Mediaboss Marketing

For as long as people have been criticizing technology, theyve been complaining that emerging tools make us lazy, stupid, unable to concentrate, and so on. It is easy to imagine that a certain technological advance, whether it is the printing press or the television, imposes some undesired quality upon humanity by its very nature. But the fact is that, while technology is by no means neutral, neither does it create characteristics in people that didnt already exist. Rather, any technology has inherent qualities that can amplify or diminish pre-existing human tendencies.

So rather than asking Is the internet good for democracy? we ought to explore whether the human characteristics that tend to be amplified or diminished by the internet support a functioning democratic system.

One universal human trait is to seek out and connect with other people who have shared perspectives or experiences. The internet, because it inherently collapses geography, greatly amplifies peoples ability to make those connections regardless of physical location. People who have experiences or views that are not well represented in their local communities can form rich online relationships with others who do share their perspectives. This effect can have obvious benefits in that it allows people to connect, to feel less isolated, and to have a louder collective voice.

However, the American democratic system is structured in a way that effectively equates political interest with geography. Our interests as citizens are meant to be represented by members of our towns, cities, and states. This is the case because for much of history, geographic communities were peoples primary communities. Political interest was shaped by the people you knew (who were mostly local to you), the characteristics of urban or rural environments, local industries, and so on.

But the internet has allowed for communities of interest to form independent of geography. That creates dissonance because we dont have a mechanism for our online communities to be represented in our political system.

Conversely, many political issues are still legitimately tied to locationwhether they are national issues that affect regional economies, or local issues like community infrastructure and budgetingand yet many technological interfaces obscure those geographic realities.

These tensions can and should be addressed from both angles. On the one hand, perhaps our institutions for representing the interests of citizens can better reflect our current society. One possible approach would be creating balance between structures that emphasize geographic community with structures by which political interests can be represented irrespective of geographic location.

That dissonance can also be resolved by designing technological tools in ways that allow for better communication and participation at a local level, tying us more visibly to our geographic communities. We already see some of this in practice, whether its online participatory budgeting or networked tools for local communication. But we can use more experiments in this realm, including more ways for people in a local community to connect with one another and better tools for understanding and participating in local government and politics.

The internet collapses geography and expands our concept of community, yet geographic community is a cornerstone of our structures for democratic participation. As a result, we live in a society whose current reality is not properly reflected in its political system. We need to either adjust democratic institutions to better reflect our connected society or we need to create better tools to make our geography something we can effectively engage with online, or perhaps both.

Follow this link:
Disentangling Democracy From Geography - The Atlantic

In what is often described as a post-political and post-truth world, is it worth being positive about democracys future? Is there even anything new to say about democracy altogether? Inspired by a new book on the crises of American democracy, Matthew Flinders takes a broader view and explains the books relevance and reach.

It is a brave scholar who dares to write about the state of democracy in the twenty-first century. What is there to know that we do not already know? What is there to say that has not already been said? Democracy is in crisis. History did not end in 1989. Fluidity defines modernity. We are in a period of post-political, post-truth, post-state, post-fact, post-democratic, post-representative, post-tribal politics about which I am almost post-caring. It was therefore with a certain sense of foreboding and intellectual trepidation that I peeped between the pages of Alasdair Robertss new book The Four Crises of American Democracy.

This is a great title. I can almost see the four horsemen of the apocalypse thunder, lightning, storm, and mizzle* charging towards Capitol Hill. However, in order to save my less than thunderous fingertips let me re-title the book with the far more hip and youthful acronym 4CAD. [Note. If this label takes off and the book flies off the shelves, or down the download wires, I will expect a commission.]

In 4CAD Alasdair Roberts locates the United States recent bout of democratic malaise in a larger context, arguing that it is the latest in a series of very different crises that have plagued America throughout the entire post-Civil War era. He focuses on four crises, describing the features of each and outlining solutions the government adopted in response.

