Mediaboss Marketing

George Washington published his Farewell Address in a Philadelphia newspaper to announce to his fellow citizens that he would step away from the presidency after two terms, demonstrating that power could be transferred peacefully in a democracy. His farewell also served as a warning of the dangers that threatened the fledgling democracy.

Washingtons Farewell Address soon became the countrys civic scripture, studied by every student across the nation. But by the latter half of the 19th century, the archaic style of the farewell could not compete with Abraham Lincolns shorter, optimistic and more quotable Gettysburg Address, which became the countrys best known civic discourse.

Today, the Farewell Address is receiving renewed interest as the country debates its identity whether we are a multicultural country welcoming the foreign born or a country feeling a loss of identity with an influx of too many immigrants and refugees. Its a debate between a vision of the nation as a melting pot and as a nation of Mayflower descendants.

In his farewell, Washington made the case for a national identity at a time when most citizens identified more closely with their states in the newly formed country. John Avlon in his new book on the Farewell Address describes six themes that continue to resonate in the country today: national unity, political moderation, fiscal discipline, virtue and religion, education and foreign policy.

We may think of our country today as deeply divided, but hyper-partisanship also marked the early days of the republic the divide between the North and South, industry and agriculture, Federalists and Republicans, and even in the presidents Cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Washington warned the nation that partisanship threatened the country, especially the menace of intolerant extremes and the danger posed by demagogues.

Washington envisioned the presidency as rising above the political fray to unite the country. He sought a government composed of a coalition of problem-solvers rather than of factions of self-interested partisans. While he understood that partisanship could not be eliminated in the republic, he urged its restraint through the separation of powers and an ever-watchful, informed citizenry.

Washington argued that the sacred ties that bind the states into a union serve as the very foundation of freedom and prosperity. He saw the possibility of unity in welcoming immigrants to the country, declaring in a letter to John Adams that by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners, and laws: in a word, [they] soon become one people.

Washington developed a religious pluralism, welcoming all religious faiths to create a country that sanctioned no bigotry. He instructed the supervisor of his farm to hire good workmen, whether they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christians of any sect or they may be atheists.

Washington thought he could best strengthen our national union by demonstrating patience, prudence, humility, moderation and self-discipline. It is a philosophy with roots in the ancient Roman republic, which distrusted passion and valued virtue and reason above all.

Although the least formally educated of our presidents, Washington engaged in lifelong learning and self-improvement, and he imagined such an education for all citizens because he understood that democracy depends on an enlightened and civic-minded electorate.

In his private life, Washington struggled as a businessman with burdensome debt. He sought for his country the self-sufficiency that he and his fellow small-business owners strived for themselves a country free from obligations to other countries.

Washington warned that the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection. But contrary to Jeffersons warning about entangling alliances, Washington was not an isolationist. He saw an opportunity through free trade to create relationships of mutual interest with other countries, shared interests that might prove to be more powerful than the passions that lead to war.

In stepping away from a presidency that he could easily have held for life, Washington made a revolutionary statement about a democratic society. In his Farewell Address, he warned his countrymen and women that the experiment in democratic government cannot and must not be taken for granted.

Washingtons words speak to our generation as much as to his own. Hyperpartisanship, the rise of extreme elements, the trampling of cherished values, demagoguery, intolerance, bigotry and antagonism toward allies and adversaries all threaten democratic governance. Take heed of Washingtons warnings.

Joseph W. McDonnell is a professor of public policy and management at the University of Southern Maines Muskie School of Public Service in Portland.

Read this article:
Take heed of Washington's warnings about the threats to democracy ... - Bangor Daily News

Political leaders gathered at the Munich Security Conference to discuss geopolitical fault lines emerging between Europe and Asia - and beyond.

According to the participants, disputesover territorial sovereignty andregional influenceare amongthemost relevant barriers to peace on the Eurasian land mass.

"Territorial integrity must be respected while internationally recognized boundaries cannot be redrawn," Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev said Saturday at the conference.

Aliyev accused Armenia of occupying the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is run be a de facto independent state of ethnic Armenians.

