Mediaboss Marketing

The war on expertiseis not a new phenomenon. Nearly 60 years before Tom Nichols published his bestselling book, The Death of Expertise, author C.S. Lewis wrote about it in an essay titled "Screwtape Proposes a Toast," a follow-up to his internationally renowned book The Screwtape Letters.

In the novel, a senior devil, Screwtape, writes a series of letters to a junior devil, Wormwood, on how to be a good tempter. Thus, every moral pronouncementin the book is precisely the opposite of how humans ought to behave. The Enemy, to whom Screwtape refers constantly, is God.

In his toast, Screwtapeexplains to a large gathering of "gentledevils" how the concept ofdemocracy can be perverted to undermine a society:

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose...You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal.

Mr. Lewis says that this belief leads people to another: "I'm as good as you." In other words, democracy not only leads people to believe that all humans are of equal value (which is true), but all humans are equal in their abilities, thoughts, and behaviors (which is completely false). Yet, many people in a democracy believe the latter. And it leads to a very bad outcome:

What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellencemoral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how Democracy (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods?

How incredibly prescient. This passage could have been written in 2017, but it was publishedsix decades ago by a man who fought in World War I. Expertise dies in a democracy.

Consider scientific knowledge. The public rejects any notion of "consensus," despite the fact it is a crucial part of the scientific method. On a whole host of issues -- from GMOs and vaccines to nuclear power and climate change -- the public believes it knows better than PhDs and MDs who have spent their entire lives studying these topics. Besides, citizens say, scientists telling people what to believe is fundamentally undemocratic.

Mr. Lewis warned us years ago. Will we listen?

The Know-Nothing "March for Science"

Probably not. The organizers of the "March for Science," the latest misguided manifestation of democracy, have culturally appropriatedscience to push a purely political agenda. We were among the march's early critics because it was clear to us that science had taken a back seat to partisanship.

Others are finally taking notice. The Mad Virologist, in a blog post, writes:

I have to join the growing number of scientists who won't be participating in the march. Part of my problem with the group and the movement stems from the fact that it is disorganized and has become co-opted by those advocating for pseudoscience.

Who are some of those groups? Center for Biological Diversity (anti-GMO), Union of Concerned Scientists (anti-GMO, anti-nuclear), Center for Science in the Public Interest (fearmongering about "chemicals"), and Earth Day Network (anti-GMO). So, the Mad Virologist is calling it quits.

Protesters in 2017 are fond of shouting, "This is what democracy looks like." Uneducated and scientifically illiterate? Let's hope not.

How Do We Fix This?

I have been asked, over and over again, "How do we educate the public about science?" Unfortunately, simply stating the facts won't work, as psychology research has shown. The best solution, perhaps, is the clich, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

Until the public is convinced that scientists and journalists care about truth and society, then I fear all of our labors will be in vain.

Read more here:
March for Science: How Democracy Kills Expertise - American Council on Science and Health

In late February, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg published an essay that laid out the social networks vision for the coming years.

The 5,700-word document, immediately dubbed a manifesto, was his most extensive discussion of Facebooks place in the social world since it went public in 2012. Although it reads to me in places like a senior honors thesis in sociology, with broad-brush claims about the evolution of society and heavy reliance on terms like social infrastructure, it makes some crucial points.

In particular, Zuckerberg outlined five domains where Facebook intended to develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us. This included making communities supportive, safe, informed, civically engaged and inclusive.

Silicon Valley has long been mocked for this kind of our products make the world a better place rhetoric, so much so that some companies are asking their employees to rein it in. Still, while apps for sending disappearing selfies or summoning on-street valet parking may not exactly advance civilization, Facebook and a handful of other social media platforms are undoubtedly influential in shaping political engagement.

A case in point is the Egyptian revolution in 2011. One of the leaders of the uprising created a Facebook page that became a focal point for organizing opposition to ousted leader Hosni Mubaraks regime. He later told CNN:

I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him This revolution started on Facebook.

