Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump listens to a queston during an event on Tuesday in Washington.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Donald Trump has only been in office 79 days. And yet he has already dug himself into such a deep hole that a large number of commentators are declaring victoryor ridiculing the idea that there was ever good reason to worry about him in the first place.

Writing in New York, Jonathan Chait argues that Trumps popularity is likely to fall further still, leaving Republicans to pay a heavy price in the coming years:

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journals editorial page, crestfallen at the Republicans failure to repeal Obamacare, is consoling itself with attacks on scholars who pointed out the risks of a Trump presidency:

So have people like me, who have long warned that American democracy might be in danger, come down with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome? Is it time for us worthies to get over our collective freak-out?

No, we havent. And no, it isnt. Its true that theres been some good news over the last months. And theres absolutely nothing wrong with taking a moment to celebrate our successesif only because we owe them to the millions of courageous citizens who have been doing their bit to stop one of the scariest moments in American history from turning into its most tragic.

Heres a list of the positives:

With impressive speed, a massive protest movement has emerged against Trump. #TheResistance is hard at work calling attention to the worst actions and policies of the administration. So long as this movement can remain energized for the coming years, it will be an important bulwark against a potential power grab by the executive. With a bit of luck, it might even help Democrats win back the House or the Senate in 2018.

More broadly, checks and balances are, for now, holding up reasonably well. The judiciary has done a great job at reining Trump in. Though they have repeatedly drawn the presidents ire, the countrys judges show no sign of being cowed by him. Federal courts have halted two executive orders on immigration and seem likely to take an active role in curtailing executive overreach in the coming years.

The executive branch, whose functioning could most easily be sabotaged by decrees from the White House, has so far preserved its independence as well: The intelligence community has resisted pressures to alter its findings to protect the president from allegations of collusion with Russia. The FBI is investigating Trump. For now, the neutrality of key state institutions remains on full display.

Finally, though Republicans control both houses of Congress, even the legislature has frustrated Trump at multiple turns. Democrats in the House stood united against the GOP health care plan. Democrats in the Senate stood united against confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. While those parts of the far left who seem to hate moderate Democrats more than they hate extremist Republicans like to accuse Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer of being cynical corporate shills who never find the courage to stand up for anything, their determination has, over the last months, been clear to anybody who cared to take a look.

The story is, unsurprisingly, a lot more bleak when you look at congressional Republicans. Some, like Devin Nunes, have demonstrated that they are willing to stoop to any low, and to break any democratic norm, to support their president. Many, like Paul Ryan, have made occasional noises of displeasure before falling into lockstep whenever it comes down to an actual vote. Only a few, like John McCain and Ben Sasse, have criticized Trump in clear terms, and indicated that they mightat some as yet unknown point in the ever-receding futurebe willing to walk their talk. But while courage mostly continues to be missing in action among GOP officeholders, the incongruence of their ideological coalition has so far been just as effective in frustrating Trumps most ambitious plans.

Trump has mostly blamed the failure of the American Health Care Act on a small band of legislators from the deeply conservative House Freedom Caucus. But resistance from the Coverage Caucus, made up of Republicans from swing districts who refused to vote for the bill because it would have taken away health care from many of their constituents, were just as important a reason for its failure. This both spells trouble for the current attempt to revive health care reformsince any attempt to buy the votes of the Freedom Caucus is likely to grow the ranks of the Coverage Caucusand gives a preview of the difficulties Trump will face in passing other legislative priorities.

But theres also been plenty of bad news. This of course includes lots and lots and lots (and lots and lots) of terrible laws and executive ordersfrom employment to the environmentthat will make the lives of millions of people worse. But its not just policy; Im still worried about the effects that Trumps presidency will have on basic democratic norms as well.

For one, Trump has effectively demolished the safeguards that are supposed to ensure that citizens do not profit financially from holding office. Since he has neither released his tax returns nor established a blind trust, we cannot know which of his policies are intended to boost his private wealthor what foreign powers might hold considerable sway over him. There is every reason to fear that he may be profiting from the office he holds or changing his foreign policy to please his creditors. Even if hes not, his example will make it easier for officeholders at all levels to engage in corrupt practices in the future.

For another, Trumps rhetoric continues to violate every basic norm of decency and democracy: Even as president, Trump has spread blatant lies; undermined the press; attacked judges who ruled against him, implied that political adversaries from Susan Rice to Hillary Clinton should be behind bars; and endorsed authoritarian strongmen from Russias Vladimir Putin to Egypts Abdel el-Sisi. In Trumps campaign, the one constant was that he sounded like a would-be dictator. And as president, the one constant is that Trump sounds like a would-be dictator.