"We support strongly territorial integrity of all the countries surrounding us sitting at this table," Alivey said, referring to political leaders from Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia and Kazakhstan.

"We suffered, ourselves, from the violation of territorial integrity, therefore the issue of territorial integrity is untouchable," he added.

Last year,violence flared in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, leaving dozens dead. Concerns that the conflict could spiral out of control prompted Moscow to negotiate a ceasefire that effectively de-escalated tensions in the breakaway region.

Despite Baku's growing influence as a stabilizing nation for the region and its amicable relations with Moscow, Azerbaijan voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolution backing Kyiv's sovereignty in Crimea after Russia's illegal annexation.

The darkest division

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk took the floor to lash out at the issues that emerged in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, saying Moscow's actions constituted the pinnacle transgression against national sovereignty.

"Let me put it bluntly: President (Vladimir) Putin wants to run the world; at least part of the world. We has been very vocal, saying that the Russian Federation wants to restore the spheres of interest," Yatsenyuk said.

In 2014, Ukraine witnessed Moscow annex theCrimean peninsula in an internationally condemned referendum following European-leaning protests that lead to pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych's ouster.

Nearly 10,000 people have been killed in eastern Ukraine since fighting erupted in 2014

The annexation fueled pro-Russia sentimentin eastern Ukraine, prompting an insurgency that has left nearly 10,000 people dead and affected more than 500,000 children, according to UN figures.

Democratic aspirations

Yatsenyuk, who led the government after Yanukovych's departure, noted that upholding the values of liberal democracy would provide a response to such interventions.

"The best option and the best remedy is to stick to our values of democracy, values of the free world, values of the free media. We need to support every single country, to respond and act in concert," he added.

Estonia's President Kersti Kaljulaid not only raised concerns about Ukraine's predicament, but also considered Georgia, which in 2008 witnessed Russia's armed forces occupationof South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"What happened with these two countries? Indeed, they were standing on a very important line. I don't know whether it was a fault line or not, but their people expressed their democratic will to belong to the European value space and system," Kaljulaid said.

Recalling the history of her country and its fight against Soviet rule, Kaljulaid said both countries had been punished for that. She urged the participants to "consider carefully how we could push that fault line back."

"The fault line is not a constant line. The fault line can be moved back and forth, but it should always be the will of the people, in whichever way they want to go," she added.

See more here:
Eurasias fault lines move between sovereignty and democracy ... - Deutsche Welle

CHENNAI: The DMK on Sunday appealed to Tamil Nadu Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao to "nullify" the vote of confidence won by Sasikala loyalist EK Palaniswami, alleging it was adopted by contravening the rules of the state assembly.

DMK, whose MLAs were en masse evicted from the state assembly before the voting on the confidence motion on Saturday, also announced a state-wide hunger strike on February 22, protesting what it called was "murder of democracy".

In a representation submitted to Rao, Stalin, also the leader of the opposition in the assembly, urged him to "nullify the entire proceedings" to "protect the spirit of democracy and the Constitution".

DMK Rajya Sabha members RS Bharathi, TKS Elangovan, and Tiruchi N Siva submitted the representation.

Recalling his demand for secret voting on the motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami and Speaker P Dhanapal's rejection of it, he said, "Finding no other way to register our protest, we resorted to peaceful dharna inside the House."

He, however, said, "The Speaker ordered expulsion of all the members of the DMK without following the procedure."

"Assembly guards forcibly evicted us and many of us sustained injuries. Other opposition parties staged a walkout strongly protesting the action of Speaker," he said.

The DMK leader claimed that the Speaker "ignored the rule that if the House is adjourned after moving a motion, it lapses". He said it was "a mockery of democracy and a severe blow to the Constitution".

He claimed that in 1988 "when voting on the confidence motion was held by the Speaker with only two factions of the ruling party present in the House (it was) later declared as invalid and void by the then Governor".

It appealed to the Governor to weigh the proceedings in the state assembly, focusing on the Speaker's declaration that the confidence motion moved by Palanisami was adopted in absence of members of all the opposition parties.

It urged him to invoke his constitutional powers to nullify the proceedings to protect the spirit of democracy and Constitution.