As I have written elsewhere, Facebook and Twitter have become essential tools in mobilizing contemporary social movements, from changing the corporate world to challenging national governments. Zuckerbergs manifesto suggests he aims to harness Facebook in this way and empower the kind of openness and widespread participation necessary to strengthen democracy.

But while hes right that social media platforms could reinvigorate the democratic process, I believe Facebook and its Silicon Valley brethren are the wrong ones to spearhead such an effort.

The initial reaction to Zuckerbergs manifesto was largely negative.

The Atlantic described it as a blueprint for destroying journalism by turning Facebook into a news organization without journalists. Bloomberg View referred to it as a scary, dystopian document to transform Facebook into an extraterritorial state run by a small, unelected government that relies extensively on privately held algorithms for social engineering.

Whatever the merits of these critiques, Zuckerberg is correct about one central issue: Internet and mobile technology could and should be used to enable far more extensive participation in democracy than most of us encounter.

In the United States, democracy can feel remote and intermittent, and sees only limited participation. The 2016 election, which pitted radically different visions for the future of democracy against each other, attracted only 60 percent of eligible voters. In the midterm elections between presidential campaigns, turnout drops sharply, even though the consequences can be equally profound.

Moreover, whereas voting is compulsory and nearly universal in countries such as Brazil and Australia, legislators in the U.S. are actively trying to discourage voting by raising barriers to participation through voter ID laws, sometimes targeted very precisely at depressing black turnout.

Democratic participation in the U.S. could use some help, and online technologies could be part of the solution.

The social infrastructure for our democracy was designed at a time when the basic logistics of debating issues and voting were costly.

Compare the massive effort it took to gather and tabulate paper ballots for national elections during the time of Abraham Lincoln with the instantaneous global participation that takes place every day on social media. The transaction costs for political mobilization have never been lower. If appropriately designed, social media could make democracy more vibrant by facilitating debate and action.

Consider how one Facebook post germinated one of the largest political protests in American history, the Jan. 21 Womens March in Washington and many other cities around the world. But getting people to show up at a demonstration is different from enabling people to deliberate and make collective decisions that is, to participate in democracy.

Todays information and communication technologies (ICTs) could make it possible for democracy to happen on a daily basis, not just in matters of public policy but at work or at school. Democracy is strengthened through participation, and ICTs dramatically lower the cost of participation at all levels. Research on shared capitalism demonstrates the value of democracy at work, for workers and organizations.

Participation in collective decision making need not be limited to desultory visits to the voting booth every two to four years. The pervasiveness of ICTs means that citizens could participate in the decisions that affect them in a much more democratic way than we typically do.

Loomio provides a platform for group decision-making that allows people to share information, debate and come to conclusions, encouraging broad and democratic participation. OpaVote allows people to vote online and includes a variety of alternative voting methods for different situations. (You could use it to decide where your team is going to lunch today.) BudgetAllocator enables participatory budgeting for local governments.

As Harvard Law School Professor Yochai Benkler points out, the past few years have greatly expanded the range of ways we can work together collaboratively. Democracy can be part of our daily experience.

This ICT-enabled democratic future is unlikely to come from the corporate world of Silicon Valley, however.

Zuckerbergs own kingdom is one of the most autocratic public companies in the world when it comes to corporate governance. When Facebook went public in 2012, Zuckerberg held a class of stock that allotted him 10 votes per share, giving him an absolute majority of roughly 60 percent of the voting rights. The companys IPO prospectus was clear about what this means:

Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

In other words, Zuckerberg could buy WhatsApp for US$19 billion and Oculus a few weeks later for $2 billion (after just a weekend of due diligence). Or, a more troubling scenario, he could legally sell his entire company (and all the data on its 1.86 billion users) to, lets say, a Russian oligarch with ties to President Vladimir Putin, who might use the info for nefarious purposes. While these actions technically require board approval, directors are beholden to the shareholder(s) who elect them that is, in this case, Zuckerberg.

It is not just Facebook that has this autocratic voting structure. Googles founders also have dominant voting control, as do leaders in countless tech firms that have gone public since 2010, including Zillow, Groupon, Zynga, GoPro, Tableau, Box and LinkedIn (before its acquisition by Microsoft).

