Mediaboss Marketing

A Hungarian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) leveled harsh criticism at the EU and its globalist allies for accusing Hungary, and by extension other, more conservative Central European nations, of undermining democracy.

In an interview with German newspaper Deutsche Welle, published this week, outspoken Hungarian MEP Gyorgy Schpflin said that comparisons between Hungary and autocratic countries such asRussia and Turkey are false and politically motivated.

They perform this virtue signaling in order to deflect attention from equivalent problems at homethis is an old rhetorical trick.

Undermining democracy is very much a question of what one means by democracy is it rule by the consent of the governed or domination by the values of the liberal elite, regardless of consent? Schpflin said.

Accusing Central European countries like Hungary, which resists mass migrationand open borders, of being anti-democratic and illiberal is a favorite tactic of progressive globalists.

Less than two weeks ago, now-French President Emmanuel Macron accused both Hungary andPoland both NATO members and EU member-states of being anti-Democratic regimes in a roundaboutattack on his then-opponent, Marine Le Pen.

We all know who Le Pens allies are: the regimes of [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orban, [Polish Law and Justice Party chairman Jaroslaw] Kaczynski, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, Macron said. These arent regimes with an open and free democracy. Every day they break many democratic freedoms.

An April headline from The New York Times Editorial Board decried Hungarys Assault on Freedom. A recent sub-headline in The Economist declared that In Europes illiberal east, populist nationalism is alive and well, while a 2016 article in the same magazinewas titled, Illiberal Central Europe: Big, Bad Visegrad.

In 2016, the EU parliament on two occasions officially accused the Polish government of being anti-democratic. In September 2016 it issued a resolution saying that the Polish governments endanger[s] democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law in Poland. A New York Times headline from April of this year described Polands Anti-Democratic Drift.

Contrary to the widespread liberal narrative of democratic backsliding in Central Europe, the institutional order in Hungary works well, said Schpflin. The Constitutional Court regularly quashes draft laws passed by parliament, and the EUs Justice Scoreboard places Hungary in the top third of EU member states, he continued.

As far as the media are concerned, even a casual sampling of what is published will show that there is very wide-ranging, often very harsh, criticism of the government, of Fidesz and of Orban personally, Schpflin said. No journalist has been arrested, so parallels with Turkey or Russia are nonsense.

Schpflin also challenged the attacks on Hungarys new education law targeting Soros Central European University, which critics charge is an assault on democratic freedoms. Academic freedom is intact, said Schpflin. Again, a sampling of what is published will demonstrate this. Much of academia lean to the liberal left and remain in their posts.

"As far as the CEU is concerned, it enjoys a privileged position inasmuch as it grants both Hungarian and American diplomas, but without its having an American mother university, hence American academic oversight," Schpflin said.

"The higher education law is about regulating this. Whether the CEU will want to regularize this is their decision. There is no commitment on the part of the Hungarian government to expel the CEU." If Hungary can be in any way accused of "illiberalism," it is only in the economic sphere, said Schpflin.

Schpflin suggested globalist voices use the vilification of Hungary as somehow anti-democratic to divert attention from pressing problems in their own nations.

"They perform this virtue signaling in order to deflect attention from equivalent problems at home, along the lines of 'yes, there may be difficulties here, but look how much worse things are in illiberal, authoritarian, autocratic Hungary,'" he said, "this is an old rhetorical trick."

Read the original here:
Hungarian MP blasts progressive vilification of countries' pursuing their national interest - LifeZette

Joshua Wong is running late for lunch but can we blame him? The 20-year-old political activist just finished a final exam, and hes heading into town via the MTR, Hong Kongs metro, which is packed during the midday rush. And besides, hes jetlagged: only 24 hours earlier he got back from a week in the U.S., where he met with such high-profile political figures as Marco Rubio and Nancy Pelosi, who have been actively sympathetic to his fight for democracy in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

All of this serves to underscore the most improbable life of the face of protest, as TIME dubbed Wong in 2014 , when his role as a figurehead of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution here earned him a spot on the magazines cover. Two and a half years have passed. The primary demand of the Umbrella protests Hong Kongs right to directly elect its top official, who is known as the Chief Executive went unheeded. Beijings interference in Hong Kongs affairs has only increased . This summer marks the twentieth anniversary of whats known in China as reunification but locally, and tellingly, as the Handover when the U.K. relinquished its subtropical colony to Chinese rule under a political dynamic known as one country, two systems, intended to preserve the city's capitalist liberties while allowing it to become part of the Chinese nation.

But now its more like one country, one and a half systems, Wong says.