And then, of course, there is the sheer impulsiveness of his administration. A few days ago, Trump seemed to indicate that he was willing to leave Bashar al-Assad in office in Syria. On Thursday, Trump started to bomb Assads troops. If a major shift in foreign policy announced on a Monday is superseded by an even more radical shift in foreign policy carried out on a Thursday, the past actions of the Trump administration seem to have little predictive value for the future. So while Trump has mostly refrained from running roughshod over independent institutions in his first seventy-seven days in office, it would be nave to think that he might not decide to do so in the years to come.

So what does all of this add up to? There are now two paths forward. On the optimistic scenario, Trump will continue to lie, to break democratic norms, and even to benefit his own businesses. But despite his outrageous rhetoric, he will respect the functioning of independent institutions. When a court strikes down his executive order, he will tweet angrilyand comply. When Congress thwarts his plans, he will blame Paul Ryanand move on to see the next item on his agenda falter.

Our new series investigates what happened in the 20th centuryand whether its happening again.

Even on this optimistic scenario, the damage will be real. But it will not be beyond recovery. Theres also the pessimistic scenario, however. In this scenario, Trump will get increasingly frustrated by the media, by the courts, by Congress, and by the FBI. His extreme rhetoric will make more and more of his supporters willing to attack independent institutions head-on. And when some big crisis comes alonga terrorist attack, perhaps, or a confrontation with a foreign powerhe will start to ignore checks and balances: Claiming that terrorists were somehow aided by the media or by the judges or by Congress, he will expand libel laws or pack the Supreme Court or pass executive orders that vastly outstrip the bounds of his rightful authority.

Top Comment

No, no... Just no. Trump has done a lot of damage, and he and his appointees will continue to do progressively worse damage for the next four years at least. It'll get worse, as they learn the ropes, not better. More...

In countries like Russia and Turkey, the warning signs were there from the beginning. But though their democratic institutions had always been weaker than they are here in the United States, it took Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan a long time to consolidate their powerand even longer for observers to recognize that they were well on their way toward becoming dictators. Three months into their rule, each one of them was celebrated as a big chance for democracy by mainstream American publications from the New York Times Magazine to, yes, the Wall Street Journal.

All in all, I am a little more optimistic now than I was a few months ago. So far, Trump really has proven to be all outrageous talk and no real action. As Chait points out, the chances that Democrats might beat him handily in 2020 and banish his noxious influence from our political system are higher now than they were a few short months ago. But by the same token, it is about four years minus 79 days too soon to declare victory. The danger Trump represents for American democracy is far from banished.

Continue reading here:
Democracy Has Been Remarkably Resilient in the Face of Trump's Assaults - Slate Magazine

New York Times

A Serbian Election Erodes Democracy New York Times Having severely curtailed press freedom and marginalized political opposition, his concentration of power bodes ill for Serbian democracy. Though Mr. Vucic won more than 50 percent of the vote, far surpassing the second-place candidate, Sasa Jankovic, ... and more »

Read more:
A Serbian Election Erodes Democracy - New York Times

In politics, as in life, there are few things more distasteful than a bully.

Weve see quite a few political bullies lately. Situations where political parties with majority mandates use their unfettered power to not only pursue their policy and legislative agendas, but also change the very nature of democracy itself.

In Washington, D.C., last week, we watched as the Republican majority in the Senate used its majority to change the rules for the confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court.

Given the importance of the matter, the Senate formerly allowed minority parties to filibuster the presidents nominees for the high court as a way of moderating the power of both majority parties and the office of the president. Ending a filibuster required a 60-vote "super majority," rather than a simple majority. The super-majority requirement typically triggered bipartisan negotiations to bring a filibuster to an end.

All that changed last week when Republicans, tired of Democratic delay tactics, unleashed the "nuclear option." Simply put, Senate Republicans voted to change the rules that required a super majority to end a filibuster on a Supreme Court nomination. In an ironic twist, you do not need a super majority to change the rules about when a super majority is required.

Without going into a lot of history on the so-called nuclear option, it should be noted Democrats have themselves used nuclear options to limit the need for super majorities in other scenarios. More worrisome is the fact there are rumours circulating around Capitol Hill that Republicans may continue to change the very rules governing the operation of Congress to end the practice of filibustering legislation.

This is no small change to the foundations of American democracy. Filibusters, and other procedural tactics used by minority parties, are essential to ensure majority bullies must negotiate with their political opponents to achieve legislative progress. Take away the filibuster and other delay tactics, and you really amplify the power of the majority. And thats not really democracy.

However, Americans are hardly alone in this trend toward political bullying.

In Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government introduced a bill recently that contains a series of changes to the way we conduct elections, including new, higher political donation limits, new voter identification rules and restrictions on third-party advertising. Opposition critics and democracy advocates believe the changes a mere formality given the Tory majority in the Manitoba Legislature are inherently skewed to aiding the current government.

In Ottawa, the federal Liberal government is also demonstrating an appetite for bully tactics. Last month, the Liberal government released a discussion paper that outlined possible changes to the way parliament works, including reforms for question period, debate scheduling and rules for committee business.

Opposition parties believe the changes could severely limit their ability to hold the government accountable. They are filibustering the proposals at committee until the Liberals agree to seek all-party support for any changes to the rules of parliament. The opposition filibuster prompted Grit House Leader Bardish Chagger to complain last week the government would never allow the opposition to have a "veto" over "our campaign commitments."

Its hard to overstate the absurdity and arrogance of that comment. At least Republicans in Washington had the decency to call their bully tactics the "nuclear option," a term that seems to acknowledge the gravity of the violence being done to a democratic institution. Liberals seem to think the whole notion of seeking the support of opposition parties to change the rules of parliament is, in and of itself, somehow unfair. Back in government less than two years and the Liberals have already forgotten what it was like to be in opposition.

Empathy is certainly in short supply in the scenarios described above. Even now, Conservative party critics howling at Liberal indifference should remember the absurdly named "Fair Elections Act," a law that was anything but. Its changes to voter identification rules are thought to have discouraged tens of thousands of Canadians from voting in the last election. The current Liberal government is in the process of undoing those changes.

Lamentably, rather than moving closer to a world of bipartisan collaboration or public consultation on changes to democratic institutions, we are surrounded by examples of mischievous, malicious tinkering by majority governments that seem to have no shame about making changes that, for the most part, seem to have less to do about improving democracy, and more to do with creating strategic political advantages.

Along with empathy, we seem to be suffering from a deficit of principle. The rules that safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions legislatures, courts, elections should not be changed often, or at the whim of a majority. And when changes are necessary, there should be a requirement to seek the support of both majority and minority political parties.

Ironically, the Liberals understood this need when it came to the idea of changing our electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had pledged during the 2015 federal election that recommendations for electoral reform would be made by an all-party committee of Parliament. Later, the Liberal government decided that any proposals from that committee should be put to the nation in a referendum.

The Liberals abandoned electoral reform as a policy priority, concerned that proportional representation would open the door to extremist political elements. Still, Trudeau seemed to understand that no government with a majority mandate should use that power to change something as fundamental as how we elect our politicians.

It would be welcomed if the Liberals in Ottawa and the Tories in Manitoba were to take a similar approach when it comes to any changes to democratic institutions. Or, perhaps, these changes could be undertaken by a non-partisan, arms-length commission that could sort through ideas that make the system fairer and more accountable, and discard those that seek only to stack the deck.

One thing is for certain: until we all agree that changes to the pillars of democracy are not the prerogative of a majority government, bullies will carry the day.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Excerpt from:
Bully governments degrade democracy - Winnipeg Free Press

President Donald Trumps proposed budget would slash State Department spending by 28 percent, drastically reducing U.S. foreign aid flows.

Will he prevail? Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has said bluntly Its not going to happen. But the White Houses proposal is emblematic of an ongoing, broader foreign policy shift.

Specifically, Trumps actions and comments suggest a deep skepticism regarding support for democracy abroad. Consequently, democracy assistance a relatively small but often pivotal type of foreign aid on which the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department plan to spend US$2.72 billion in 2017 seems likely to be hit hard.

If it is, U.S. foreign policy under Trump will look fundamentally different than it has under previous presidents dating back at least to Ronald Reagan. Whats more, my research suggests that the shift spells trouble for democracy around the world.

Although U.S. democracy assistance is not perfect, drastic budget cuts would sever a lifeline to pro-democracy activists around the world.

Democracy assistance is a type of foreign aid the U.S. government funds in nearly 100 countries with the explicit goal of supporting democracy. Whether it consists of encouraging women to run for office in Kyrgyzstan or building the capacity of local civil society organizations in Tunisia, this form of assistance always aims to enhance some aspect of democracy. It supports transitions to democracy and shores up existing democratic institutions.

Democracy assistance began in the 1980s. Until that point, the U.S. government supported overseas political parties and dissidents covertly and on an ad hoc basis. In 1983, the United States established the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-private foundation dedicated to supporting democracy abroad. As the Cold War ended, USAID and the State Department also began funding democracy assistance consistently.

These institutions, which I examine in The Taming of Democracy Assistance, my book on the topic, often dont deliver money or services directly. Instead, they fund a variety of American and international nonprofits (and a few for-profit organizations). Ideally, funding democracy assistance via nonprofits and other nongovernmental entities helps insulate it from U.S. government influence. Of course, that is not always so simple in practice.

