Mediaboss Marketing

As candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination brace themselves for a second verdict from voters in New Hampshire on February 11, audiences around the world are scratching their heads trying to understand whats going on. TV shows on U.S. politics are a preferred form of entertainment across the planet, yet this time, reality has surpassed fiction. After three years of a most unusual presidency that has kept both allies and rivals on their toes, the choice of an adversary to Donald Trump feels of epic proportion. But if the Iowa caucuses failed to bring clarity, what will?

As a frequent commentator of U.S. politics for a French audience, I am often on the receiving end of impossible questions: So, who is the next Obama?; Americans make a big fuss about diversity, but have you seen the candidates? Same old white men; Bernie Sanders is supposedly too progressive, but in France he would be a centrist, wouldnt he?; A woman cant get elected president. Remember Hillary Clinton?; I like the guy, Pete Buttig Butti Bu how do you pronounce his name again?; All of that is well and good, but let me tell you something: in the end, Trump will be reelected.

I wouldnt dare try to debunk all, or for that matter any, of this well-intentioned amateur punditry. But it reminds me that it is hard to get to the substance behind the noise of a primary horserace. In an effort to clarify matters for myself, and a few potential readers, I have tried to dissect the forces at play within the 2020 Democratic camp in my upcoming book, Des Dmocrates en Amrique: Lheure des choix face Trump (Fayard-Fondation Jean Jaurs, 2020). Its main takeaway can be diluted to a simple question: what do Democrats stand for? As I toured Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of the caucuses and primaries, I was reminded that the answer to this question is not obvious, but rather hidden behind a large field of contenders and a simplistic progressive-versus-moderate narrative. After a year of research on the topic, this is how I have come to think of it (and explain it to fellow foreigners):

The main driving force in these primaries is the idea that Democrats need, first and foremost, to beat Donald Trump (obviously!). For many, his 2016 election was an aberration. His victory was circumstantial, a result of Clintons campaign mistakes coupled with foreign interference, only enabled by the Electoral College. This historical mistake can be repaired, provided Americans sweep the Trump anomaly under the rug. The partys priority is electability: identifying the candidate most likely to win against Donald Trump, someone who can bring together generations across social, ethnic, and racial groups, who can attract the average voter, particularly in the few states narrowly lost by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

This is the argument made by former Vice President Joe Biden, a politician with a regular Joe persona who promises to restore the soul of America. Then, and only then, can things get back to normal. But, if any one lesson can be gleaned from Iowa, its that Democrats dont seem that interested in just returning to normal. Attending a Joe Biden event in Hudson, New Hampshire, this weekend, I was struck by the passivity of the audience, listening respectfully and in silence to a politician they generally like but refuse to commit to. As Iowa eroded hiselectability argument, Bidens only comeback plan resides in African-American support, which is massive indeed, at least up until now. Yet, as I witnessed folks leaving the room before the end of Bidens town hall, I couldnt help but think that there must be something else at play.

It appears that, for a growing part of the Democratic base, 2016 was no accident, but the symptom of a more serious illness: the desperation of working class and lower-middle class Americans who are looking to upset the established order. Indeed, the situation is dire: working wages dont cover the cumulative costs of healthcare, education, pensions, housing; the risk of personal financial ruin has doubled in 40 years; Americans are dyinglife expectancy has been decreasing for the past three years (with the exception of a slight uptick last year).

Leaving the caucus precinct in Waterloo, Iowa, a country club waitress was telling me of her financial difficultiesfaced with high costs of rent, food, and healthcare, only able to make ends meet by selling cannabis out of her car. Letting me in on a secret, she told me that her upcoming knee replacement surgery, which she needs to be able to continue working, led her to double her stash and look for new customers.

Stories like these are all too real. Hurt by globalization and international trade competition, struggling American workers flocked to Trump and can only be recaptured by addressing their legitimate grievances. At least thats the argument of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. They espouse an unapologetic shock therapy; they promise universal public healthcare, early childhood education, free college, and a dramatic increase of the minimum wage, offering to implement robust regulation of markets and taxation of the rich as the means of achieving these goals. As political rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire overflow with supporters, there is no question that their promises dominate the political conversation, although their dual existence threatens each others own prospects. But the wounds of 2016 remain raw. The implicit accusation behind their programsthat Democrats have cozied up to Corporate America and forgotten regular Americansis quite upsetting to the establishment wing of the party, and the two progressive senators dont have that many friends on the inside. In the age of Trump, Democrats worry deeply about infighting.

