Mediaboss Marketing

One winter morning when I was 7 or 8 years old, walking to school, swinging my Robin Hood lunch box by my side, I saw a bunch of kids playing King of the Mountain on a huge snow pile. I ran over to join the game.

It was the usual teams, Arctic Cat versus Ski Doo. I started up the hill, climbing on hands and knees, until I was just about to the top. A kid I recognized looked down at me. What team? he challenged. Ski Doo, I said. Arctic Cat! he shouted, and kicked me in the shoulder, sending me head over heels down the hill, my lunch box bouncing along behind. After a couple more unsuccessful attempts to gain the peak, a bell rang, and we all dusted off and headed inside to our classrooms.

When I sat down for lunch that day, I noticed milk leaking from the corner of the lunchbox. I opened it up and saw that my glass-lined Robin Hood thermos, a gift from my grandma, had broken, and everything inside was soaked in milk. I had nothing to eat, and I felt sick at the thought of telling Grandma what happened.

But then all the kids at the table, even the ones who had been kicking me down the mountain a few hours before, began handing me portions of their lunches: half of a peanut butter sandwich, a hardboiled egg, a slice of pickle, a chocolate chip cookie. It was the best lunch I ever had.

I learned something that day about the nature of politics, that sometimes the price of playing the game is declaring loyalty to one side or the other. But as soon as we do that, we lose sight of our shared humanity. We are at our best when we sit down with one another and address common concerns without first taking sides.

Thats not easy to do. There are some people who see every issue in terms of opposition.

A few years ago I was attending a town hall meeting in western Wisconsin. The topic of discussion was political issues affecting rural communities. The evening started out well, with genuine, thoughtful conversation about challenges faced by small farms, families and businesses. Suddenly a group of people came through the door and attempted to take over the meeting. They were loud, rude and passionate. They had only one thing on their minds: the pro-life agenda.

One of the organizers of the event tried to point out that the purpose of the town hall was to discuss rural economic policies, conservation issues and agriculture. But the leader of the protesters was undeterred: There is no other issue she insisted; either you are pro-life or you are anti-life.

It is hard to stand in the center, because those on the extremes see it as refusing to take a position, as being wishy-washy, indecisive, even cowardly. They accuse anyone who doesnt agree with them of enabling the enemy. They see politics as a matter of defeating the opponent rather than as an effort to find solutions to common problems.

The political centrist believes in ethical persuasion as the primary means of achieving lasting societal health and stability. That means being completely committed to truth-telling, fairness and transparency in negotiating. For the centrist, political strategies like voter suppression, gerrymandering, backdoor dealing and closed meetings are anathema. Such tactics may be intended to achieve some particular good result, but they always come at the cost of the common good.

What does centrist political speech sound like? It is civil and employs respectful forms of address. It is mindful of the dignity of all people. It is honest, neither hiding the truth nor manipulating the evidence. It is passionate but never angry or spiteful. It is often cheerful, and capable of being serious without being solemn. It is impersonal, not adversarial, always focused on the common good. It is questioning, expressing a desire to deepen understanding. It is more reflective than reactive, determined but not stubborn.

What does extremist speech sound like? Its takes the form of either shouts or whispers, domineering among its opponents and conspiratorial among its fellows. When opposed, it becomes by turns hostile or defensive. It frequently employs personal attacks to discredit the other side and distract from the issue at hand. It sets up false dilemmas, insisting on only two options the good and the bad without considering other possibilities. It is incapable of humor in any form other than ridicule. It does not have to ask questions because it already has all the answers.

I try to be a political centrist, because that is the only place where ethical persuasion functions. On the two extremes there is no reasonableness, only reaction. There is no place on the extremes for calm reflection, for gathering information, for thinking things through, for honest debate. There is only kicking. On the extremes, words are not used to persuade, they are only used to declare sides, to determine who should be kicked.

It is important at all times, but especially now, for centrists to speak up, if only to keep the extremists in their place, to let them know that even though they may be loud, and arrogant, and full of bluster, they are not kings of the mountain.