Most recently, Snaps public offering on March 2 took this trend to its logical conclusion, giving new shareholders no voting rights at all.

We place a lot of trust in our online platforms, sharing intimate personal information that we imagine will be kept private. Yet after Facebook acquired WhatsApp, which was beloved for its rigorous protection of user privacy, many were dismayed to discover that some of their personal data would be shared across the Facebook family of companies unless they actively chose to opt out.

For its part, Facebook has made over 60 acquisitions and, along with Google, controls eight of the 10 most popular smartphone apps.

The idea that founders know best and need to be protected from too many checks and balances (e.g., by their shareholders) fits a particular cultural narrative that is popular in Silicon Valley. We might call it the strongman theory of corporate governance.

Perhaps Zuckerberg is the Lee Kuan Yew of the web, a benevolent autocrat with our best interests at heart. Yew became the founding father of modern-day Singapore after turning it from a poor British outpost into one of the wealthiest countries in the world in a few decades.

But that may not be the best qualification for ensuring democracy for users.

ICTs offer the promise of greater democracy on a day-to-day level. But private for-profit companies are unlikely to be the ones to help build it. Silicon Valleys elites run some of the least democratic institutions in contemporary capitalism. It is hard to imagine that they would provide us with neutral tools for self-governance.

The scholar and activist Audre Lorde famously said that the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house. By the same token, I doubt nondemocratic corporations will provide the tools to build a more vibrant democracy. For that, we might look to organizations that are themselves democratic.

Read more here:
Can Silicon Valley's autocrats save democracy? - The Conversation US

Multiple groups working to oppose President Donald Trump's agenda are meeting with Democracy Alliance this week, a collection of progressive donors that includes George Soros. USA TODAY

George Soros(Photo: Jean-christophe Bott, AP)

WASHINGTON A network of some of the nations wealthiest Democratic donors is weighing providing money and support to several of the new activist groups that have cropped up since Election Day to challenge President Trump and his agenda.

Organizers of Januarys Womens March on Washington and leaders of Indivisible will make presentations later this week to the Democracy Alliance when the influential donor coalitionholds its private spring meeting in Washington, the groups president Gara LaMarche said.

LaMarche said he already has sought to connect alliance contributorsto Indivisible, one of the groups at the forefront of anti-Trump efforts. Its organizers, led by former Democratic congressional aides, have created a how-to manual for resisting the Trump agenda that is modeled on conservative Tea Party tactics and has encouraged shows of opposition at congressional town hall meetings.

More than 5,500 local groups are using the guide to fightadministration policies, organizers say.

Everybody is impressed by whats come up in a grassroots sense and doing what we can to support that and connect that up to a larger infrastructure, LaMarche told USA TODAY.

The alliance, aligned with billionaire financier George Soros, also is weighing building a pool of money that can be deployed for rapid response work by other liberal groups on an array of issues, such as challenging the Trump administration on the deportation of undocumented immigrants.

Any decision by the alliance to recommend financial backing foranti-Trump groups likely will spark conservative outcry.

In a recent Fox News interview, for instance, White House spokesman Sean Spicer called the liberal activism at sometimes rowdy congressional town halls a very paid, Astroturf-type movement. Trump himself tweeted that many of the so-called angry crowds confronting Republicans were planned out by liberal activists.

Ezra Levin, a former congressional aide who helped start Indivisible with his wife, Leah Greenberg, and other ex-Capitol Hill staffers, said the group is is very much led on the ground by activists who are determined to take action against Trump and is not under the sway of any one donor or group.

Levin said the group has received more than 10,000 donations totaling more than $500,000 since last Januarythrough ActBlue, a fundraising engine for liberal candidates and causes. Levin said the group wants to continue to have abroadfundraising base, even as it looks to groups such as the Democracy Alliance for additional help.

Were certainly not looking for anybody to own it by providing like some kind of enormous amount, he said. "Thats not our model.

"If the Democracy Alliance and other folks in this space ... are interested in supporting a broad movement that is fundamentally led atthe groundlevel," he added,"we think the movement needs their support."

