Mediaboss Marketing

This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.

Weve heard a lot lately about the threats to democracy in the US and other Western countries where as recently as a year ago, we naively assumed certain truths to be self-evident, and certain structures and values to be in place. Attacks on a free press, scapegoating religious and ethnic minorities, and delegitimizing political opposition are all ways to contribute to a transition back to authoritarianism, if thats your goal. But there are other ways! You can also hasten the decline of democracy by supporting the rapid rise to power of a political amateur.

The latest round of this kind of thing is the story thats circulating about the WTF movement. This is the latest in a series of efforts to create web-based democracy that circumvents parties, this time led by tech company founders Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman. From one of the more prominent pieces describing the movement: What WTF isnt: Pro-politician, Pincus said. So wed like to see either political outsiders or politicians who are ready to put the people ahead of their career.

That sentence should be pretty chilling if you think about it. The idea that politicians ambition is possibly no longer compatible with pursuing good public policy is disturbing and maybe at least partially true but if so, that is a bug and not a feature of robust democratic institutions. You can read an excellent defense of party politics here. Its the political outsider angle that I want to address, with specific attention to how amateur approaches to politics can undermine democracy.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and its not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. Its not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

Movements like WTF embrace the pernicious myth of populism that beneath elite squabbles there exists widespread unity of principles. It is true that most people want broadly similar things: peace, safety, prosperity. But theres a lot of disagreement about how to achieve those things. Productive approaches to politics acknowledge this denying it wont make it go away.

Political science research has documented the challenge of embracing democratic values. In Stealth Democracy, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John Hibbing found that their respondents lacked understanding of the free speech and assembly, favoring outlawing political parties and interest groups, and had a generally low level of appreciation for their fellow citizens values and lifestyles.

In a classic study of political knowledge, Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter found that those who know more about politics are more likely to embrace democratic values like political tolerance. These differences are, of course, observed within the general population, not among people who are interested enough in politics to think about running for office. But its possible these differences would be present at that level. And we are not currently without evidence. What weve seen so far from an administration that lacks political experience is an accompanying lack of regard for democratic values, especially ones about legitimate opposition and criticism of the government.

Another seminal work in political science, Richard Neustadts Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, addresses the different tools presidents have to accomplish their goals. They can resort to unilateral tools executive orders and what Neustadt calls command over those who answer to them in the executive branch. Or they can work with others, usually Congress, to get things done. Neustadt argues that its when presidents are weaker less skilled that they go the command route.

Again, the Trump presidency bears this out. Working with Congress is difficult. Knowledge of policy, legislative procedure, and the political incentives of other politicians (who their constituents are, who their opponents are likely to be) helps build a coalition. Absent this knowledge, its easier to just govern through executive orders.

On a somewhat different note, the idea that the scientific community can come in and fix the problems of politics presents its own risks. Globally, technocratic approaches have a bad track record. Yet another classic work of political science makes this case. In Seeing Like a State, James Scott documented what happens when solutions are imposed from above without attention to the ways people live and make sense of their worlds. Scott treats authoritarian government as a distinct factor that can work in concert with what he calls high modernism a belief that rational and scientific principles can solve public policy problems.

These examples are particularly important to remember when people from the scientific community make claims about rational, science-based governance. Scientific research and knowledge obviously have a critical contribution to make when we are thinking about what policies actually solve problems, and have greatly improved the lives of many people. But one of the points in Seeing Like a State is that solutions that seem rational and obvious from one perspective are incompatible with local practices or the realities of implementation. This insight seems worth considering as we contemplate whether web-based centrist movements can address the diverse needs of American society. Who gets to define the mainstream America that Pincus describes? Who gets to identify and meet its policy needs? We need politics to help us answer those questions.

Recent revelations about Donald Trump Jr.s meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign illustrate some of the pitfalls of being a political amateur. Trump Jr. apparently took this meeting despite its violation of both campaign finance law and norms about influence by foreign entities in political campaigns. A narrative has arisen in response suggesting that incompetence is at the root of these decisions. Similarly, Paul Ryan defended Trumps efforts to get James Comey to end the Russia investigation by saying, he [the president] is new at this. Its possible that lack of practice at this game and understanding of its rules is to blame for these events. It may also be the case that these are just excuses. Either way, its not much of a case for putting political amateurs in charge.

Its clear that American politics has some issues. Confidence in institutions is low. Economic inequality threatens the basis of the American dream. Our criminal justice system has problems. Congress seems stuck unable to address issues from the environment to the budget. Lots of people feel they dont have much of a political voice.