In the time that has passed since the Umbrella Revolution, Wong and his colleagues in the pro-democracy activist camp here have not given up their fight. One of them, 23-year-old Nathan Law, was elected to Hong Kongs Legislative Council last September, the youngest lawmaker in the territorys history . Wong has kept up with his university studies he has three more exams left this term but moonlights as a globetrotting spokesperson for democracy: giving speeches on college campuses; meeting with prominent political figures; penning op-eds for TIME and the New York Times .

In January, he flew to Utah for the Sundance Film Festival, for the premiere of a documentary about the Hong Kong protests called Joshua: Teenager versus Superpower. In its treatment of the protests, the film presents Wong as something between a general and a martyr, a characterization he disagrees with. The Hongkongers who confronted tear gas in the streets are the real heroes.

TIME caught up with Wong over lunch at a bistro across the street from Hong Kongs government headquarters to catch up on the film, his travels to the U.S., and what will come next in the fight for democracy in Chinas freest city.

Nearly three years have passed since the Umbrella Movement. Have things gotten better or worse in Hong Kong, and are you optimistic for the future of democracy here? Freedom of press and speech have been eroded. People who have criticized the Chinese government have been kidnapped. Even some business people who support Beijing have faced abduction. But Im still optimistic. The fight against the largest authoritarian regime in the world is a long-term battle.

A lot of people overseas are somewhat confused by Hong Kong: they dont know if its a city in China, or an autonomous city-state like Singapore. Whats the most important thing they should know? Hong Kong was promised democracy under the framework known as one country, two systems, and China is ignoring this promise. The international community should be more attuned to this. It matters. Im hoping this documentary brings more attention to it.

The documentary portrays you as the hero and leader of the Umbrella protests. Is this fair? Im not a hero. The Hongkongers who confronted tear gas in the streets are the heroes. But of course the reality when making a documentary like this is that its hard to focus on everyone.

You just returned from Washington, where you met with some high-profile U.S. politicians who support your fight. But does the current state of U.S. politics make you second-guess the merits of democracy? Not at all. At the end of the day, people in the U.S. can still go to the polls and choose their leader every four years. People in the U.S. are downhearted right now. Under Chinese rule, were also depressed but we cant even vote.

Hong Kong was for years one of the worlds great financial capitals, but many people are now saying its on the decline. The quality of life has fallen; the cost of living has climbed; the rise of cities like Shanghai has made it less important in the global marketplace. Do you agree? If Hong Kong people keep silent and do nothing, of course Hong Kong will become just another second-tier Chinese city. But Hong Kong is unique, and weve been lucky that Hong Kong people have been trying their best to fight for our core values. We still have hope.

What will it take for Hong Kong to achieve the sort of democratic system you and your peers are fighting for? Weve organized the largest public disobedience movement in China since Tiananmen Square in 1989. But apart from straight activism, we need to increase our influence within institutions, especially global institutions. The support of the international community really matters to us. This is why Ive been going to Washington. Before the Handover in 1997, the world really endorsed the implementation of one country, two systems, and now it is being eroded. People should not keep silent.

You just turned 20 a few months ago. You have a long way to go and so does Hong Kong. Where do you see yourself 10, 20, even 30 years from now? I will try my best to fight for democracy in Hong Kong however I can. I hope to get a chance to run for office here. As far as the international community goes, I think I can be the one to stand up and explain to the world whats going on in Hong Kong.

Many people are cynical about Hong Kongs future. But whats been the most promising change youve witnessed here in your lifetime? Hong Kong was once just an economic animal a financial hub, a business city. But weve proven that we want and deserve democracy. Weve proven that we dont just care about money.

Go here to see the original:
8 Questions for Hong Kong Democracy Activist Joshua Wong - TIME

My GOP cronies bridled. "This is America," one insisted. "When one side gets into power, they let the other side retire quietly -- they don't stick their predecessors' heads on spikes. We don't use the law as a tool to punish political opponents. That's what makes us different from banana republics in Africa. That's what makes us the greatest democracy in the world."

Regardless of what you think about George W. Bush -- or this characterization of the entire African continent -- my friend summed up what many Americans believe about their nation's strengths. From Thomas Jefferson onward, the rhetoric of the democratic example has been fundamental to the mythology of American exceptionalism.

Central to this reverence is the faith Americans have in their Constitution: a document which promises to punish corrupt representatives, constrain executive overreach and protect judicial independence. But beyond America's borders, even its greatest admirers reserve a dose of skepticism. America's confidence that its Constitution uniquely protects against abuse of power feels, at best, nave.

People are concerned about traveling to the US, even concerned about doing business in a country that no longer seems to uphold the rule of law. No longer is America a shining example, as my college friends would have it, to the tin pot dictatorships of Africa.