Read more:

Democratic donors plot Trump resistance

Take a peek at protests at town halls around the country

Trump pressures 'sanctuary cities' that won't hold undocumented immigrants

Levin and Greenberg, both of whom worked on Capitol Hill during the rise of the Tea Party, and a couple dozen volunteers helped draft their 23-page anti-Trump guide, which was posted as a Google document two weeks before Christmas.

It quickly went viral and has become a manual on how to pressure lawmakers that Levin said is now used by groups registered in every congressional district. That growth, he said, mostly speaks to the level of energy out there and the sheer scale of the opposition to this presidents agenda.

Its not unusual for established organizations to align with activists. Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, founded by billionaires Charles and David Koch worked with Tea Party-fueled activists to aggressively oppose former President Barack Obamas agenda, helping fuel a Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.

In recent years, the Democracy Alliance has focused on supporting a network of liberal groups working on long-term issues, such as boosting voting rights and increasing the minimum wage. It also has made a big investment in buildingliberal power in the states ahead of the 2020 Census, which will shape the next round of legislative redistricting. The GOP redistricting successes after the last Census in 2010 helped cement Republican power in Congress and the states.

Although next weeks Resist and Rebuild conference will include discussion of the new groups mobilizing to oppose Trump, LaMarche said the goal is not to divert money away from the alliances core focus. Instead, donors may be asked to give additional sums to help back the new anti-Trump work and the expanded operations at the state level.

In a time like this, people have to step up and do more, particularly since some of the traditional sources of support for progressive causes like labor have their own challenges, he said.

The alliance, formed in 2005, has close ties to some of the biggest names in liberal politics. Soros helped found the group along with Taco Bell heir Rob McKay and other wealthy Democrats. The network does not release the names of its donors, but other contributors identified with the group have included Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist from California who contributed more than $90 million to politically active super PACs in the 2016 election cycle.

(Photo: J. Kyle Keener, for USA TODAY)

The alliance does not donate directly to groups. Instead, its 120 or so donors officially termed partners pay annual dues to the alliance. They also are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to organizations the alliance recommends.

Those groups currently include the Obama-aligned Organizing for Action, the liberal Center for American Progress think tank and Color of Change, whose political action arm last year successfully pressured several big corporations to boycott the Republican National Convention over Trumps rhetoric about women, Muslims and Latinos.

The Democracy Alliances spring gathering will be preceded by a two-day, invitation-only summit. The summit, which opens Wednesday, will focus exclusively on liberal efforts to win back political power in the states, where Republicans currently control 33governors mansions

About 420 people are expected to attend the summit, dubbed A Time for Action, marking the largest gathering in the alliances 12-year-history.

LaMarche said about 200 alliance "partners" and otherswill attend the main conference,followingthe summit. Topics will include strategies for regaining ground with the working-class voters who backed Trump.

Both events are closed to the public.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2mIXeib

Go here to read the rest:
George Soros-aligned group weighs funding anti-Trump activists - USA TODAY

This is the first in an occasional series of posts about personal reflections on politics and government.

A line in recent spare-time reading got me thinking.

Congress is intended to be slow -- to promote deliberation and the weeding out of ideas that may be popular for a moment, but imprudent, Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his 2011 memoir Known and Unknown, published by Sentinel.

Think of congressional democracy in terms of buying dinner out for my children and grandchildren.

The process might start with the 12 grandchildren each suggesting a different restaurant. (Yes -- this is the House of Representatives, but dont read too much into the metaphor.) The grandchildren start negotiating with each other until at least seven of them agree on one restaurant.

The restaurant selection then moves to the Senate -- my three children and their spouses -- two members from each household.

If a majority of the adults agree with a majority of the children, then the decision passes to me to either approve or veto.

Democracy is a great way to make laws. But its not practical at dinner time.

Follow staff writer Maury Thompson at All Politics is Local blog, at PS_Politics on Twitter and at Maury Thompson Post-Star on Facebook.