Democracy assistance rarely grabs headlines. Some of its critics argue that it involves meddling in other countries elections (allegedly with both a right-wing and left-wing bias), implying an equivalence to Russias actions during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. My research suggests otherwise.

Democracy assistance efforts are indeed sometimes partisan, but have grown markedly less so since the Cold War ended. Indeed, as I explained on the Washington Posts Monkey Cage blog, it has become rare for these programs to promote radical political change today. In some cases, democracy assistance has even reinforced authoritarian regimes, as was the case when international aid offered support for a parliament in Azerbaijan that was not freely elected.

Despite these flaws, eliminating democracy assistance projects could wreak damage to democracy three ways.

First, scholarly evidence on U.S. democracy assistance finds that it is, on average, associated with increases in countries overall levels of freedom. Second, research also suggests that democracy assistance can help countries maintain peace after civil conflict. Third, specific types of democracy assistance such as support for international and domestic election observers have proven successful at deterring electoral fraud.

A good example of how U.S. democracy assistance has successfully helped advance democratic transitions comes from Serbias nonviolent student movement in 2000. There, the brutal dictator Slobodan Miloevi guilty of war crimes associated with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia was brought down by a popular movement supported with training from U.S. nonprofits.

Cutting democracy assistance would also represent a major break in U.S. foreign policy.

The origins of American democracy promotion date back at least a century. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made his famous speech telling Congress, The world must be made safe for democracy. Leaders from both major U.S. political parties have sought ever since to promote democracy overseas with the logic that it is the right thing to do as well as the smart thing to do.

Among other things this credo stems from the belief that democracy fosters peaceful relations between nations.

Of course, the United States counts among its allies many authoritarian states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In such cases, past U.S. presidents have mixed pro-democracy rhetoric with anti-democracy policies. Yet President Trump is abandoning even the pro-democracy rhetoric, and activists are worried.

As one Egyptian journalist recently said about this situation, Its not a big space, but the rhetoric gives us some space.

If the U.S. democracy assistance project survives the Trump administration but spending declines sharply, a recent study suggests two lessons about how it could spend the remaining funds most effectively.

First, this kind of aid works best in countries that are already partly free. In such settings, domestic actors are likely to be seeking international support and aid is less likely to be co-opted by authoritarian governments.

Second, democracy assistance programs tend to be the most successful in countries where the U.S. government can back them up with diplomacy. By this logic, it makes more sense to support democracy assistance in Tunisia, where democratically elected leaders cooperate with the United States on counterterrorism, than it does in Egypt, where the United States maintains a close relationship with the military dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Research on U.S. democracy assistance suggests that continuing to aid democracy abroad is consistent with a century-long tradition in U.S. foreign policy and that it can advance democracy worldwide. However, even with continued support, American democracy promoters face clear challenges. These challenges include problems with the state of democracy in the United States that have been building for several years as well as growing restrictions on civil society activity and foreign aid around the world.

Even barring steep spending cuts, democracy assistance is likely to have a difficult next four years.

Here is the original post:
What Trump's foreign aid cuts would mean for global democracy - The Conversation US

The Election Commissions move to cancel the RK Nagar bypoll following evidence of large-scale bribery in the constituency has not gone down well with some contenders, with AIADMKs Sasikala faction candidate TTV Dinakaran terming it a murder of democracy.

Cancelling the April 12 bypoll to RK Nagar is a major mistake. It is a murder of democracy, Dinakaran said on Twitter late on Sunday night.

This is a wrong decision. Even the Election Commission does not want me to win. They can delay but cant deny, Dinakaran, whose faction is alleged to have distributed Rs 89.5 crore to entice voters in late chief minister J Jayalalithaas seat, said.

Read more

The poll panel cancelled the bye-election, stating that the steps they had taken to curb malpractice had failed, and the voting had to be postponed after I-T raids at Tamil Nadu health minister Vijaya Bhaskars house procured evidence of large-scale bribery.

The top leaderships of the parties cannot feign ignorance about such illegal activities indulged in by the candidates and the managers appointed by their parties to oversee the election campaign of their candidates.

It asked the parties to exert moral influence in the matter, but did not give a new date for holding the election.

Though Vijaya Bhaskar was named as an aide to bribery, it remains unclear whether the EC will attempt to arrest or charge the minister, who enjoys his current position thanks to his loyalty to jailed AIADMK leader VK Sasikala.

DMK working president MK Stalin called for a CBI probe against the ministers and politicians whose premises were raided on Friday by the I-T department, and demanded their removal.

Here is the original post:
Sasikala camp terms RK Nagar bypoll cancellation 'murder of democracy' - Hindustan Times