But the impulse to concentrate a lot of power in the hands of people who dont know what theyre doing isnt going to improve American democracy. These problems require expertise, appreciation for political nuance, and understanding of the tensions inherent in democratic governance. These alone probably arent enough to fix our system. But theres no substitute for the foundation they provide.

Read this article:
Political amateurs are a threat to democracy - Vox

NBCNews.com

100 Days and Counting: The Battle for Democracy in Venezuela ... NBCNews.com Anti-government protests in Venezuela have reached the 100 day mark. So how did the unrest start? and more »

Continued here:
100 Days and Counting: The Battle for Democracy in Venezuela ... - NBCNews.com

Protestors gather outside the hotel where Republican Representative John Faso was scheduled to speak in Schoharie, New York. Credit: YES! Magazine/Reggie Harris.

Im leafing through a stack of protest signs in the corner of the mudroom, reading the markered letters, looking to see what can be recycled for tonight. The subjects weve collected thus far are about human rights and the environment. It looks like well need to draft something fresh and new for tonight, because the topic is health care.

Our Republican congressman, John Faso, has an 89.7 percent track record for voting Yes on Trump initiatives. He hasnt been holding town meetings with constituents, he and his staff have stopped responding to letters, Ive never had a phone call even answered, and his recent vote to repeal ObamaCare in the House has sparked this last minute protest down in the village of Schoharie, New York, where hes the keynote speaker at a countywide Republican fundraiser.

Im not a big fan of crowds. I dont even like meetings. But the elections last November showed me that even introverts need to emerge from their shells and make their voices heard.

As much as I dislike and distrust our current national administration, I also deeply value community harmony. Where national politics and economics fail, I have a deep belief that local community can survive. But Trump won Schoharie County by a margin of 3-1. And the past few months, for me, have been tough.

I dont like to disagree with my neighbors. Im one of those people who waves at every person driving down our rural roads. I like to talk about the weather, about local issues, about whos having surgery, about whose daughter is coming for a visit, about whos cleaning out their garage, whos having a baby. I can remember those things and carry on intelligent conversations. When it comes to national politics, however, Im completely rattled. In the face of someone who disagrees with me, Im so flustered by the lack of harmony, so worried that our friendship could be fractured, I lose my ability to be articulate about issues.

But national politics, in my estimation, are now dire. Too much is at stake for me to spend all my time in my comfort zone. Saoirse and Ula are following the issues now, too, and it would be irresponsible for Bob and me to encourage political discussion at home, but then fail to empower them with the democratic tools available to them to influence change.

So Ive chosen among my discomforts: rather than talking one-on-one with my neighbors about my feelings and opinions, Ive been pushing through my anxiety about being around lots of people. Part of me wonders whether my choice to stand among like-minded souls is more cowardly than talking one-on-one, but I cut myself some slack. Its better than doing nothing.

On this spring evening, Bob, the girls and I write catchy phrases on the backs of some of the other protest signs weve amassed, load into the car, stop at the bank, stop at the grocery store, then make our way to the protest.

One hundred eighty-five of us have gathered outside the hotel where Congressman Faso is scheduled to speak. Thats a big crowd for a rural Republican county, especially since this all came together at the last minute. Bob, the girls and I walk toward them, and were greeted with hugs. We stand among friends, comforted by each others presence. The sky is blue, and the sun is warm on our backs.

Attendees for the fundraising dinner begin to drive by. We hold up our signs. The drivers dont make eye contact. A few flip us the bird. Bob Neid, our organizer and local agitator extraordinaire, holds a megaphone to his lips.

Tell me what democracy looks like! He shouts.

And we all know how to respond, no coaching necessary.

This is what democracy looks like!

For a little while, no one drives past headed for the dinner. Being a great lover of the written word, Ive found in the past few months that protest signs are their own literary form, and Ive come to enjoy reading them. While its quiet, Saoirse and I take off down the line to appreciate the creativity of our fellow protesters.

As we walk, I meet up with farm customers, former teachers, and a lot people Ive not seen in years. We laugh, we share design tips for reusable posters. Some people turn their signs around and show on the back the list of every protest theyve attended this year, the way others might collect spoons from tourist destinations.

A flush of cars arrive. We turn our attention to them and hold up our signs. We sing out different chants:

Hey HeyHo Ho, John Faso has to go!

Healthcare for all, big and small!

And then some fellow farmers drive by, their big pick-ups shiny and clean for the evening.

