Mediaboss Marketing

Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both. (Photo: Joe Brusky / Flickr)

When and how were the seeds sown for the modern far-right's takeover of American politics? Nancy MacLean reveals the deep and troubling roots of this secretive political establishment -- and its decades-long plan to change the rules of democratic governance -- in her new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America. Get your copy by making a donation to Truthout now!

It's the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean's new book,Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor's work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaireCharles Koch.

Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden program for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The program is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both theneoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses.

James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he calledpublic choice theory. He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes were forms of "differential or discriminatory legislation" against the owners of capital.

Any clash between "freedom" (allowing the rich to do as they wish) and democracy should be resolved in favor of freedom. In his bookThe Limits of Liberty, he noted that "despotism may be the only organizational alternative to the political structure that we observe." Despotism in defense of freedom.

His prescription was a "constitutional revolution": creating irrevocable restraints to limit democratic choice. Sponsored throughout his working life by wealthy foundations, billionaires and corporations, he developed a theoretical account of what this constitutional revolution would look like, and a strategy for implementing it.

He explained how attempts to desegregate schooling in the American south could be frustrated by setting up a network of state-sponsored private schools. It was he who first proposed privatizing universities, and imposing full tuition fees on students: his original purpose was to crush student activism. He urged privatization of social security and many other functions of the state. He sought to break the links between people and government, and demolish trust in public institutions. He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy.

In 1980, he was able to put the program into action. He was invited toChile, where he helped the Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.

None of this troubled the Swedish Academy, which through his devotee at Stockholm University Assar Lindbeck in 1986 awarded James Buchanan theNobel memorial prize for economics. It is one of several decisions that have turned this prize toxic.

But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US, decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as "sellouts", as they sought to improve the efficiency of governmentrather than destroy it altogether. But Buchanan took it all the way.

MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan's work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded think tanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary "cadre" that would implement his program (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin's techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a program for changing the rules.

The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential". Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical "reforms". (The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a "counter-intelligentsia", allied to a "vast network of political power" that would become the new establishment.

Through the network of think tanksthat Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump's administrationby members of this networkand lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan's vision is maturing in the US.

But not just there. Reading this book felt like a demisting of the window through which I see British politics.The bonfire of regulationshighlighted by the Grenfell Tower disaster, the destruction of state architecture through austerity, the budgeting rules, the dismantling of public services, tuition fees and the control of schools: all these measures follow Buchanan's program to the letter. I wonder how many people are aware that David Cameron'sfree schools projectstands in a tradition designed to hamper racial desegregation in the American south.

In one respect, Buchanan was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called "economic freedom" and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both.

Buchanan's program is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean's discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda. One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We're getting there.

Enjoying what you're reading? Click here to help Truthout publish more stories like this one.

See the original post here:
A Despot in Disguise: One Man's Mission to Rip Up Democracy - Truth-Out

In a vote that has been described as an assault on democracy by European officials, the Polish Senateis expected to approve a rushed and controversial law on Friday that would retire all Supreme Court judges and allow the presidentto replace themwith more favorable alternatives.

[Polish parliament expected to approve measure stripping Supreme Court of independence]

Proposed by the ruling right-wing Law and Justice (Pis) party, the legislation has been widely condemned as the mostworrying development in a country where democratic institutions are under mounting pressure. If passed, thechanges would constitutean unprecedented attack on judicial independence,according to ajoint statement by leading judges from the neighboring Czech Republic.

It is only the latest of many unprecedented attacks.

Only two years ago, Poland was widely considered a success story that had managed to seemingly leavebehindits communist past, and turned into a robust role model democracy praised by officials across the European Union.

Now, it is becoming a case study for why liberal democracy should not be taken for granted. The Polish government has pursued a number of strategies to weaken its opponents and democratic institutions, including repressions against journalists or judges and the dissemination of conspiracy theories, which preceded Friday's vote.

A populistelection campaign that paved the way

When Polish voters decided it was time for a new, populist administrationtwo years ago,the reasons for the election outcomeappeared hard to understand from the outside. Poland's economy had grown by nearly 50 percent over the previousdecade, benefiting from an integration with the rest of the continent.

But the landslide victory of Poland'sright-wing and anti-E. U. Law and Justice partyrevealeddeeper divisions, which were harder to measure than the country's GDP.Senior party officials took a decidedly anti-immigration stance in the days beforethe election, even warning that migrants might carry dangerous diseases.

The timing was right for the Law and Justice party. Europe faced the peak of its massive refugee influx in the second half of 2015, which provokedfears in more conservative nations, like Poland, and ultimately pavedthe way for Law and Justice's victory. In particular, rural voters there had long felt neglected by their previous government and complainedthat economic prosperity had not been accompanied by improved social services.

Repressions against journalists

With its sweeping mandate, Law and Justice quickly began to consolidate its power. The country's public broadcaster, TVP Info, essentially turned into a mouthpiece of the government months after the election. Through amendments to the country's media law, the government gained control over the public media network's executives, which triggered the resignation of more than 140 employees.

