Mediaboss Marketing

Obscuring census data to give "conservative districts more than their fair share of representation." Preventing access to the vote. Decrying "socialized medicine." Trying to end Social Security using dishonest vocabulary like "strengthened." Lionizing Lenin. Attempting to institute voucher programs to "get out of the business of public education." Increasing corporatization of higher education. Harboring a desire, at heart, to change the Constitution itself.

This unsettling list could be 2017 Bingo. In fact, it's from half a century earlier, when economist James Buchanan an early herald of libertarianism began to cultivate a group of like-minded thinkers with the goal of changing government. This ideology eventually reached the billionaire Charles Koch; the rest is, well, 2017 Bingo.

This sixty-year campaign to make libertarianism mainstream and eventually take the government itself is at the heart of Democracy in Chains. It's grim going; this isn't the first time Nancy MacLean has investigated the dark side of the American conservative movement (she also wrote Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan), but it's the one that feels like it was written with a clock ticking down.

Still, it takes the time to meticulously trace how we got here from there. Charles and his brother David Koch have been pushing the libertarian agenda for more than 20 years. A generation before them, Buchanan founded a series of enclaves to study ways to make government bend. Before that, critic and historian Donald Davidson coined the term "Leviathan" in the 1930s for the federal government, and blamed northeasterners for "pushing workers' rights and federal regulations. Such ideas could never arise from American soil, Davidson insisted. They were 'alien' European imports brought by baleful characters." And going back another century, the book locates the movement's center in the fundamentalism of Vice President John C. Calhoun, for whom the ideas of capital and self-worth were inextricably intertwined. (Spoilers: It was about slavery.)

It's grim going; this isn't the first time Nancy MacLean has investigated the dark side of the American conservative movement ... but it's the one that feels like it was written with a clock ticking down.

Buchanan headed a group of radical thinkers (he told his allies "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential"), who worked to centralize power in states like Virginia. They eschewed empirical research. They termed taxes "slavery." They tried repeatedly to strike down progressive action school integration, Social Security claiming it wasn't economically sound. And they had the patience and the money to weather failures in their quest to win.

As MacLean lays out in their own words, these men developed a strategy of misinformation and lying about outcomes until they had enough power that the public couldn't retaliate against policies libertarians knew were destructive. (Look no further than Flint, MacLean says, where the Koch-funded Mackinac Center was behind policies that led to the water crisis.) And it's painstakingly laid out. This is a book written for the skeptic; MacLean's dedicated to connecting the dots.

She gives full due to the men's intellectual rigor; Buchanan won the Nobel for economics, and it's hard to deny that he and the Koch brothers have had some success. (Alongside players like Dick Armey and Tyler Cowen, there are cameos from Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, and Antonin Scalia.) But this isn't a biography. Besides occasional asides, MacLean's much more concerned with ideology and policy. By the time we reach Buchanan's role in the rise of Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet (which backfired so badly on the people of Chile that Buchanan remained silent about it for the rest of his life), that's all you need to know about who Buchanan was.

We are, 'Democracy in Chains' is clear, at a precipice.

If you're worried about what all this means for America's future, you should be. The clear and present danger is hard to ignore. When nearly every radical belief the Buchanan school ever floated is held by a member of the current administration, it's bad news.

But it's worth noting that the primary practice outlined in this book is the leveraging of money to protect money and the counter-practice is the vocal and sustained will of the people. We are, Democracy in Chains is clear, at a precipice. At the moment, the first practice is winning. If you don't like it, now's the time to try the second. And if someone you know isn't convinced, you have just the book to hand them.

Genevieve Valentine's latest novel is Icon.

Read this article:
'Democracy In Chains' Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism - NPR

Las Cruces Sun-News 7:25 a.m. MT June 18, 2017

Walt Rubel(Photo: Courtesy photo)

If you were handed the keys to a new country and could choose any form of government you wanted, would you pick an American-style democracy?

A benevolent dictatorship would be tempting, with me as the dictator, of course. But, I havent figured out a way yet not to die. And, I would want my country to live on long after I go. Far off in the future, I would want to be thought of as the George Washington of my country. And, the problem with benevolent dictatorships is that somewhere along the line they always seem to lose their benevolence.

Looking at all the alternatives that have been tried thus far, I suppose that I would eventually settle on something akin to an American-style democracy, with some tweaks. But Im not certain that somebody else taking a look at the state of affairs today, who did not have the benefit of history, would come to the same conclusion.

Especially somebody living in Doa Ana County. Can we honestly say that our government is functioning well at the county, state or federal levels?