It seems much more revealing that Comey's firing took place a day after he reportedly stepped up his own inquiry into the Trump campaign's alleged links to Russia. (It is worth noting, too, that Rosenstein, an Obama appointee, does not explicitly call in his memo for Comey's dismissal -- just as Comey himself criticized Hillary, but declined to recommend charges. Precision matters in high-stakes legal inquiries.)

None of this makes comfortable watching for America's allies. Should British Prime Minister Theresa May trust her friend Donald to treat her as professionally as he has treated James Comey? Should she direct her intelligence agencies to share with American colleagues their information on Vladimir Putin's activities?

If there is a scrap of hope to be gleaned from President Trump's obvious misdirection this week, it is that Trump has veiled his attack on his own FBI director in the language of bipartisan constitutionalism. The attempt to present this sacking as a favor to Democrats -- who blame Comey for styming Clinton's campaign -- at least suggests that he knows the directors of major civic infrastructure should command bipartisan support.

Or does it? The problem with being European, looking at America, is that we know dictators have always used the language of constitutionalism to camouflage their land grabs.

If there's a single question on every European's lips, it is: How long can Trump last? To those of us who've heard Americans wax lyrical about the legacy of the Founding Fathers, now is the time when we expect to see the US Constitution's checks and balances swing into action. We know that Americans are good at getting rid of presidents: In the American TV series that form our stable diet, it happens all the time, from "Veep" to "24." It's happened in living memory, too. If you can impeach a president simply for lying about sex, surely you can impeach a president who sacks the person investigating him?

Now, however, it's American observers who sound more skeptical. If you're actually living in America, you know that it'll be hard to get much of the congressional GOP on board for an impeachment; that nothing really constrains the executive branch's power over civic appointments.

It is evident that separation of powers only truly exists in the United States when separate parties control the executive and legislature.

Smug Europeans are congratulating themselves that Americans were always wrong about their exceptional democracy. Those of us with a foot in both continents are not so much smug as heartbroken.

Original post:
Europe view: American democracy isn't as strong as you think - CNN

I will always remember where I was when I heard Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. This is a historic moment.

What were living through, as David Rothkopf recognized, is nothing less than a moment of crisis in the history of American democracy. A number of observers have rightly compared the Comey firing to Richard Nixons infamous Saturday Night Massacre, when he fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox in a bid to block efforts to gain access to secret tapes Nixon had made in the Oval Office.

As with Nixon, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Trump is seeking to cover up something and to place himself beyond the reach of the law.

Its well worth noting that Trumps decision to fire Comey is only the most recent attack on our constitutional democracy. This is a president and administration that have tried to undermine the independence of the federal courts, falsely accused political opponents of criminal acts, threatened the free press and turned the White House into a marketing opportunity for the Trump brand.

National crisis

The essential question right now is whether Republicans in Congress will recognize this is a national crisis that demands bipartisan action to make clear the president is not above the law. Americans should call for an independent investigation into the Trump campaign and administrations ties to Russia.

So far, only a few congressional Republicans seem to be considering this. But, as Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon observed: In America, the truth always comes out. I am inclined to agree with Wyden. Nixons decision to fire special prosecutor Cox ultimately led to Nixons resignation. We must similarly confront the possibility that Trump will not complete his first term in office.

If this happens, there will be no cause for celebration. The problem well all face, and indeed the problem we already face, is how we come through this crisis and emerge with a functional constitutional democracy meaning an executive branch accountable to the rule of law, free from corruption and scrubbed clean of authoritarian impulses.

There are no guarantees about any of this. Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden openly worries that American institutions may be melting down and its beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. We must recognize that none of this will fix itself. A lot of hard work will be required.

Two big problems

There are two overarching problems. First, how will Americans who are concerned about Trumps authoritarian actions feel confident that constitutional democracy is intact? Second, how will Trumps supporters feel that their vote has not been taken away from them, in the event that Trump does leave office?

These are big challenges, to say the least. How can we take them on?

One first step would be having prominent Republicans and Democrats stand together to declare that what were dealing with is not a partisan dispute but a direct threat to our constitutional system. George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and other prominent Republicans like Hayden should join with Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and other nationally known Democrats to call for an independent investigation.

If an investigation does lead to either Trumps resignation or removal from office, Republicans and Democrats should form a kind of unity government. Assuming that Vice President Mike Pence is not himself tarnished by the many scandals swirling around this administration, he could succeed Trump as president and nominate a Democrat to serve as vice president. Democrats could also be named to cabinet and other important positions.

Even if Trump does not leave office before his first term is up, we cannot avoid our day of reckoning with the harm he has done. At some point, we must assess and seek to repair the damage our constitutional system has sustained.

Donald Trumps time in office has been more like a professional wrestling match than a legitimate presidency. It wont be easy to start setting things right, but its better to get started sooner rather than later.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American Universitys School of Public Affairs. His latest book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, was published in 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.