Tell me what democracy looks like, Bob Neid chants.

I know a lot of them. In one truck, I see a couple Ive known my whole life. They helped me do my master's research. They helped me do my dissertation research. They recognize me. We lock eyes.

Is this confrontation? Is this the very thing Ive been trying to avoid?

He gets a little twinkle in his eye and gives me a nod. She smiles widely and waves at me.

Then I begin to laugh. I forgot! Hes a Republican. Shes a Democrat.

Now theyre both laughing, too.

This is what democracy looks like! The crowd cheers back.

And then I hear it up and down the line. Hey! Thats my neighbor! Another protester lifts his arm and waves to someone else driving down the line. Looks like hes feeling better after his surgery! Another little wave back from the car.

Hey! Those are my neighbors! I didnt know theyd be coming out to something like this! Another nod. Another wave of greeting between protester and Republican driver.

Tell me what democracy looks like!

This is what democracy looks like!

I discover a new comfort zone. I am who I am. I believe what I believe. And all of us in that line are facing the same thing: public dissent, when harmony is a matter of rural culture, survival, and quality of life. But with the support of fellow citizens who share our opinions, we find the courage to speak up about these issues that we find appalling.

And then, on the other side, we see our neighbors. And all those nods, all those little waves on the road, all those pleasantries at the grocery store, become hugely valuable. For the sake of preserving relationships, direct words may not be exchanged. But the communication is happening nonetheless.

Tell me what democracy looks like

Maybe its imperfect. Maybe its provincial. But Ill own it. In Schoharie County, this is what democracy looks like.

This article has been re-posted from YES! Magazine. It was originally published in The Radical Homemaker.

Read more:
What democracy looks like when you have to disagree with your neighbours - Open Democracy

Illustration by Curt Merlo.

In September 2010, the District of Columbia unveiled a pilot project to enable overseas residents and people serving in the military to vote over the Internet, and invited users to test the system. Within 36 hours, University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman and his team were able to hack into it, flipping votes to candidates named after famous computers, like HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and playing the Michigan fight song, The Victors, after every recorded vote. Amazingly, it took two days for election officials in DC to notice the hack and take the system down. The pilot project was eventually scrapped.

Though online voting remains a distant prospect in American politics, this wasnt the first election system that Halderman hacked. On June 21, 2017, he testified before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in a hearing on Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Elections. My conclusion, Halderman told the committee, is that our highly computerized election infrastructure is vulnerable to sabotage, and even to cyber-attacks that could change votes.

Dr. Halderman, youre pretty good at hacking voting machines, by your testimony, Senator Angus King of Maine observed. Do you think the Russians are as good as you?

The Russians have the resources of a nation-state, Halderman replied. I would say their capabilities would significantly exceed mine.

It is now clear that Russian interference in the 2016 elections went far beyond hacking Democratic National Committee e-mails; it struck at the heart of Americas democratic process. As of right now, we have evidence of election-related systems in 21 states that were tar-geted, Jeanette Manfra, the chief cyber-security official at the Department of Homeland Security, testified at the Senate hearing.

Only two of those states have been publicly named: Illinois, where hackers stole 90,000 voter-registration records, including drivers-license and Social Security numbers; and Arizona, where the voter-registration list was breached via a county-level infiltration. On June 13, Bloomberg reported that Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states. And The Intercept, citing a leaked National Security Agency report, stated that Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last Novembers presidential election.

This was a well-planned, well-coordinated, multi-faceted attack on our election process and democ-racy, said Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBIs counter-intelligence division, at the Senate hearing.

Any doubt it was the Russians? Senator King asked.

No, sir, Priestap answered.

Any doubt that theyll be back?

No, sir.

While theres still a lot we dont know about the extent of the hacking and why it occurred, its painfully clear that the US voting system is dangerously insecure. Even though voting machines arent connected to the Internet, hackers can inject malicious software into them by accessing the computers used to program the machines, which are sometimes online. Five states in their entirety, and some counties in nine others, vote using electronic machines with no paper trail, which could make such a hack almost impossible to detect. And even though 36 states use paper ballots or electronic machines with paper backups, that paper is rarely checked thoroughly enough to ensure the results are accurate (only a little more than half the states require even basic post-election audits). Moreover, 42 states are using machines that are at least a decade old and run primitive software like Windows 2000. This is an election meltdown waiting to happen.