County government has gone from bad to worse following the 2016 election. Decisions are being made without grounding or explanation by neophytes who show no respect for either their constituents or the process of governing.

State government reached new levels of absurdity this year when Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed the entire fiscal year appropriation for high education, crippling colleges and universities that had already been wounded by years of budget cuts. The action was in no way intended to make a point about the colleges themselves. Rather, it was simple vindictiveness following the Senates refusal to confirm her regents selections.

At the national level, we have new stories every day alleging wrongdoing by the president or his associates. Public hearings in the House and Senate have uncovered abuses of power, while a secret investigation being conducted by former FBI director Robert Mueller continues work each day toward an end that is hard to imagine being vindication.

Last week, all that is wrong with our politics infected one of the last things remaining that was right the annual baseball game between members of Congress. A Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire at Republicans during an early morning practice, badly injuring Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was playing second base at the time.

Congress reacted as it always does at such times, with a show of unity and a call for toning down the rhetoric. But, we have a long way to go.

And by we, Im including myself.

Thursday morning I watched on TV as a grateful father thanked President Trump for securing the release of his son from North Korea, and criticized former President Obama for his failure to do so. My immediate reaction was to lump him in with the enemy camp and reject whatever he had to say.

It only took a moment to talk some sense into myself, but that initial reaction was troubling. I have become so conditioned to seeing everything that flows from the Trump administration as destructive that it was hard to wrap my head around the concept that he, or those working on his behalf, had done something helpful.

As I think about this new country I have inherited, I imagine all the changes I would make. But it doesnt matter what form of government we have if there isnt a basic level of trust between citizens and a common understanding that everyone is striving toward the same goals.

And we dont have that now.

Walter Rubel is editorial page editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Read or Share this story: http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/06/18/american-democracy-still-best-form-government/406451001/

More:
Is American democracy still best form of government? - Las Cruces Sun-News

For the past 2 years, one of my favorite traditions in Washington has been participating in the Congressional Baseball Game. I usually play in the outfield.

For those who arent familiar with this annual event, its when congressional Democrats and Republicans get together to play each other in an exhibition game that raises money for different Washington, D.C. charities. Besides letting some of us relive our younger and more athletic days, it also gives us a rare opportunity to connect with our colleagues across party and state lines.

The vicious and horrific attack we saw Wednesday in Alexandria at the Republican teams practice was nothing short of a direct assault on the institution we all serve and a deranged attempt to disrupt our democracy through violence. But it failed. When the Democratic team learned about what happened, our coach Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania gathered us in the dugout for safety and led us all in prayer. As I sat in the dugout, I was horrified as I thought about Majority Whip Steve Scalise, the heroic Capitol Police officers, and the young former and current Capitol Hill staffers who were injured. It could have been any one of us. This wasnt just an attack on Republicans; it was an attack on our democracy.

The Congressional Baseball Game has never been about Republicans against Democrats. Its about Republicans and Democrats. Its about Americans coming together to support a good cause. The game went ahead Thursday night. We did not give in to fear, violence or hate. We played for those affected by these despicable and cowardly actions, to support local charities (including the Washington Literacy Center, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington and the Washington Nationals Dream Foundation, and, as was announced Wednesday, the Capitol Police Memorial Fund), and to remind the American people that this violence will not define or divide us.

Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-San Bernardino, represents Californias 31st Congressional District. His commentary first appeared at CNN.com

See the rest here:
Gunman's assault on democracy failed - Press-Enterprise

Will democracy in America survive?

First remember that democracy matters. No human institutions are perfect but democracy makes it possible to remove officials without going to war. Democracy doesnt mean anyone alone can make good things happen. Democracy reflects the collective power of people. Collectively, if the rules are followed that protect speakers, publishers, candidates and fair elections, democracy gives us the possibility though nothing is certain of throwing the bastards out. Thats important.

The survival of democracy depends on leaders, institutions, and the circumstances that bring out the best and worst in us. What chance do we have?

We should have been warned when Trump repeatedly expressed admiration for dictators in Russia, the Near East and Eastern Europe, when Trump invited an enemy to break into a candidates email and interfere in an American election, and suggested his supporters use their Second Amendment rights to put him into power. We should have been warned when Trump put people with strong ties to hostile powers at the top of his Administration and gave them access to American military and intelligence secrets. We should have been warned when Trump put an attorney hostile to justice in charge of the Justice Department and installed many military leaders in his government. We cant rely on this casino mogul turned would-be strongman to preserve American democratic government.