Read more:
Maury's musing -- Democracy at dinner time - Glens Falls Post-Star (blog)

In the 2016 presidential election the Democrats never used the word republic to describe the political system and Republicans rarely used it, both preferring to use the word democracy. Most people ignorantly refer to the political system as a democracy and have to be reminded that this word is not in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights or any other document given by the Founding Fathers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag identifies the nations form of government as a republic.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. A republic has seven major components.

First, the importance ofmajority rule is recognized but limited. Is the majority always right?No.Mother made this point when her teenager asked to smoke marijuana on the basis that everyone was doing it and said,If everyone jumped off a bridge would you?

Second,minority rights, registering less than 50 percent, are protected from the majority.In Franklins analogy, the lamb had the right to exist even if the majority, the wolves, said differently.A lynch mob is a democracy; everyone votes but the one being hanged.Even if caught in the act of a crime, the defendant is entitled to the protection of law, a judge, jury, witnesses for his defense and a lawyer to argue his innocence; all necessary but expensive.Later, if he is found guilty, he can be hanged.Because democracy only considers majority rule, it is much less expensive.A rope tossed over a tree limb will do.

Third, a republic isbased upon natural inalienable rightsfirst acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence.This document asserted to the world that the nation acknowledged that humans have rights from a source higher than mere man. A reference to deity is mentioned five times.If there is no God, there can be no inalienable rights coming from him, and we are left with man as God.What man is good enough?

Fourth, a republicemphasizes individual differences rather than absolute equality, as does democracy.We are not equal, even from the womb, and we never will be, if equality means sameness. One baby with a cleft palate needs three operations to live well and look normal.Some children come out of the womb with access to a laptop, others with a basketball or golf clubs.One of my first great insights in life was that everyone was better at everything than I was.The second great insight I made was that life is not fair and never will be.Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.Genetics makes one fat, another bald and gives yet another terminal cancer in his youth.

Even economically, it is not possible to be equal.Should I give each of my students a million dollars in exchange for everything they now own, shave their heads and give them identical uniforms, that is should I approximate sameness as much as possible, before requiring that they returnin five yearswith some ledger of net worth. Would they be the same in what was left of the million?No.Why does the government try so hard to do that which is impossible?A republic looks upon peoples differences as assets decidedly not the base of democracy.

Fifth,limited governmentis also a major aspect of a republic.Centralized government is good, so long as the government remembers that when it oversteps its bounds it becomes the greatest obstacle to liberty because it pulls decision-making power away from the individual.Excessive government, as the cause of the American Revolution, is never forgotten.The Constitution as created to handcuff the government and prevent it from dominating the citizens lives, thus the powers of the federal government were listed in Article I, Section 8. The Founders understood that the more government at the top, the less at the bottom, and that was the essence of freedom.

Sixth,a republic has frequent elections with options. Frequent elections happen in some socialist countries, so this action alone does not ensure liberty.In fact, it may be somewhat deceiving as it fosters the notion that we choose and thus deserve the elected officers.It also assumes that the people are correctly informed, which assumes a free press and equal access to all information.The part of the phrase with options is the part that ensures liberty.Elections under socialism provide choices but offer no options, as all the participants are from the same party.

Seventh, a healthyfear of the emotions of the massesand of its potential to destabilize natural law upon which a republics freedom is based; as for example, the notion that someone elses wealth belonged to the masses destroyed freedom in Athens and Rome. The U.S. needs a caring, sensitive, compassionate government, but emotion must not be allowed to overwhelm reason and time-tested natural law constants.Aristotle taught that the poor will always envy the rich, and that the rich will always have contempt for the poor.A republic will not allow the poor to destroy the rich in their quest for the wealth of the rich, but does incentivize the poor to increase their wealth and become the middle class, which in time becomes the largest body.

As explained, democracy does not protect liberty. In Benjamin Franklins analogy, it would have allowed the wolves to have eaten the lamb simply because the lamb had been outvoted.No wonder the Founding Father rejected democracy in favor of a republic.

Dr.Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visitwww.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Read this article:
Democracy rejected by founders - Anza Valley Outlook