The first crisis the crisis of representation occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was dominated by fears of plutocracy and debates about the rights of African Americans, women, and immigrants. The crisis of mastery spanned the years 1917-1948, and focused on building administrative capabilities so that government could better manage both an increasingly complex economy and volatile international system. The crisis of discipline, beginning in the 1970s, was triggered by the perception that voters and special interests were overloading governments with unreasonable demands and the response was to limit governments reach. The current crisis what Roberts calls the crisis of anticipation is a future-orientated crisis, preoccupied with the capacity of democratic systems to deal with long-term problems such as the rise of China and climate change.

And yet despite the focus on recurrent crises, Roberts confidence remains unwavering. A long view of history should give us better grounds for optimism he notes in the concluding chapter on Adaptable Democracy. This is not the first time that the country has sunk into malaise. It is, in fact, a recurrent feature of American politics, and perhaps of democratic politics more broadly. His core argument is therefore one of almost Obama-esque hope and joy [T]hese dark moments of malaise have served as preludes to longer periods of ideological and institutional renewal.

This is a brilliant book and a much-needed antidote to the politics of pessimism that swirls around so much scholarly writing and media messaging. And yet when all is said and done what is the real sign of a brilliant book? The answer is one that leaves you with a million thoughts and ideas swirling around your mind like autumnal leaves falling from a tree. 4CAD is therefore a brilliant book.

So let me grasp a couple of those leaves out of the air in order to tease-apart the relevance and reach of Robertss book.

The first leaf has the word excess faintly written upon it. A larger leaf, possibly a small and more scholarly twig, might have had the word hyper-democracy etched upon its bark what a funny tree that would bebut one thought 4CAD left me reflecting upon was whether we might actually have too much democracy. To make this argument is not to adopt a particularly right-wing (or left-wing) position but it is to emphasise the issue of governing capacity and democratic proportionality. Roberts highlights the issue of climate change and offers a four-part recipe for addressing the challenge more public information, building trust between states, crafting laws that incentivise green energy, and shifting public opinion so that laws are not ignored or evaded and yet I was left with a sense that these were still fairly soft or light green responses to a far starker and more immediate challenge.

The second leaf has the word populism inscribed upon it which, in turn, leads us to consider the reach or broader international relevance of 4CAD. To some extent Robertss historical argument that underlines the adaptive capacity of democracies to respond to crises holds true for many other advanced liberal democracies around the world. The pain and destruction of the Second World War led to the creation of structures to embed nation states in international webs in order to pool resources, share sovereignty, and force politicians to adopt a broader mind-set in a multitude of ways.

Democracy to put the same point slightly differently bounced back across Western Europe and then flourished in other parts of the world throughout the twentieth century. And yet Robertss positivity is dented by the simple fact that the UKs Permanent Representative in Brussels has just handed over a letter from the British Government to the European Council President notifying it of the UKs attention to leave the European Union. The rise of populist nationalism across the world has been one of the defining features of the past five years and shows little sign of waning. My fear is therefore that although the adaptive qualities of democracies should not be under-estimated, so too should their capacity to learn from the past not be over-estimated.

Which brings me nicely to a final leaf; one that is slightly larger, heavier and coloured with the fulsome autumnal colours of yellow and orange; this is a leaf that has been indelibly tattooed with the word Trump. Writing about contemporary politics is a dangerous game as you can never be quite sure what will happen between the delivery of the final manuscript to the publisher and the date on which the book hits the shelves. In this case, Trump happened.

But what exactly does democrat Donald mean in terms of interpretations of crises and fatalism or responsiveness and rejuvenation? Is Donald the fifth crisis of American democracy (i.e. 5CAD rights still reserved) or the paradoxical saviour of democracy in the United States. From one perspective Donald can only be seen in a positive light: on the one hand, the anti-establishment shock candidate and representative of the left behind, and even if he wreaks havoc and chaos Robertss thesis would suggest that a presidential crisis is likely to trigger democratic rejuvenation and a new public philosophy [a] prelude to longer periods of ideological and institutional renewal. I just hope that Robertss positive defence of democracy proves correct.