In our country, in our communities, democracy is still king as long as enough people continue to believe in it and use their voices to defend it.

Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University. He also is a member of the Tribunes editorial board.

Go here to read the rest:
Richard Kyte: Despite turmoil, democracy is still king - La Crosse Tribune

Fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyesThere is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia

While monitoring the behaviour of our Liberal government thus far in its tenure, a common theme unifies the assessment: democracy sure isnt what it used to be.

Indeed, the concept of a government for the people, by the people has long since vanished from our political environment. Incrementally, in a most discreet manner, our nation has become an entity whereby the only remaining vestige of true democratic process is to be found in electoral democracy the method by which our politicians are voted into office.

Beyond this, the desires of the general public are very much on the back-burner. That is, unless you happen to be a new arrival to our country by way of Canadas immigration and refugee policies.

How exactly did this inversion of government priorities come about? Why would government provide special, elevated status to new arrivals rather than long term, tax-paying Canadian-born citizens?

One point we can state with confidence is that the general population of Canada did not ask for such a thing. Why would they, when the phenomenon is counter-productive to the well being of generational Canadians and their families? The answer, therefore, lies elsewhere.

A good place to begin would be with what can today be referred to as the Trudeau Dynasty. It was Pierre Trudeau, three term Liberal prime minister, who ushered in this social inversion with his single- handed proclamation that bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity was finished. In its stead came multiculturalism a legislated policy intent upon elevating the status of our minority communities. The piece Trudeau Sr. failed to consider was what would occur once these minorities were no longer minor. Today, under the auspices of son Justin Trudeau, Canadians are witnessing the impact of Trudeaus lack of foresight, as Statistics Canada informs us our Anglo-Canadian communities are headed for minority status within our major urban centres.

Diversity is king. Multiculturalism is sacrosanct, and to question itor heaven forbid oppose it is blaspheme. A similar dynamic applies to immigration policy. No one understands why, as politically correct forces have deemed themselves above offering any logical explanation.

In our day and age, it is amazing to witness the power of social media. One tweet from Prime Minister Trudeau stating all refugees impacted by Donald Trumps ban on immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries are welcome in Canada, and all pandemonium breaks loose. Our border security is in jeopardy now that hundreds of border-jumpers and more than likely thousands once spring arrives are headed to the Great White North to find a permanent home. Did the Canadian public as in those who will foot the bill through their tax dollars have a say in the matter? Was any form of public consent provided, or solicitation to see if Canadians are in favour of such generous hospitality?

We all know the answer to this one. There was nothingjust as there was no approval or public consent for the cancellation of our national identity, or the advent of mass third world immigration.

To quote from a political treatise entitled The Laws Of Government: Legal Foundations Of Canadian Democracy, we find this profound statement:

In a democracy, a government of the people, for the people should govern for the greatest good of the greatest number. Public officials should resist creating policy to suit narrow special interests seeking a disproportionate benefit from government not in the interests of the broader public.

Cue Justin Trudeau. Obviously, he was out-of-town or more likely not even born when this little tidbit was interjected into public consciousness. Basically, PM Trudeau does not adhere to this philosophy. Better yet, it is reasonable to state that both Justin, like his father before him, advances a political agenda antithetical to this fundamental of democracy.

Should Canadians be surprised? Of course not, as the Trudeau Dynasty has cared little about democracy since Pierre took office in the 1960s. Rather, it was good friend Fidel Castros socialist brand of leadership Trudeau Sr. most admired with Chairman Maos communist ideology running a close second.

Recently, our Liberal government put forth a motion to condemn Islamophobia and other forms of racism. One problem among several is that the motion is devoid of an actual definition of Islamophobia. When one was requested, nothing was offered up. Such is the degree of privilege the Liberals and their minions have bestowed upon themselves.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental of Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, within Justin Trudeaus Canada, the concept is on the wane every bit as much as democracy itself is infringed upon. The irony of the situation is inescapable. Inexplicably, M103 contains not a word regarding Sharia Law, an Islamic doctrine which outlines all aspects of social behaviour for devout Muslims. Contained within are modes of behaviour which explicitly violate the Charter yet not a single reference to this fact has been included in government or media narrative regarding M103.