The intelligence community has repeatedly said that no votes were changed by Russian hacking, but DHS officials admitted at the Senate hearing that they have not conducted a forensic analysis of any voting equipment used in the presidential election. I asked Lawrence Norden, a voting and democracy expert at New York Universitys Brennan Center for Justice, how confident he was that no votes were altered in 2016. He took a deep breath, sighed, and said, Its impossible to know.

Without changing a single vote, hackers could even more easily wreak havoc on US elections by accessing state voter-registration rolls, as they did in Illinois in 2016. The theft of 90,000 records there went undetected by officials for three weeks, until they finally took the system down for 10 days in response. Attackers could try to interfere with the ability of voters to cast ballots by deleting them from lists of registered voters, marking them as felons prohibited from voting, or changing party affiliation to keep them from voting in their partys primary, notes the Brennan Center in a new report. In states with strict voter-ID laws that require an exact match with voter rolls, changing even a few letters in a persons name could block thousands from casting a ballot.

The bigger point here is that what happened in 2016 could easily happen again and go much further, Halderman says. In fact, I think its only a matter of time before some attacker, be it Russia or another hostile country, really does either sabotage or manipulate the countrys election infrastructure. Eventually it will happen, unless we take steps to stop it. And so far, very little has changed since 2016.

Halderman says the solutions are obvious: Record all votes on paper, perform routine audits of ballots, and conduct regular threat assessments, as is done in many industries. But the White House and Congress are doing less than nothing: President Trump regularly refers to reports of Russian hacking as fake news, and House Republicans voted to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, the only federal agency that helps to protect states against hacking. Were doing way too little, Norden says. The intelligence community has their hair on fire saying the Russians are coming back, but theres almost zero discussion in Congress about taking steps to protect our elections ahead of 2018 and 2020. Things are hardly better at the state level, where in most cases theres no money for new voting machines or added security precautions.

The truth is that the same Republicans who benefited from Russian hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaign e-mails in the 2016 election have been trying for years to suppress Democratic-leaning votes. As civil-rights leader Rev. William Barber notes, Voter suppression hacked our democracy long before any Russian agents meddled in Americas elections. Since the 2010 election, 22 statesnearly all of them controlled by Republicanshave passed new laws making it harder to vote, which culminated in the 2016 election being the first in more than 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.

According to a new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 12 percent of the electorate in 201616 million Americansencountered a problem voting, including long lines at the polls, difficulty registering, or faulty voting machines. And last years election was decided by just 80,000 votes in three states.

Republicans have accelerated their voter-suppression efforts at the state and federal levels in 2017. According to the Brennan Center, 99 bills to limit access to the ballot have been introduced in 31 states this year, and more states have enacted new voting restrictions in 2017 than in 2016 and 2015 combined. Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, and Texas passed new voter-ID laws; Georgia made voter registration more difficult; and Montana is in the process of limiting the use of absentee ballots.

Meanwhile, the Trump administrations new presidential commission on election integrity is preparing to nationalize the GOPs restrictions on voting under the pretext of combating the virtually nonexistent problem of voter fraud. The commissions vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, has pioneered the voter-suppression efforts in his home state, including requiring proof of citizenship to register, which has blocked one in seven Kansans from registering to vote since 2013 (because most people dont carry around a copy of their birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers when they register). If such laws were adopted at the federal level, they would disenfranchise millions of voters.

On June 28, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 states asking for sweeping voter data, including Social Security numbers, party affiliation, felony convictions, and military status. The federal government has never made such a broad request before, and voting-rights advocates fear that such data, in the hands of the Trump administration, will be manipulated to spread lies about voter fraud and purge the rolls in inaccurate and discriminatory ways. [Vice President Mike] Pence and Kobach are laying the groundwork for voter suppression, plain & simple, tweeted Vanita Gupta, the former head of the Justice Departments civil-rights division under President Obama. That same day, the Justice Department also asked states how they plan to remove people from their rolls under the National Voter Registration Act, which seems like further proof of plans to limit voting access.

The good news is that red and blue states alike unexpectedly rebelled against Kobachs request, with 48 states refusing to turn over sensitive, private voter data. Some of the sharpest criticism came from Republican secretaries of state, like Mississippis Delbert Hosemann, who told the Trump administration to go jump in the Gulf of Mexico. The opposition at times bordered on the surreal: At least two members of Trumps handpicked commission, the secretaries of state for Maine and Indiana, rejected Kobachs request, and even Kobach, as secretary of state for Kansas, couldnt hand over voters Social Security numbers to himself, because theyre not publicly available in his home state. One commission member, Maryland Deputy Secretary of State Luis Borunda, resigned.