_______ About the Author

Matthew Flinders is Professor of Politics and Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield. He is also Chair of the Political Studies Association and a board member of the Academy of Social Sciences. *Eagle-eyed readers will be wondering what mizzle is and I am delighted to tell you that it is a traditional English term for fine drenching rain in generally cold and dark weather.

Read the original:
The future of democracy: is there ground for optimism? - EUROPP - European Politics and Policy (blog)

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now we get a Democratic perspective.

Were joined on the telephone by Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman Swalwell, your reaction to the news that President Trump has fired the director of the FBI, James Comey?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-Calif.: Good evening. Judy.

This is an abuse of power unlike anything we have seen in our country since President Nixon. I worry right now for our democracy. And I hope that Republicans join me in making sure that this investigation into the president doesnt go away, as it seems like he wishes it would.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, let me just cite you a little of what I just heard from Senator Susan Collins, who has been outspoken at times in her disagreement with President Trump on different issues.

But, in this instance, she said in so many words that she believes the FBI director left himself open when he violated protocol, in essence, violated the pattern of behavior, practice at the FBI, and went public last summer with the investigation that the FBI had conducted into Hillary Clintons e-mail server, in saying that the FBI wouldnt prosecute, and yes, he had found that they conducted the investigation poorly, but there would be no prosecution.

And he talked about the investigation.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: Judy, its so interesting to hear Republicans defend Hillary Clinton now.

And thats a reason that may have been believable when Donald Trump took office on January 20. But since Donald Trump took office, the FBI director has told Congress and the American people that the presidents campaign is under a criminal and counterintelligence investigation.

So, this is nothing more than taking the headrest off the court, and people should see it exactly as that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But the president does have the right, the authority to remove the FBI director. Is that not right?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: He does.

And the Senate, of course, will be, you know, a part of a future FBI directors confirmation. However, past presidents have shown restraint in removing FBI directors when their administrations were under investigation.

And the fact that this president could not demonstrate that, I think, says a lot about how fearful he is about where this FBI director was going.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, again, to the point that both the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, made in the letter he put out and this and, again, I was just quoting, poorly quoting Senator Susan Collins their point is that what the FBI director did violated longstanding principles and, therefore, he left himself open for this sort of judgment.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: And, again, Judy, that is something that we didnt hear from any Republican when the FBI director made those statements or sent that letter.

So, for that to be the reason now, again, it is too late. The FBI director is in the middle of an investigation into the presidents campaign, and to pull him off this investigation is very, very disturbing for our democracy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Congressman were talking with Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, a Democrat of California what do you expect will happen next?

Have you have had a chance to talk to other members of Congress about what the next steps are here?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: No.

And, right now, Judy, were piecing all of this together to see what we can do to preserve the integrity of the FBIs investigation and also make sure that our own House investigation is one that is still independent, credible, and makes progress.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and that and I do want to ask you about that just quickly, because I asked Susan Senator Collins about whether she had confidence that the Justice Department, the FBI could continue to carry out the investigation into possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. She said she does have that confidence.

What would you answer be?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: Well, right now, the attorney general is recused on any Russian investigation. Now we are without an FBI director, so I am very, very worried that the presidents desire to see this investigation, which he called a hoax just yesterday on Twitter, is, Hes going to try and bury it.

And we must do everything we can to keep light shining on what happened with Russias interference and make sure any U.S. persons who were involved are held accountable.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Representative Eric Swalwell of California, member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman, thank you very much for talking with us.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: My pleasure.

Read more:
Rep. Swalwell: Comey firing amid Russia probe 'disturbing for our ... - PBS NewsHour

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," Condoleezza Rice says. Ariel Zambelich/NPR hide caption

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," Condoleezza Rice says.

This is part of a series of conversations on Morning Edition with politicians, writers, scientists, theologians, tech innovators and others. We're asking, "How did we get here and where are we headed?" Out of those answers, we'll help capture this moment and how we're shaped by it, as individuals, nations and as a global civilization.