It is abundantly clear the fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyes yet no one lifts a finger to stop it. Why? There is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Indeed, these are the properties now controlling the destiny of our nation. In a most subtle fashion in order that the general public do not catch wind of it our government has brought into being a form of pseudo- socialist governance unprecedented in the history of our nation. In the meantime. Canadians watch Hockey Night in Canada.

See the original post:
Feigning Democracy: Liberalism In Justin Trudeau's Canada - Canada Free Press

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

GLENDALE-- Every seat was filled during a town hall with U.S. Representative Gwen Moore, she fielded questions at the North Shore Library Saturday afternoon, March 4th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Topics ran the gamut from immigration to education, Planned Parenthood, Russia, concealed carry -- but U.S. Representative Gwen Moore says the number one issue for her right now is retaining affordable health care.

One attendee, hoping to keep her doctor and medicare benefits -- another saying don't replace the ACA unless the next plan up covers more people.

Representative Moore hopes to keep the coverage components of the Affordable Care Act. She attended a "Congressional Cafe" discussion on Saturday.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

"Those components of the Affordable Care Act have meant so much. Not just to the 20 million people who had no health care coverage at all, but those folks with preexisting conditions," said Moore.

The standing room crowd was friendly, but weary at the same time on how the current administration is navigating topics like immigration.

"We've got to get this right. I want you guys to knowthat there is a clear distinction between having safe borders and being inhumane," Moore said.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

The topic of Russia came up as well.

Gwen Moore

"Right now, I'm goingto tell you this as a Democrat, I am really relying on people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the Senate. Our democracy is really being tested," said Moore.

Representative Moore is planning two more Congressional Cafe's on March 18th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Read the original here:
Our democracy is really being tested: US Representative Gwen Moore attends 'Congressional Cafe' - fox6now.com

Foxconn founder and chairman Terry Gou Tai-ming can move faster in Guangzhou than in the U.S.VCG VCG via Getty Images

Good morning.

My colleague Adam Lashinsky took issue with my declarative statement Monday that President Trump has "convinced U.S. businesses to shift their focus to creating jobs at home, rather than outsourcing them overseas." Trump's statements on this score, he points out, are clearly exaggerated, and the CEOs involved have no incentive to challenge his exaggerations. Moreover, the anecdotal information remains mixed.

My statement was based on multiple conversations with top executives, who say any added cost from "insourcing" is easily offset by potential gains from proposed tax cuts and regulatory relief. And their desire to avoid the President's Twitter attacks is very real. As a result, it seems clear to me there is some fire beneath the smoke.

But having said that, my visit to Guangzhou this week was a stark reminder of how difficult it will be for the U.S. to compete for global manufacturing facilities. Foxconn chairman Terry Gou was in Guangzhou at the same time, throwing the first shovels of dirt at a massive site east of this city where he is building an $8.8 billion new flat panel display screen factory . City officials proudly boasted that it took less than 100 days to clear residents from the site and get permission to begin construction. They expect the giant plant to be operating in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, Gou has been in talks to build a $7 billion plant in the U.S. for years. He mentioned Wednesday that he had recently been in Washington, but didn't elaborate.

"We are seeing Guangdong's efficiency. We are seeing Guangdong's charisma and drive," Gou said. "We feel that if any state governments in the U.S. want to attract Foxconn, they should come here to learn and study...to see how in such a short span of time...we can get so many things done." (Guangzhou is the capital of Guangdong province, the biggest of China's provinces in terms of population and GDP.)

The new industrial policy of the Trump administration may, at the margins, tip the balance of some decisions toward the U.S. But democracy, even under Trump, will remain messy. China's one-party rule will always have the edge in speed (if not always in efficiency). And that, in the end, may provide fuel to the arguments of U.S. protectionists.

