Mediaboss Marketing

For David Moss, author of Democracy: A Case Study, history provides a guide for coping with disagreement in a nation as vast as the United States. Robust faith in the democracy itself has the power to transform our differences from a potentially grave weakness into a precious source of strength, he writes, drawing on an insight that great American statesmen have expressed from the beginning:

In 1776, not long after the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin plucked the Latin words E Pluribus Unum from the cover of a literary magazine and recommended them as a motto for the nation. E Pluribus Unum out of many, one.

It was a remarkable aspiration for a collection of colonies perhaps more notable for their differences than for what they had in common. But Franklin was, as usual, extraordinarily insightful and foresightful. He saw from the republics first breath that the unique promise of America lay in harnessing difference toward a common purpose through self-governance.

Fraught eras are not new.

Across the nations history, the practice of democracy has always been rooted in conflict, including plenty of bare knuckle politics stemming from intense partisan, ideological, and sectional differences, Moss observes. The critical question is what makes this conflict productive rather than destructive. How can we distinguish the political conflict of the late 1850s that ultimately deteriorated into the violence of the Civil War from the political conflict of so many other periods that allowed for the peaceful resolution of differences and fostered immense progress over time?

As he ponders the present moment, he urges a renewed faith in what he calls democratic values:

In the past, political conflict has often proved productive when citizens shared a strong common faith in the democracy, along with a deep commitment to sustaining and strengthening their democracy. This common faith and commitmentwhat might be called a vibrant culture of democracyhas long been the glue that held Americans together, despite their many differences. Sadly, common faith in national democratic governance had largely broken down by 1860, ripped apart by the evils of slavery, as intense political conflict quickly descended into rancor and violence. This was a rare moment of political collapse in America, but also a potent warning of how dangerous our differences can become when they overwhelm our common commitment to democratic principles.

Today, there is mounting evidence that our culture of democracy has atrophied over recent decades. Although the problem is sharply different from that of 1860, there is still reason to be concerned. Whats needed is not less political conflict, but rather more productive conflict; and that means strengthening our culture of democracy, even as we continue to do battlepeacefullyin the political arena. Fortunately, Americans have revitalized their culture of democracy many times before, and we can do it again.

But we cant lose sight of the fact that a strong culture of democracya profound and unwavering commitment to republican values and processesis the foundation of productive political conflict and, in turn, the essence of a healthy republic. Ultimately, it is whats most needed to ensure that Franklins noble vision of E Pluribus Unum remains alive and well in America.

David Moss is the Paul Whiton Cherington professor at Harvard Business School. He is speaking about James Madison this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. Email conor@theatlantic.com with your own answer to the question of how Americans can live together in peace and prosperity despite our many differences in values, political beliefs, ideologies, and temperaments.

Continue reading here:
Finding Faith in Democracy at Moments of National Conflict - The Atlantic

Like the character he played in All in the Family way back when, moviemaker Rob Reiner has long been known for his liberal leanings. And he is no fan of Republican President Donald Trump.

Less than two weeks after Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing gunman during a GOP baseball practice, Reiner went on the attack Sunday with militaristic fervor:

When Fox says that DT colluding with the enemy is not a crime, the fight to save Democracy is now an all out war, Reiner tweeted. US-Stay strong. He added a treason hashtag.

It wasnt the first time Reiner used such rhetoric in reaction to Trump.

Just after the election, Reiner called Trump a moron and said the United States was now fighting the last big major battle since the Civil War.

Reiner later claimed that Russian involvement in the election was the greatest attack on this democracy since 1941 meaning Japans surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

He also told MSNBCs Morning Joe months prior to the election that Trumps campaign success was partly due to a lot of people who are racists which prompted co-host Joe Scarborough to reply,Oh, my God. Did you just say that?

Incidentally, reactions to Reiners all out war Tweet werent terribly kind to the famed director:

Original post:
Liberal moviemaker Rob Reiner: 'Fight to save Democracy' from Trump 'now an all out war' - TheBlaze.com

This is not how the process is supposed to work. What you sort of realize in watching how Trump has conducted himself [and] in how Mitch McConnell has conducted himself is that [the] functioning democratic process as we know it is not embodied in law or in the Constitution. It depends on both parties ... believing in a set of democratic norms about the value of public input, about the value of transparency, about allowing the public to have a say in whats happening. And if one of those parties ... decides to disavow all those norms, we get to a place where ... this is not American democracy. We basically have an election and live in a quasi-authoritarian state until the next election.