Condoleezza Rice's new book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom, is a full-throated endorsement of overseas engagement and democracy building. It comes at a time of widespread distrust of government and institutions.

Rice's "through line" is that institutions provide the bedrock for any successful democracy. Though institutions are built by people, she tells NPR's Rachel Martin, no country can rely on a single personality to carry it forward. The Founding Fathers knew this, she says, so they constrained the executive by embedding it in a balance with other institutions.

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," she says.

Rice, former national security adviser and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, also addresses the anti-immigrant, anti-trade sentiments that have surged across the U.S. and Europe. She's worried about current widespread feelings of populism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism which she calls the "four horsemen of the apocalypse."

"I'm concerned that the current moment might take us back to those four horsemen of the apocalypse and it didn't work out so well the last time around," she says.

On her concerns about populism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism

We have to recognize that the reason that the global order that we've enjoyed and almost take for granted over the last several years exists is that after World War II, the United States and its allies tried to build an antidote to what they had seen between World War I and World War II. There they'd seen protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor trading policies. So they said we'll build an open international economy. And they did that.

They had seen fear of the other, a willingness to be harsh on people just because they were different, and they had seen that authoritarian states were violent states. And so they thought we'll support democratic peoples. And so this system, built on free markets, free trade and free peoples, and American protection, that's what got us from the end of World War II to the extraordinary events of the end of the Cold War and a system that was one of prosperity and peace for a lot of people including for the United States.

On Iraq today, a country she calls a "quasi-democracy"

It has a legislature that tries to function. It has a prime minister who is accountable. They've decided to get rid of a couple of them. But they stepped down. Arab strongmen don't normally step down. They have a very free and functioning press. But it's got a long way to go to be a consolidated democracy where the institutions fully function and can carry out what they are intended to do. But it's not an authoritarian state any longer, and it's not a totalitarian state in the way that it was under Saddam Hussein. It's very different to be Iraqi today than to be Syrian.

If I can get one point across, it's that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the primary examples of democracy promotion. We went to Iraq because we had a security problem with Saddam Hussein. Turns out it wasn't a security problem that was as imminent as we thought because of the weapons of mass destruction. With Afghanistan, we needed to get rid of the safe haven for al-Qaida after 9/11. Once we had overthrown their dictators, we had to have a view about what came after, and we believed that we would be better off to help launch them on the road to democracy. But I would never have said to President Bush "overthrow Saddam Hussein to bring democracy to Iraq," because democratic openings that come about in that way the overthrow of a totalitarian government by external powers it makes it really hard to make those first steps toward democracy.

On whether she's concerned that President Trump has had glowing things to say about leaders of Russia, Turkey and Egypt countries she writes "discourage us" with respect to democracies' global trajectory

Well, with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin I think we're starting to see that whatever was said in the campaign about Vladimir Putin, we're very clearly coming up against what American interests are in dealing with Russia. I thought [Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson had a great line when he said in regards to the [Syrian] chemical weapons deal that the Russians had sponsored that they were either incompetent or they weren't telling the truth. I'm not sure I would have been brave enough to say that but it was exactly [the] right thing to say to them. So the U.S.-Russian relationship is exactly where it should be. It recognizes all the difficulties and it recognizes who Vladimir Putin is. When it comes to Turkey or to Egypt, this is hard because they are allies. And so for an American president or secretary of state, the challenge is always to find a way to continue those relationships and promote those relationships recognizing the flaws and the foibles of those allies.

I would hope this and it goes to whether it's [Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-]Sissi or [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan or [Philippine President Rodrigo] Duterte, if he indeed comes it's fine you have to talk to these people. But you can also say to them what you're doing is unacceptable and it's unacceptable for moral reasons, but I'm going to tell you it's also unacceptable because eventually it is going to bring you down.