Soon thereafter, the government went after independent newspapers and broadcasters, as well. It attemptedto limitthe number of journalists allowedaccess to parliamentbut had to abandonthe plans after large-scale protests.

As a result, Poland's ranking in the Press Freedom Index dropped to partly free this year due to government intolerance toward independent or critical reporting, excessive political interference in the affairs of public media, and restrictions on speech regarding Polish history and identity, which have collectively contributed to increased self-censorship and polarization, according to Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington.

Despite international protests, the government's control over state media outlets has created a parallel reality in parts of Polish society, where protests against the illiberalLaw and Justice party are being portrayed as a coup against the democratically elected government.

Conspiracy theories

State media outlets have alsorepeated some of the conspiracy theories that have further deepened divisions in the country over the last two years. Law and Justice leaderJaroslaw Kaczynski has blamed former Polish prime minister and current president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, for somehow beingcomplicit in the death ofKaczynski's twin brother seven years ago.

Tuskcampaigned for Law and Justice'srival party, the liberal-conservative Civic Platform, and was prime minister in 2010 when President LechKaczynski died in a plane crash in Russia. Kaczynski's Law and Justice party has long believed that the crash was not an accident but an assassination.

Last year, the party pushed for theexhumation of the bodies of the 96 victims to investigate thetheory, but critics have said the move was timed to stoke anti-European Union tensions. There is no evidence to proveKaczynski's suspicions.

The government vs. the justice system

The emergence of investigations that are being criticized as politically motivated by critics hasbeen accompanied by a parallel effort to restrict the independence of judges.

Friday's vote on the Supreme Court law is only the latest governmental interferencewith Polish courts.After the 2015 election victory, for example, Law and Justice initiated the replacement ofa number of judges of the country's Constitutional Tribunal and then essentially paralyzed the tribunal by requiring two-third majorities for rulings and a mandatory participation ratio.

Threats to jail opponents

The more recent legislation would give parliament large sway over the appointment of judges, stoking fears among government critics who believethe changes would make the prosecution of political opponents more likely. Human rights advocates say such fears may be warranted, given that Law and Justice published photos of anti-government protesters and threatened to prosecute them earlier this year, despite warnings by NGOsthat the move would have a chilling effect on the opposition. There has been little resistance to such measures inside the civil service, which has largely been replaced by loyalists over the last two years.

With the next parliamentary elections expected to take place in 2019, Law and Justice is unlikely to run out of time in its effort to weaken its opponents and to politicize previously independentinstitutions.

Read more:

Thousands in Poland protest government judicial reform plans

Polands senators to vote on contentious court overhaul

Continue reading here:
It only took two years for a 'robust' European democracy to fall apart - Washington Post

Self-admiration isn't the answer.

In her new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, Nancy MacLean writes that my Bloomberg View colleague Tyler Cowen, by questioning American political institutions, was creating a handbookfor how to conduct a fifth-column assault on democracy. As the Hoover Institutions Russ Roberts pointed out, Cowens quote was taken out of context. This is worth noting because Cowen has long been a staunch defender of democracy.

But its no secret that Cowen is willing to think critically about the potential weaknesses of the U.S. system. He does this not to attack democratic ideals, but to defend them. If we want to see democracy endure, we must think realistically and pragmatically about its weak points, so that we can focus resources on shoring them up.

Its very dangerous to indulge in triumphalism about ones own form of government. Yes, democracies appear to have a modest statistical advantage when it comes to economic growth. But thats just a statistical trend, not an ironclad proof of economic superiority. Plenty of autocratic countries have experienced rapid growth, from Germany in the 19th century to South Korea and Taiwan in the early 1980s. Whats more, theres a chance that the modest correlation between democracy and growth is driven by one massive outlier -- the U.S., whose alliance and patronage was undoubtedly a big economic advantage for many democratic countries during the 20th century.

Right now, democracy is being questioned more from both within and without. Its worth asking if this is because democratic systems have some unique economic challenges that were systematically ignored in previous decades.

Economists have long known that democracy doesnt always lead to the most economically efficient outcome. The Nobel prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow famously proved that no democratic political system can give all its citizens what they want in in all situations. Of course, real political systems dont even come close to optimality, so this finding is a bit academic.

But economic theory also points to a more concrete problem -- the difficulty democracies have in providing public goods. One of governments essential roles is to provide things that benefit people other than those who directly pay for them. Examples include national defense, infrastructure and basic research. Education and health care also have some aspects of public goods, since a healthy and educated populace creates broad benefits for everyone. Because free markets generally wont provide enough of these things, government needs to pick up the slack.

When building infrastructure, authoritarian countries dont have to worry about hurting the few to help the many. China forcibly relocated 1.2 million people to build a dam in the 2000s. Fortunately, that wouldnt be possible in the U.S., but it does mean that American companies are often forced to compete against authoritarian rivals that have access to cheaply built world-class infrastructure.