Trumps authoritarianism and McConnells are two very different strains. The president is a narcissist who gathers power for personal gain self-gratification. He cares little for the specifics of policy outcomes, and merely wants victories that he can boast about. For instance, on Friday morning he tweeted

and then appeared on Fox and Friends to make the patently false claim, Ive done in five months what other people havent done in years. Constant displays of alpha-male dominance is also central to Trumps brand of authoritarianism. He taunted his GOP rivals during the Republican primary, and since then has mocked his Democratic foesfirst Hillary Clinton, and now Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. This week, he tweeted that the House and Senate minority leaders, respectively, were doing the Republicans a favor by remaining in charge, the implication being that theyre ineffective if not incompetent.

This is the authoritarianism of pure spectacle. McConnell, by contrast, is withdrawn and diffident in his public. (Hes jokingly likened to a turtle because of his appearance, but behaves like one, too.) While the majority leader doesnt crave attention, he does care deeply about a specific policy agenda: advancing the plutocratic preferences of the Republican partys donor class. Infinitely more knowledgeable than Trump about how government functions, McConnell subverts norms with a laser-like focus on advancing that agenda. His authoritarianism, in other words, is one of procedure.

As different as they are, these two forms of authoritarianism depend on each other. Its unlikely that the Republican Party would have won a unified government last fall without Trumps theatrical flair. To judge not only by last years election, but also this weeks special congressional election in Georgia, Trumps tribalist politics have far more appeal with the Republican base than a forthright agenda of tax cuts for the rich and entitlement cuts to the poor. And when it comes to that agenda, all that really matters is that the policies be sold through the lens of negative partisanship. After all, Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Medicaid, whereas McConnells version of the AHCA would slash the program by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. But Trump easily resolves such dissonance by reminding his supporters of the real enemy here: Obamacare.

If the Republican Party needs Trump, the president is equally dependent on the GOP. Given his manifest disinterest in policy and the details of governance, he would be unable to pass anything without crafty leaders like McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan. But there is a more sinister dimension to Trumps alliance with these Republican leaders: Congress has the power to check the president, including impeachment and removal if necessary. Ryan and McConnell are the bulwarks protecting Trump from a wide range of areas where he should be held accountable. If they wanted to, they could push for laws requiring him to reveal his taxes, force him to place his assets in a blind trust, and use nepotism rules to limit the power of family members, among a range of other checks.

See the original post:
The Twin Authoritarians Who Are Endangering American Democracy - New Republic

When voters cast ballots for state representatives last fall, millions of Americans essentially had no choice: In 42 percent of all such elections, candidates faced no major party opponents.

Political scientists say a major reason for the lack of choices is the way districts are drawn gerrymandered, in some cases, to ensure as many comfortable seats as possible for the majority party by creating other districts overwhelmingly packed with voters for the minority party.

"With an increasing number of districts being drawn to deliberately favor one party over another and with fewer voters indicating an interest in crossover voting lots of potential candidates will look at those previous results and come to a conclusion that it's too difficult to mount an election campaign in a district where their party is the minority," said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who has tracked partisan competition in elections.

While the rate of uncontested races dipped slightly from 2014 to 2016, the percentage of people living in legislative districts without electoral choices has been generally rising over the past several decades.

About 4,700 state House and Assembly seats were up for election last year. Of those, 998 Democrats and 963 Republicans won without any opposition from the other major political party. In districts dominated by one party, election battles are fought mostly in the primaries; the winner from the majority party becomes a virtual shoo-in to win the general election.

Some states had a particularly high rate of uncompetitive races:

In Georgia, just 31 of the 180 state House districts featured both Republican and Democratic candidates, a nation-high uncontested rate of 83 percent. Republicans hold almost two-thirds of the seats in the Georgia House of Representatives.

In Massachusetts, just 34 of the 160 state House districts had candidates from both major parties, an uncontested rate of 79 percent. There, Democrats hold four-fifths of the House seats.

About 75 percent of the state House races in Arkansas and South Carolina lacked either a Democratic or Republican candidate. Under an Arkansas law passed this year, the names of unopposed candidates won't even have to be listed on future ballots. Unchallenged candidates will automatically be declared the winners.

Voting for unopposed candidates "just seems like an extra step in the process that we could eliminate," said the sponsor of the Arkansas law, Rep. Charlotte Douglas, who hasn't faced any opposition the past two elections.

She added: "You hate to say that it doesn't count, because any vote counts, but it's unnecessary."

There are far fewer uncontested U.S. House races. Less than 15 percent of the 435 districts lacked a Republican or Democratic candidate last year.

But some of the same states were atop that noncompetitive list: Five of Massachusetts' nine U.S. House districts lacked Republican candidates. Three of Arkansas' four districts lacked Democratic opponents. And in Georgia, which has 14 U.S. House districts, four Republicans and one Democrat ran unopposed by the other major party.

There are reasons for unopposed elections aside from gerrymandering. Some states, particularly in the South, have political cultures that place less importance on partisan competition. Incumbency also poses a deterrent to potential challengers.