Its unclear whether our institutions will protect us. The Turkish military protected Turkish democracy for a century, but that tradition is now gone. Members of Trumps party control both houses of Congress where their commitment to their party compromises their commitment to democracy. Congress seems unlikely to protect us. The Court is dominated by members of the Presidents party and their treatment of the Constitutions due process clauses has been more a threat to decent citizens than a limitation on the powers of would-be dictators.

The circumstances in which we find ourselves have ripped democracies apart across the globe. The concentration of wealth and power we have long seen and condemned abroad has become a reality here. The more that wealth and power are concentrated, the more that the wealthy and powerful circle their wagons to protect their ill-gotten gains against the rest of us, spewing nonsense about supposed trickle-down economics as if it were fact and counting on peoples gullibility. Concentration also makes people desperate, and desperation fuels the mirage of lies and makes too many of us complicit in our own subjugation.

Without reason to rely on the leaders, institutions, or circumstances, that leaves us. Can we square our shoulders and steady our minds to resist the steady babble of nonsense and not just listen to the words but watch what those in power are doing?

When you look at behavior instead of giving a pass to the mogul in the White House, you begin to notice that his actions belie his words. He has no sympathy for coal miners or others who have been shunted aside by changes in the economy but only to protect his friends wealth and power from us. Bernie put his finger on the problem and Trump now aggravates the concentration of wealth and power that are taking apart the lives we thought wed built. So-called free markets protect the marketeers. So-called trickle down economics protect the concentrations from which the trickles are supposed to flow. And the flood of inconsistent tweets boggle the mind and conceal the reality.

Can we uncover the deceptions with strong minds and clear eyes while the casino mogul in the White House gambles our birthright.

Steve Gottlieb is Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and the Breakdown of American Politics. He has served on the Board of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and in the US Peace Corps in Iran. Steve maintains a blog: constitutionalismanddemocracy.wordpress.com

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Read more:
Stephen Gottlieb: Can American Democracy Survive The Bully In The White House? - WAMC

Sandeep Dikshit made a terrible mistake but hes also paid for it with an embarrassing public apology. He was wrong to equate the Army chief with a sadak ka gunda. This wasnt just an insult to Gen Rawat but, more importantly, to the office he holds. The institution of the Army chief although not necessarily the incumbent must be treated with respect even whilst criticising it. Dikshit breached this critical rule. It hardly matters whether he did so inadvertently or deliberately.

However, Dikshit has apologised, fully and unreservedly. If his offence was serious his apology is unequivocal and that is why it should bring the matter to an end. In a civilised society the offence must cease when an apology is delivered. That, after all, is a key rule of gentlemanly conduct.

However, Dikshit has raised a far wider and more important issue and even if it was not his explicit intention to do so I, today, am deliberately choosing to elaborate this more significant point. The Army and that very definitely includes the Army chief is not above criticism and must not be protected from legitimate and sincere critique.

In a democracy every institution of state must face criticism when its justified and deserved. If that includes the prime minister and it most certainly does how can it possibly exclude the Army and its chief? This point is not just self-evident and obvious but, I would add, incontestable. I know of no credible democracy where this is not the case.

During World War I and, perhaps, more significantly World War II, whilst Britains forces were suffering reverses, its army and generals were subjected to damaging but justified criticism. It was, in fact, a test of Britains commitment to democracy and the principle of free speech, even in the face of a rampaging Adolf Hitler.

But why go so far back in time? After the worst reverses in the 1962 India-China War, Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded a special session of Parliament to which Nehru readily agreed and the performance of the Indian Army was sharply, if undeservedly, criticised. This wasnt just painful but also self-inflicted yet the debate was justified and, even if the criticism mistaken, no one disputed the right of the critics to make it.

Unfortunately, that seems like not just another era but almost another country. Today, as Lt Gen HS Panag, a former Northern Army Commander, has written: The army as an institution has been accorded a halo that it can do nothing wrong and nobody should criticise it. This is the worst that could happen to an army. It prevents the army from undertaking reforms which are always necessary for the betterment of any organisation.

Not for a moment do I believe any Army officer and that includes Gen Rawat would think differently. Our Army has nothing to hide and almost everything to be proud of. This is why it would welcome questioning, including criticism even when its sharp and hurtful. And I write that as an Army son who knows what hes talking about.

Finally, a word of advice to the untiring soldiers of social media who, at the first hint of criticism, valorously rise to the Armys defence: cool it or, preferably, shut up! You dont know what youre talking about nor do you understand how youre indefensible behaviour diminishes our Army. In fact, remember, the Army needs you like it needs a hole in the head.

The views expressed are personal

Read more:
In a democracy, Army cannot be above criticism - Hindustan Times