Paying for public goods can also be difficult. People differ both in their ability to pay and in the amount of benefit they derive from the public goods. Typically, countries use different types of taxes to take these two things into account -- gas taxes to fund highways, and income taxes that fall more heavily on the rich. But economic theorists have figured out that under a fairly general set of conditions, no tax regime can possibly provide a good deal for all citizens. Either government ends up not providing enough public goods, or it runs a budget deficit.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

There is an alternative. Its possible to balance the budget and provide the optimal amount of public goods, but only if some rich people are forced to pay very high taxes. But the amount of top-level taxation required is so steep that many rich people would rather just quit the system entirely -- move to another country, or abolish the government. This fairly general mathematical result probably explains many rich peoples affinity for libertarian ideas.

It also may explain why most democracies carry large amounts of government debt:

Gross central government debt as a share of GDP in 2014

Source: World Bank

This is also a recent phenomenon. Until about 1980, the U.S. did a good job of balancing its budget. But after 1980, structural deficits began to appear:

U.S. federal debt as a share of GDP

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Did this happen because globalization gave rich people the option to move their capital -- or even themselves -- overseas if their taxes got too high? Thats what the simplified economic theory would predict.

If so, this presents a problem for democracies. Authoritarian countries such as China or Russia can implement capital controls to prevent money from flowing out. But democracies -- or any liberal system that allows freedom of personal and financial movement -- may struggle to balance their budgets in a globalized world.

Its precisely because we want democracy to survive that we must not ignore its special challenges. Making it taboo to even discuss these issues would be a big mistake. The free world needs fewer over-optimistic cheerleaders, and more thinkers like Tyler Cowen, who love democracy but are willing to think about its flaws.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at nsmith150@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net

Read this article:
Be Clear-Eyed About Democracy's Weaknesses - Bloomberg

The Hindu

India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley The Hindu For 70 years, India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money elected representatives, governments, political parties, Parliaments and I must say that the Election Commission completely failed in checking it, Mr Jaitley said ... Arun Jaitley says for 70 years invisible money funded Indian democracy, slams politicians for taking benami routeFinancial Express For 70 years, Indian democracy was funded by 'invisible money': Arun JaitleyOneindia all 41 news articles »

Read the original:
India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley - The Hindu

COMMENTARY:The bright spot in the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision was the upholding of transparency. The ruling opened the floodgates for the uber-wealthy to grab greater control of our local, state and national elections but it also made clear that you have a right to know theyre doing it.

Heath Haussamen

Bringing political spending into the light enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages, the Citizens United decision states. In a ruling on another case that year, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.

And yet, New Mexico has struggled for years to come up with laws or regulations to combat dark money. Parts of our Campaign Reporting Act were ruled unconstitutional years ago, and policymakers have failed to fix it.

The Legislature finally sent a bill to Gov. Susana Martinez this year that would have required independent groups that spend more than $1,000 during a campaign to disclose their funding. She vetoed it.

Now Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is trying to enact a new rule to supplement the states reporting law. Groups that spend more than $1,000 in an election cycle would have to report all donors who gave more than $200.

Several right-leaning groups are fighting the proposal. Some left-leaning groups that have fought against or been lukewarm about increased disclosure in the past have been largely silent about the proposal from Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat.

Common Cause New Mexico, which voluntary discloses donor and spending information, has been lobbying hard for the secretary of states new rule.

Given that parts of the states reporting law are unconstitutional, the secretary of state is likely to rely on case law and enforce her proposal regardless of whether its enacted as a rule, an assistant attorney general said during a public hearing this week.

Toulouse Olivers proposal is an important step. Id rather disclosure be protected in state law so it cant be easily undone by a future secretary of state who doesnt favor transparency. But a rule is better than nothing.

And it wont solve the problem of dark money. It would require disclosure when spending is expressly related to a race or issue on the ballot. But it wouldnt touch the massive spending by nonprofits on issue advocacy and criticism of government officials that shapes public opinion outside of an election season.

You should get to know, for example, whos funding billboards and other mediacriticizingU.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, a Republican, that a coalition of left-leaning groups has spread across southern New Mexico. You should get to know when a wealthy individual from the left or right funds an attack on your public officials.

Dark money has spread like a cancer throughout our system. Those of us who engage in the public debate politicians, candidates, nonprofit and other activist groups, journalists should be transparent about how our work is funded. We should, in Scalias words, have the civic courage to stand up in public.

Courts have largely upheld donor privacy for spending that isnt explicitly election-related, and thats unfortunate. The degree of transparency Im seeking may not ever happen.

But its needed to combat the United States oligarchical trajectory, to preserve our ability to participate in and influence the direction of our society.

Heath Haussamenis NMPolitics.nets editor and publisher. Agree with his opinion? Disagree? We welcome your views. Learn about submitting your own commentaryhere.

Original post:
Dark money threatens democracy - NMPolitics.net