University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said the large number of uncompetitive districts in his home state may be due less to gerrymandering than to naturally segregated demographics, with Democratic-inclined black residents living in different areas than Republican-leaning white voters.

Yet Georgia's Republican-led Legislature has continued to tinker with the district lines they drew after the 2010 Census in what some Democrats contend is an attempt to lessen competition.

A 2015 law, which was recently challenged in court , altered the boundaries of 17 Georgia House districts, including two narrowly won by Republicans the previous year.

This year, Georgia Republicans again sought to change the boundaries of several state House districts, including a couple won by Republicans by single-digit margins last November. Some of the proposed shifts sought to move heavily black precincts where voters overwhelmingly support Democrats from Republican-held districts into ones occupied by Democrats. Although the bill passed the House, it died in the Senate.

Republican House Speaker David Ralston has said lawmakers were merely "trying to put communities of interest together." Democratic House Whip Carolyn Hugley criticized it as gerrymandering intended to create safer Republican seats.

"Every time our candidates get close to winning in these areas, then they come in to readjust them. It's the same as moving the goal post further and further back," Hugley said.

Several Democratic Georgia lawmakers teamed up with Republican state Sen. Josh McKoon this year to propose a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan citizens' redistricting commission. But the measure never made it beyond a House or Senate committee.

McKoon said Georgia's current redistricting process "is horribly broken" and believes a commission could draw more logical boundaries.

"When you're drawing the districts with an eye to representing communities of interest rather than partisan strength, you're going to have more competitive districts," he said.

------

Follow David A. Lieb at: http://twitter.com/DavidALieb

See more here:
Democracy with no choices: Many candidates run unopposed - Enid News & Eagle

Once, at least a few young people celebrated the origin of democracy in Thailand, but no more. (Bangkok Post file photo)

The vast majority of Thais may not have been aware that yesterday marked the 85th anniversary of the day their country first tasted democracy.

The efforts of those who risked their lives to achieve the stunning success of the bloodless coup of June 24 which overthrew the absolute monarchy and put Thailand on the path to democracy has been almost erased from the public's memory.

Even a plaque commemorating the events of Friday, June 24, 1932 mysteriously disappeared recently.

There was public outcry about that, of course, and after a weeks of intense pressure to investigate who was behind the missing plaque, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha ordered a probe on April 19. But two months later there is still no word on how far the investigation has gone or where it is heading.

Umesh Pandey is Editor, Bangkok Post.

But, this is precisely what we can expect from authorities who are quick to crack the difficult cases, such as the spate of bombings across the capital. However, when it comes to simple cases like the vanishing plaque -- which few Thais even knew existed -- they are unable to get to the bottom of it.

June 24, 1932 was not just another day for most Thais. Now, more than eight decades later, the country's progress as it marches toward democracy has been as unsteady as when Khana Ratsadon -- a group of military and civil officers that later became a political party -- moved to usher in democracy all those years ago.

In the intervening years Thailand has seen nearly two dozen constitutions and as many attempted coups. Some were successful and others weren't. This has left the country weak in terms of its functionality, with the powers-that-be, especially the military, quick to take a heavy hand.

In fact, few countries have seen as many coups as Thailand -- a regrettable pattern that has stalled its attempts to settle on democracy. This has put it behind other countries that moved toward democracy at a later point in time but stuck with it. Some of those nations, like India or Indonesia, have even become regional powerhouses.

Thailand's role and importance on the world stage has also been gradually dwindling. The country that was at the forefront of the formation of the now 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is now mired in obscurity and notable for its lack of progress in areas like human rights.

However, Thailand is strategically located and its role as a key broker in regional geopolitics can be restored. It can continue to play an important role in the development of the region, but only if its leaders show the will and determination to let the country develop as it should.

As long as the military thinks it needs to intervene in political matters, the country will not be able to learn from its mistakes and will remain stuck in time.

As Thailand enters the 86th year of its transition toward democracy, one hopes the military government that seized power on May 22, 2014 will stick to its never-ending roadmap and restore basic democracy by next year at the latest.

Although there are indications that a general election may take place sometime late next year, history has shown it is not wise to take anything for granted. We had such hopes before, but the 2014 coup shattered many of those. Now, whenever the military regime makes a promise, we know we have to take it with a pinch of salt.

The recent decision by coup leader Gen Prayut to ask the public a set of questions about what kind of people should lead the country in the future took many pundits by surprise. Some have taken this as an indication that the roadmap to the election may be delayed again.

Hopefully, the spirit of those who orchestrated the events of June 24, 1932 is respected and we get the chance to choose who our future leaders will be.

After 85 years of stumbling on the path to democracy, now is the time to make sure we don't deviate from it. Maybe then Thailand can become a respected player on the world stage and also in regional affairs.

Continued here:
Respecting the spirit of democracy - Bangkok Post