy, Conway said.

We saw a lot of peopleinterfering with our democracy bysaying he couldnt win here athome, she added, presumably referring to pundits who doubted Trumps chances of winning the election.

Conway changed topics, pointing to former DHS Chief Jeh Johnsons testimony Wednesday that, in Conways words, the Democratic National Committee refused federal help in dealing with the hack of their servers (the actual timeline of events is complicated). That promptedCamerota to ask again:What is theWhite House, what is President Trump now doing to preventRussia from doing this again?

This report is new and welldiscuss it with him later, Conway said. Hes been very clear on therecord that he believes in any typeofnumbers of measures to make surethat democracy flourishes and that our voter integrity is intact, and in fact he has an entire commission on that.

Such as? Camerota pressed. I mean, againstRussia what is he doingspecifically to try to stopthis?

Alisyn, I realize that we just like to saythe word Russia, Russia tomislead the voters, Conway said. And I know that CNN is aiding and abetting this nonsense as well, but youve asked me the same question three times now and Ive answered it.

Watch below via CNN:

More:
Conway: People Who Doubted Trump Could Win Interfered In Our Democracy (VIDEO) - TPM