On how Rex Tillerson's mission for the State Department to advance America's national security and economic interests with no mention of spreading democracy is very different from then-President George W. Bush's

Exact formulations matter here. So American national security and American economic interests, of course. Every president, every secretary of state, that is the primary goal. As you are in this job and in the work, you begin to see though that in the long run, both American economic interests and American national security are better served when there are other decent countries in the world who are both your allies and even when your adversaries are acting more decently. Because ultimately we didn't go to Germany to create a democracy. We went to overthrow Adolf Hitler. But once a democracy was there, Germany was a much bigger supporter of and helped to our national interest both economic and security than ever had ever been before.

On whether she craves from the Trump administration a more overt endorsement of values like democracy, freedom and liberty

I am going to answer that question for you at a later date, because it's early. I have heard expressions of why NATO matters that I didn't hear in the campaign. And NATO is, by the way, built on security, but it's also built on values. I've heard expressions about why the United States of America cannot stand by and let Syrian children be gassed by their leaders. That wouldn't have been the language of the campaign. So I'm hearing echoes of many of these values. And I believe you're going to hear more. I hope we hear more.

I think we're still a bright, shining city on the hill, not because we're perfect but because we struggle in our imperfections every day. When I was standing in the Ben Franklin Room about to be sworn in as secretary of state by the way by a Jewish woman justice, Justice Ginsburg with Ben Franklin looking over us, I couldn't help but think that this was a Constitution to which I was about to take an oath of allegiance that it once counted my ancestors three-fifths of a man, a Constitution that had to be referred to by Martin Luther King to say that America shouldn't be something else, just had to be what it said it was. That's a pretty powerful story of evolution. Human beings are not perfect. Their institutions are not perfect, but they have to keep trying. And America has to help people keep trying.

Morning Edition editor Martha Wexler and Web producer Heidi Glenn contributed to this report. It was produced for broadcast by radio producer Noor Wazwaz.

More here:
Condoleezza Rice: Institutions Aren't Perfect, But They're The Bedrock Of Democracy - NPR

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," Condoleezza Rice says. Ariel Zambelich/NPR hide caption

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," Condoleezza Rice says.

This is part of a series of conversations on Morning Edition with politicians, writers, scientists, theologians, tech innovators and others. We're asking, "How did we get here and where are we headed?" Out of those answers, we'll help capture this moment and how we're shaped by it, as individuals, nations and as a global civilization.

Condoleezza Rice's new book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom, is a full-throated endorsement of overseas engagement and democracy building. It comes at a time of widespread distrust of government and institutions.

Rice's "through line" is that institutions provide the bedrock for any successful democracy. Though institutions are built by people, she tells NPR's Rachel Martin, no country can rely on a single personality to carry it forward. The Founding Fathers knew this, she says, so they constrained the executive by embedding it in a balance with other institutions.

"What the American Founding Fathers understood was that institutions were built for human imperfection, not human perfection," she says.

Rice, former national security adviser and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, also addresses the anti-immigrant, anti-trade sentiments that have surged across the U.S. and Europe. She's worried about current widespread feelings of populism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism which she calls the "four horsemen of the apocalypse."

"I'm concerned that the current moment might take us back to those four horsemen of the apocalypse and it didn't work out so well the last time around," she says.

On her concerns about populism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism

We have to recognize that the reason that the global order that we've enjoyed and almost take for granted over the last several years exists is that after World War II, the United States and its allies tried to build an antidote to what they had seen between World War I and World War II. There they'd seen protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor trading policies. So they said we'll build an open international economy. And they did that.

They had seen fear of the other, a willingness to be harsh on people just because they were different, and they had seen that authoritarian states were violent states. And so they thought we'll support democratic peoples. And so this system, built on free markets, free trade and free peoples, and American protection, that's what got us from the end of World War II to the extraordinary events of the end of the Cold War and a system that was one of prosperity and peace for a lot of people including for the United States.

On Iraq today, a country she calls a "quasi-democracy"

It has a legislature that tries to function. It has a prime minister who is accountable. They've decided to get rid of a couple of them. But they stepped down. Arab strongmen don't normally step down. They have a very free and functioning press. But it's got a long way to go to be a consolidated democracy where the institutions fully function and can carry out what they are intended to do. But it's not an authoritarian state any longer, and it's not a totalitarian state in the way that it was under Saddam Hussein. It's very different to be Iraqi today than to be Syrian.