Many believe that this brand of fiery leftist populism will exacerbate the main problem at the heart of America today: the hyper-polarization and hyper-partisanship that is ripping the country apart geographically, culturally, and politically. For a new crowd of modern Democrats, a personality as divisive as Donald Trump could only thrive because American democracy itself is in crisis. An outdated constitutional order, fragmented politics, and a divisive media ecosystem have produced a broken system where institutions are not representative, and people feel alienated.

There is a crisis of belonging in America, says former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, who promises to reconcile the country. To him, American values and symbolsreligion, the Constitution, the armed forcesshould unite Americans rather than divide them. He wants to move past the left-right divide and re-center the political conversationvery Obama-esque of him, say many, but also very Macron-esque, as the French president made the rejection of the class left-right divide a signature of his politics. Blurring political lines allows for blurring of camps and diversifying support. At a Buttigieg rally in Nashua, New Hampshire, this weekend, I met an older voter who had driven down from Maine to canvass for Pete, enthused by his fresh energy and his message of hope and optimism. I also encountered a former Tony Blair adviser with a Northern Ireland Labour politician, both intrigued, like many Europeans, by this American version of the Third Way, hoping it could lead to a larger renewal of progressive politics. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar also plays on the strength of the Midwestern brand of no-nonsense and unity. But the most progressive politicians go a step further: they call for modernizing institutions and amending the Constitution to prevent partisan games from artificially dividing Americans. Buttigieg, and others, have put forward ambitious ideas for getting rid of the Electoral College, controlling gerrymandering, or reforming the Supreme Court. Americans, tired of D.C. hysteria, want to believe in unity and renewal, and who best than a 30-something gay mayor from Mike Pences home state of Indiana to personify belonging? Well, that is if he wins.

Because one of the wild cards in this primary race in my opinion resides in a fourth corner of the electorate, where most of the energy within the Democratic base stems, but that has no obvious embodiment among the candidates. It is the rise of a generation of young activists, diverse and progressive, who are fundamentally questioning the order of things in American society, where gender, ethnic, racial, sexual and religious minorities are structurally underrepresented. Yet, the Democratic Party absolutely needs them in November, at least as much as it needs the independents and the moderates. They marched in the streets in 2017, they knocked off establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle in 2018, they agitated the House in 2019. But this post-Trump generation of activists wont just fall in line. They push for gun-control legislation, they demand climate action, they push for new progressive ideas such as reparations for Black America or de-criminalizing the border. None of the current hopefuls are their ideal candidate, although Bernie comes close to it. Rewarded for his relentless advocacy for the poor and disenfranchised, Bernie got the endorsement of three members of the Squad and the Sunrise Movement. Warren follows suit, endorsed by the Working Families party and former candidate and progressive hero Julin Castro. Centrist politicians, including self-funding former New York city mayor Mike Bloomberg, who joins the primary ballot on Super Tuesday, brush aside their theory of the case as marginal and alienating. But the young and diverse crowd of precinct captains and canvass organizers I met in Iowa and New Hampshire reminds me that the fire in many Democrats bellies comes from this hope of the rise a new American majority, collective, intersectional, and radically inclusive.

No single one of these undercurrents corresponds to a single candidate, just as no candidate embodies a single undercurrent. Yet each is a powerful force within the Democratic Party that responds to deep-seated concerns about Americas evolution. Many worry deeply about increasing socioeconomic inequalities and want to rein in the capitalist system. Many are shocked by the enduring legacy of structural racism and underrepresentation and want it to be addressed head on. Many still anguish over deepening divisions and want to reconcile Americans. Some simply hope to return to a more normal America. But every single Democrat is concerned with Donald Trumps abuse of power and determined to take back the White House. In fact, most Democrats worry about all of those things, and yet no candidate has so far been able to capture them all. Which brings us to the present day: the beginning of a primary process which could take months (or end within weeks), while personalities fight it out. Yet to achieve the perfect union that will lead to a new American majority, the next Democratic candidate will have to accept that his or her coalition will only stand if it is deeply rooted in the four corners of the Democratic camp.

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy in America 2020: A French perspective on the battle for the Democratic nomination - Brookings Institution

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