Continue reading here:
'Murder of democracy': DMK announces hunger strike on February 22 to protest against trust vote - Times of India

The former head of one the United States leading scientific agencies has said she fears for the very future of our democracy if scientists are muzzled and intimidated by DonaldTrumps administration.

Speaking to a packed house of about 250 people at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) annual meeting, formerNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chiefProfessor Jane Lubchenco said she was even concerned for the health and well-being of scientists amid warning signs that she described as very sobering.

Since MrTrump was electedhe has appointed a string of climate change deniers to key positions in government, information about climate change has been deleted from federal websites and staff at the Environmental Protection Agency were told not to speak out publicly without approval.

This gag order was described by Professor Barbara Schaal, president of the AAAS, as chilling when she opened the meeting.

An event organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at the annual meeting saw emotions run high as some people in the crowd compared Mr Trump to the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and his administration to the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

However, one of the founders of the UCS, Kurt Gottfried, who was a child in Austria when the country was annexed by Germany in 1938, said such comparisons were ridiculous at the moment but also warned they might not be in the future.

Ms Lubchenco, who was the NOAA administrator from 2009 to 2013, told the audience: My biggest worry is about the consequences to society if scientists are muzzled and intimidated, if science is defunded, data deleted and scientific institutions are undermined.

I fear for the health and well-being of scientists and the economy and the environment, indeed the very future of our democracy and our world.

Why? We need science at the table for individuals and for institutions to make smart decisions. We need data to help citizens and businesses be smart about what they do, we need science to create the new knowledge that will help society solve many of the big problems that are facing us.

She said it was unclear whether her worst fears would become reality but added we have warning signs that are very sobering.

I fear that neither policymakers nor citizens will have access to the best available science because federal scientists are afraid or unable to do their best science and to share it with the public and policymakers, Ms Lubchenco said.

I fear that the scientific integrity policies that are essential for wise decision-making will be either ignored or dismantled. I fear that science will seen increasingly as partisan and untrustworthy.

Scientists could decide to quit Government jobs or not apply for them, affecting everything from the quality of weather forecasts to new sources of renewable energy and the safety of medicines, she said.

But Ms Lubchenco also appealed to people not to make science a partisan issue.

It isnt, it shouldnt be and dont buy into that framing of the debate, she said.

The eminent physicist, Professor Lewis Branscomb, who has advised four US Presidents, echoed that point as he suggested some politicians in Mr Trumps own party might prove to be allies.

A great many of the leading Republicans are very nervous about where all this is going to lead, he said.

If there is a chance of having strong friends anywhere in the conservative community, then dont put them in the pot with everything else we plan to cook.

He appeared taken aback by the heady atmosphere of the meeting.

The energy is right here in the room, look at it, weve never had a meeting like this, Mr Branscomb said.

But some among the audience expressed fears that the dangers posed by Mr Trump were being underestimated.

Jeremy Grantham, the Boston-based investment strategist known for steering investors away from coming crashes and who set up the Grantham Foundation For the Protection of the Environment, accused scientists of having a lack of passion.

I think scientists actually think passion is not scientific. They have enormous respect for the dignity of science, he said.

They understate their work on climate change and that is simply dangerous if it leads to a lack of understanding by senior politicians.

This is a matter of real survivability for certainly our society as we know it and for many species including our own.

Mr Grantham said there was a need for scientists to speak out more strongly on such issues and it shouldnt take the second coming of Mussolini to provoke such a response.

And Dr Phil Rice, of Harvard Medical School and an emergency doctor, went further.

This is an authoritarian fascist government. All these institutions that people are hoping to rely upon to keep him and his group in check I think are just going to fold, he said.

This is a locomotive coming at us just like they did in Germany, they will come for the scientists, this is just the first salvo.

They will attack the scientists and they will imprison them. I think part of the response has to be that we are going to protect each and every one of us that gets attacked.

Even if you just do your science and dont speak out, you will get attacked. The universities are going to be gone after just as they are beginning to.

However Mr Gottfried advised against comparing Mr Trump to the far-right leaders of 1930s Europe.