If I can get one point across, it's that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the primary examples of democracy promotion. We went to Iraq because we had a security problem with Saddam Hussein. Turns out it wasn't a security problem that was as imminent as we thought because of the weapons of mass destruction. With Afghanistan, we needed to get rid of the safe haven for al-Qaida after 9/11. Once we had overthrown their dictators, we had to have a view about what came after, and we believed that we would be better off to help launch them on the road to democracy. But I would never have said to President Bush "overthrow Saddam Hussein to bring democracy to Iraq," because democratic openings that come about in that way the overthrow of a totalitarian government by external powers it makes it really hard to make those first steps toward democracy.

On whether she's concerned that President Trump has had glowing things to say about leaders of Russia, Turkey and Egypt countries she writes "discourage us" with respect to democracies' global trajectory

Well, with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin I think we're starting to see that whatever was said in the campaign about Vladimir Putin, we're very clearly coming up against what American interests are in dealing with Russia. I thought [Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson had a great line when he said in regards to the [Syrian] chemical weapons deal that the Russians had sponsored that they were either incompetent or they weren't telling the truth. I'm not sure I would have been brave enough to say that but it was exactly [the] right thing to say to them. So the U.S.-Russian relationship is exactly where it should be. It recognizes all the difficulties and it recognizes who Vladimir Putin is. When it comes to Turkey or to Egypt, this is hard because they are allies. And so for an American president or secretary of state, the challenge is always to find a way to continue those relationships and promote those relationships recognizing the flaws and the foibles of those allies.

I would hope this and it goes to whether it's [Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-]Sissi or [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan or [Philippine President Rodrigo] Duterte, if he indeed comes it's fine you have to talk to these people. But you can also say to them what you're doing is unacceptable and it's unacceptable for moral reasons, but I'm going to tell you it's also unacceptable because eventually it is going to bring you down.

On how Rex Tillerson's mission for the State Department to advance America's national security and economic interests with no mention of spreading democracy is very different from then-President George W. Bush's

Exact formulations matter here. So American national security and American economic interests, of course. Every president, every secretary of state, that is the primary goal. As you are in this job and in the work, you begin to see though that in the long run, both American economic interests and American national security are better served when there are other decent countries in the world who are both your allies and even when your adversaries are acting more decently. Because ultimately we didn't go to Germany to create a democracy. We went to overthrow Adolf Hitler. But once a democracy was there, Germany was a much bigger supporter of and helped to our national interest both economic and security than ever had ever been before.

On whether she craves from the Trump administration a more overt endorsement of values like democracy, freedom and liberty

I am going to answer that question for you at a later date, because it's early. I have heard expressions of why NATO matters that I didn't hear in the campaign. And NATO is, by the way, built on security, but it's also built on values. I've heard expressions about why the United States of America cannot stand by and let Syrian children be gassed by their leaders. That wouldn't have been the language of the campaign. So I'm hearing echoes of many of these values. And I believe you're going to hear more. I hope we hear more.

I think we're still a bright, shining city on the hill, not because we're perfect but because we struggle in our imperfections every day. When I was standing in the Ben Franklin Room about to be sworn in as secretary of state by the way by a Jewish woman justice, Justice Ginsburg with Ben Franklin looking over us, I couldn't help but think that this was a Constitution to which I was about to take an oath of allegiance that it once counted my ancestors three-fifths of a man, a Constitution that had to be referred to by Martin Luther King to say that America shouldn't be something else, just had to be what it said it was. That's a pretty powerful story of evolution. Human beings are not perfect. Their institutions are not perfect, but they have to keep trying. And America has to help people keep trying.

Morning Edition editor Martha Wexler and Web producer Heidi Glenn contributed to this report. It was produced for broadcast by radio producer Noor Wazwaz.

More:
Rice Endorses Overseas Engagement And Democracy Building - NPR