The bad news is that under the guise of election integrity, Trumps commission marks the beginning of a nationwide voter-suppression campaign by the GOP. Its impossible to overstate the threat this poses, at the same time that the administration is practically inviting another hack from Moscow or elsewhere. Whether its enemies are foreign or domestic, American democracy is in grave danger.

Excerpt from:
American Democracy Is Now Under Siege by Both Cyber-Espionage and GOP Voter Suppression - The Nation.

By Pavin Chachavalpongpun By Pavin Chachavalpongpun July 10

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is an associate professor at Kyoto Universitys Center for Southeast Asian Studies.

As a Thai political dissident who lives in exile, Im accustomed to being attacked by the authoritarian leaders of my own country. Now I find myself adjusting to a new variation on the theme: confronting an allegedly democratic government that is willing to do Bangkoks dirty work for it.

Earlier this month, I was invited to attend the Delhi Dialogue, a discussion forum on a variety of issues between India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The organizers wanted me to discuss Thai-Indian relations and how they fit into the larger context of South and Southeast Asian politics. I had attended the event once before, many years ago.

My situation today, however, is rather different. In 2014, the Thai military seized power in a coup and immediately targeted me for my outspoken criticism of the monarchy. The coup organizers summoned me to have my attitude adjusted their euphemism for interrogation. When I refused, the authorities issued a warrant for my arrest and revoked my passport. Luckily I was already living in Japan, so I decided to stay and apply for refugee status.

So when the Indians invited me to speak at the Delhi Dialogue again, I was convinced that they were aiming to highlight the importance of free speech, human rights and democracy. I was wrong.

I was supposed to speak at one of two events during the forum. Hours before the first one, the Thai Embassy in Delhi noticed my name on the schedule and expressed concerns to the Indian hosts. They were worried that I was going to speak critically of the junta. The Thai Foreign Ministry had assigned a deputy foreign minister, a junta appointee, to represent Thailand at the event. My attendance, it seems, would have embarrassed the Thai delegates.

Under pressure from the Thai Embassy, the organizers told me that my participation at the ministerial session was no longer welcome. In other words, having traveled to India, I was kicked out of the first days activities.

Stunned by the response from the Indian host, I decided to boycott the whole event and left Delhi abruptly (not least because I began to worry about my personal safety). I was used to being silenced by own government, but now I had been silenced by the same host that had invited me to the meeting in the first place.

To be honest, human rights, free speech and democracy have never held a prominent place in Thai-Indian relations. It is disappointing that India, which revels in its status as the worlds most populous democratic state, is now working closely with an illegitimate and un-elected government in Thailand.

Since the coup, India has said nothing about the militarys intervention in politics and the disruption of democracy. In fact, the Indian government has rolled out the red carpet to the coup-makers on several occasions. General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the Thai prime minister, paid his first visit to India in June 2016. The press release fromthe Indian government said, Thailand is a trusted and valued friend, and one of our closest partners in Southeast Asia.

India has been happy to lend its diplomatic support to Thai military leaders and is willing to turn a blind eye to the lack of democracy in Thailand in its pursuit of economic gain. Although India is not currently a major strategic partner, the Bangkok juntas growing recognition of Indias emergence as a new regional power has contributed to a rapid upgrade of the relationship.

India is keen to compensate for the regional rise of China, a desire that informs Delhis Look East strategy. India has a clear need to maintain close ties with Thailand. But this has never been done in a way that adequately respects Indias democratic principles. Thailand is under military rule, which has crushed the countrys democratic aspirations. The lack of Indias commitment to democratic principles in its foreign policy is making life easy for the juntas despotic regime.

Unfortunately, this is part of a broader global trend. India is not the only democratic state that openly helps authoritarian regimes to suppress their critics. The South Korean government has placed me on a blacklist. And the U.S. government accepted a request from the Thai junta to annul my passport.

The Trump administration is showing itself much less willing to accept political refugees, vividly demonstrating Washingtons dwindling commitment to humanitarian principles. India and South Korea are treating critical academics as outlaws. These supposedly democratic nations are turning a blind eye to authoritarianism to safeguard their own positions of power.

I know that my peculiar experience in India appears trivial when viewed against the background of the relations of two large countries. Yet what happened to me still says a great deal about some democracies waning commitment to the principles they claim to hold dear.

Read more here:
I thought India invited me to show its support for democracy. How ... - Washington Post