View post:
Opinion: After Comey's firing, how can we save our constitutional democracy? - MarketWatch

Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today's WorldView newsletter.

South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-in, is wary of America's role in his country and has signaled he is open to warmer ties with North Korea. This has raised concerns in Washington. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

At a time when there's so much hand-wringing over the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of corrosive nationalismin the West, South Korea just offered a welcome reminder that people power is still alive.

In a snap election Tuesday, South Korean voters elected Moon Jae-in as the country's next president. Moon, aliberal politician, tookoffice Wednesday,marking the first time in a decade that Seoul's Blue Househas been occupied by a progressivepresident. His views on engagement with North Korea may put his government swiftly at odds with the Trump administration.

But that's not what is so striking about Moon's victory. His rise to power came amid seven months of political turbulence. First, South Korean media began reporting and investigatingallegations of corruption and bribery surrounding then-President Park Geun-hye. Mass protestsand legal proceedings followed, eventually leading to Park's impeachment and removal from power in March. The election cycle swung into gear, and Moon, a former human rights lawyercampaigning on an anti-corruption platform, was boosted by an electorate hungry for change.

South Korean's elected candidate of the Democratic Party, Moon Jae-in, as their new president on May 10, ending months of political turmoil in the country. (Reuters)

The protests against Park tapped into widespreadfrustration in the country over the pervasive reach of major South Korean conglomerates and their alleged collusion with political elites. Park's misdeeds reminded some South Koreans "how we havent cared enough about politics and have not been keeping close enough watch on how the government is run," said Kim Wan-kyu, a 34-year-old office worker who spoke to my colleague Anna Fifield when demonstrations first began in November.

It's a powerful story, especially in a country where democracy only replaced a decades-long, U.S.-backed dictatorship inthe late 1980s.

"South Korea still has many problems. But its people, buoyed up by an extraordinary wave of civic activism, are showing that they arent prepared to accept the established way of doing things," wrote my colleague Christian Caryl in March, when Park was forced out of office. "They have mounted a remarkable campaign for change, and today that campaign has borne fruit of the most dramatic sort. Their cousins to the north can only dream of similar acts of defiance which is why their country remains frozen in time, beholden to a leader whose only plan for the future is tied to the machinery of violence."

The focus now shifts to what Moon's presidency may look like. Domestically, he has "promised to improve transparency in government appointments and strengthen regulations on the conglomerates that dominate corporate South Korea," wrote Fifield on Tuesday. "Voters were also concerned about the anemic economy and the widening disparity between rich and poor. Moon promised to put together a huge stimulus package, to create 810,000 public-sector positions and to reduce long working hours." His party does not hold a majority.

But the more pressing question for observers in Washington ishow South Korea's attitude toward North Korea and the Trump administration's moves against Pyongyang may shift.Moonbelongs to aSouth Korean political tradition that is eager for rapprochement, or at least positive engagement, with North Korea. That is at odds with the White House's aggressive ratcheting up of tensions in the wake of North Korea's latest round of missile tests.

"Moon has stated he is not opposed to sanctions," explained academic Andrew Yeo in The Post's Monkey Cage blog. "But by seeking inter-Korea talks, promoting an 'economic community' and persuading regional partners to pursue engagement with rather than coercion against North Korea, the new South Korean government may find it difficult to coordinate its North Korea policy with Washington."

Moon has also bristled at the deployment of the U.S.'s sophisticated THAADmissile defense system in South Korea, which Moonclaims was authorized by the previousgovernment without a proper review and then fast-tracked before the election. Liberal discontent with THAAD in South Korea was deepened by Trump's own contention that South Korea should foot the bill for its deployment. "The perception is that Washington has bullied Seoul into accepting THAAD and then shoved the bill at its close ally," wrote Duyeon Kim in Foreign Affairs.

But thereare reasons for optimism on U.S.-South Korea ties, too.

Yeo suggests that, "like Koreas previous progressive presidents, Moon will seek to take greater initiative on issues pertaining to the Korean Peninsula rather than rely on just the United States or China." This may actually be welcome to the Trump administration and its insistence on an America First doctrinethat prioritizes extracting the United States from geopolitical quagmires elsewhere.

"I believe President Trump is more reasonable than he is generally perceived," said Moon to Fifield before the election. "President Trump uses strong rhetoric toward North Korea, but, during the election campaign, he also said he could talk over a burger with Kim Jong Un. I am for that kind of pragmatic approach to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue."

If Moon can develop a solid rapport with Trump, it may improve the chances of calming tensions with Pyongyang and send another signal to South Koreans that their demandsfor change have produced real results.

Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today's WorldView newsletter.

See the article here:
South Korea just showed the world how to do democracy - Washington Post