I saw my school yard filled with tanks and my sky filled with German fighter planes, he said.

Ive experienced what you are talking about and I want to warn you about over-stating the case.

I think the US is not Germany or Austria in 1938. We have a lot of strengths we can rely on.

We damage ourselves by exaggerating the threat. This country has strengths that Germany did not have, to equate thetwo is ridiculous.

Unfortunately you may turn out to be right, but to talk now as if it is a forgone conclusion is a mistake.

You may help the people who want [a] Hitler to come to power. Ive seen what you are talking about and its not what we are facing. It may be, but we help it come about if we make exaggerations that are really way off.

No one was available for comment at the White House on Saturday evening.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump threatens 'the very future of our democracy', top scientist warns - The Independent

The people are always right. No? Ah, but then they vote for leaders like Donald Trump and Oh well, we can add to the list, internationally and nationally!

Does this mean that democracy is a mistake? No, quite the contrary! But we have to hack away at some stubborn centuries-old shrubbery in order to see the foundation of this clearly enough.

One of the greatest myths about democracy started largely by the Left in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and continued with a twist by the Right into the 21st relates to the most common rationale behind it. The people are always right, claimed the Left in the past. The market, or the consumer, is always right, claims the capitalist Right today, tweaking the Leftist argument cleverly.

Between them, they justify democracy as a form of political organisation based on human beings being basically always right. Very little in the past from the picnics at public hangings outside London jails to the genocides of colonisation and Nazism justifies such confidence in people being always right. Over centuries, people have been horribly wrong at times.

Way back in 1882, Henrik Ibsen, the great Norwegian playwright, wrote An Enemy of the People (adapted into a film, Ganashatru, by Satyajit Ray in his last years) around one aspect of this perception, arguing that one needs to be morally and intellectually ahead of people in order to be right. Ideas and truths, Ibsen suggests in this play, get dated, habitual and platitudinous, and hence the majority, which lives habitually by grasping on to platitudes, tends to mistrust the truly ethical and intellectual individual. In other words, if you are Jesus, you risk getting crucified.

But even this argument is faulty: a lot of intelligent people can go horribly wrong. Cleverness does not necessarily save you from mistakes, and even ethics can be twisted in painful ways: there are many in the U.S. who claim to be pro-life and hence will criminalise abortions, but they spare little thought (and no money) for the plight of women forced into unhappy pregnancies or the future of poor, abandoned and unwanted children.

History is full of brilliant people great leaders, scientists, thinkers, planners who helped destroy a village, a nation or an age. Sometimes it appears that intelligence, on its own, merely provides a person with an easier ability to make excuses for his or her mistakes, and hoodwink others in the process.

So if people whether as individual or group, entrepreneur or consumer, tribe or republic, nation or political party, king or voter seem to make horrible mistakes much of the time, what hope is there for democracy? Why believe in democracy at all?

Actually, one can argue that the main justification of democracy is exactly this: that anyone ordinary voter or monarch can be wrong about any given matter. The ability to make mistakes is human neither power nor riches nor education can eradicate it, though self-awareness might help. A king or dictator can make a mistake as well as the majority of voters in an election who vote in a party or a leader with bad plans. But in a democracy, after a period, during the next elections, such mistakes can be corrected.

A democracy, in other words, allows us to regularly check the mistakes we make bloodlessly and correct them when their disastrous consequences become finally clear to us. This is far more difficult, and costly, to do in any other kind of (autocratic) regime, whether justified in worldly or divine terms.

Democracies are not necessary because people are always right: if we were certain of being right all the time, we would not need any political organisation at all, let alone a democracy. We would be gods. Democracy is necessary because people groups and individuals can be wrong. Hence, in a democracy one learns to live with ones opponents, not exile or murder them. This is a political version of the fact that in life we always live with others or with the Other, the self who is not and cannot be (by definition) entirely yourself.

Democracy is the only political option that allows us to mitigate the effects of our own mistakes, and the mistakes of others. Democracy is necessary not because the people are always right, but because human beings are often wrong. We forget this only at great peril to ourselves and others.

Here is the original post:
We need democracy because people can be wrong - The Hindu