Enjoy the weekend.

See the original post:
Democracy is a Roadblock to Trump's Plan to Bring Back Factory ... - Fortune

President Donald Trump's approach to democracy, conflicted at best, is settling into a familiar groove. Attacks on the news media, the scapegoating of vulnerable minorities and periodic assaults on the concept of truth, as well as on specific facts, have become hallmarks of his administration.

At the same time, democracy has gotten a few licks in as well. Trump obediently retreated from his Muslim ban at the direction of the courts, and his White House has been leaky, a boon to the free flow of information.

But it remains unclear whether the Republican Congress and other key U.S. institutions have the resiliency and will to repel Trump's attacks, including the continuing stonewalling on we-don't-know-what-exactly regarding Russia. (Trump's sudden aura of competence after his speech to Congress was undermined a day later by a well-timed leak on how Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared to mislead the Senate under oath about his Russia contacts.)

The effect of Trump on societies with weaker democratic institutions is also unknown. But the very existence of a would-be authoritarian thrashing around the American government, forever threatening to break free of institutional constraints, sends a jarring message around the world.

The New York Times published a story on Wednesday about "anti-Soros" forces in Europe being emboldened by Trump's election. Substitute the word "democracy" for the name of the financier and open-society enthusiast George Soros, and the story still holds.

In Soros's native Hungary, the Trumpian prime minister, Viktor Orban, has for years been undermining democratic norms and institutions, badgering opponents and bludgeoning the independence of the news media. He is using this hour of authoritarian ascendance to step up his attacks on groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as "foreign agents financed by foreign money."

Last week in Hungary, an Amnesty spokesman told EUObserver, "The government accused Amnesty of producing fake reports and of inciting migrants to break laws."

"Fake" reports and law-breaking immigrants. There's something vaguely familiar about those themes, isn't there? In a speech earlier this week, Orban said Hungary's economic success depends on the nation's "ethnic homogeneity."

Hungary's tide of "illiberal democracy" long preceded Trump's election. Orban's most recent reign atop Hungarian politics -- he's been there before -- began in 2010. "What we've seen is a weakening of democratic institutions around that part of the world for maybe a decade now," said Jan Surotchak, Europe director of the International Republican Institute, a Washington-based NGO that promotes democracy worldwide.

Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, a kind of Washington doppelganger of Surotchak's IRI, has been in the business of promoting democracy worldwide for more than three decades. He isn't convinced that this U.S. president represents a democratic departure. "I think it's way too early for people to be making judgments," Wollack said in a telephone interview.

Wollack points out that concerns about President George W. Bush's commitment to global democracy movements -- as a candidate Bush had disparaged "nation-building" -- were quickly rendered moot after Bush launched full-scale wars under the banner of democracy.

Trump's evolution could similarly surprise. Democracy promotion, Wollack said, is now deeply woven into the fabric of international relations, especially for the U.S. "Every U.S. embassy around the world has democracy as part of its agenda," he said.

Incubating and sustaining democratic institutions is a tough task, however. Democracy doesn't always take. And it doesn't always thrive even when it does take. Hungary is one of many examples of democratic backsliding. Certainly the regime of Russia's Vladimir Putin qualifies.

Nowhere is democracy so firmly rooted as in the U.S., which has been a wellspring for democratic impulses around the world. Perhaps the confidence of Wollack and others is well-founded. But Trump represents a concussive break from a democratic pattern that has not only flourished in the U.S. but reverberated, to the benefit of Americans and others, around the world.

U.S. commitment to foreign engagement can vary with the demands and resources of the era. But questions about the U.S.'s commitment to its own democracy are something strange and new. Democrats around the world can't help but take note that the pillar of democracy has gone wobbly. Aspiring dictators have no doubt noticed, too.

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

To contact the author of this story: Francis Wilkinson at fwilkinson1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

Go here to see the original:
Trump Could Undermine Democracy Outside the US - Bloomberg