Mediaboss Marketing

At this moment, I am on assignment in Europe, a continent that, like America, seems more screwed-up with every visit. To escape the insanity that threatens to engulf us all, this morning I decided to work remotely from a small French town. Hammering away on my laptop, I sat down to enjoy a nice breakfast in a quaint little caf. The coffee was good. So were the bacon and eggs. Fearing I would miss a critical news event you know, like, say, the ransacking of a California university by students deeply concerned with the ideals of democracy I put in my earbuds and listened to BBC Radio.

This was a mistake.

The brief tranquility of my world was punctured and my coffee made bitter by an interview with a man who warned of a populist Trumpian fascism in Britain and America. Yes, a new Hitler, he said, threatened the free world. This is a frequent refrain. Ashley Judd shouted it on the Washington Mall. Social media is bristling with the same. And pundits both here and in America love to say it. That narrative, however dear to the Left it may be, is ignorant and bears no semblance to the modern geopolitical reality in the Western world.

A little political primer for the uninitiated:

Strictly speaking, fascism sees the clash of civilizations as a war between races of people. It is about the blood. Private property and capitalism are permitted, but it is for purposes designated by the state. Fascism is an extreme expression of the Right. Hitlers Germany, Mussolinis Italy, and Francos Spain were all fascist regimes.

They killed millions of people.

Strictly speaking, socialism sees the clash of civilizations as a war between classes of people. It is about impersonal economic forces. Private property is not recognized, capitalism is a great evil, and the state owns the means of production. Socialisms highest stage of development is called communism. (It has never been achieved, but that is a discussion for another time.) Socialism is an extreme expression of the Left. Stalins Soviet Union, Maos China, and Kim Jong-uns North Korea were/are all socialist states.

They killed millions of people.

Fascism and socialism are historicist theories. That is, in these systems, history is governed by predetermined laws; not man and certainly not God. Indeed, both have a great antipathy for God and seek to substitute the state and its pantheon of leaders for authentic worship. After all, salvation, they believe, is found in the state alone.

Fascism enjoys no mainstream support in Britain or America. This has not deterred opponents of Donald Trump from calling him and his supporters fascists and Nazis. I did not vote for Trump I damn sure didnt vote for Hillary but I must defend the man on this point. To use such labels is outrageous and utterly fails to understand what those words mean. And to use them in this context is to lose all credibility.

As far as I can tell, Trump is a typical Western capitalist and pragmatist. To date, his political policies stand in the mainstream of American presidential tradition in a way that Obamas did not. There is nothing particularly radical or fascist about strict immigration requirements, the protection of U.S. interests and sovereignty, or a wariness of an oppressive, violent socio-political structure like Islam whose core principles are antithetical to Western ideals. Moreover, Trump is no ideologue as Obama and Bernie Sanders certainly are.

No, it is not fascism that threatens the West; it is an anarchy fueled by leftist ideology incubated in our universities, promoted by a willing media, and regurgitated by Hollywood. Furthermore, in trying to redefine what constitutes Americas political center, the Left has sought to give the impression that they embody it.

Dont fall for it.

You must bear in mind the kinds of behaviors these people want to mainstream: not only the killing of unborn children, but the celebration of it in the manner of an ISIS execution video; gay marriage and its transgender corollary; the full embrace of Islam, the greatest global threat to free peoples since Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany (i.e., authentic fascists); and now, as if this were not enough, some on the Left are suggesting the overthrow of the government.

Im not talking about the ubiquitous suggestion that the Electoral College be abolished. The comment to which I refer comes from former Obama Administration policy advisor Rosa Brooks. In an article for Foreign Policy titled 3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020, Brooks, who repeatedly questions Trumps sanity, suggests a military coup. This was not the stuff of clever political satire. She meant it. Whats next? Suggesting that someone blow up the White House? (Oh, wait. Scratch that.)

This kind of talk, which has become commonplace in recent weeks, is alarming and dangerous whether it comes from the Left or the Right. It is the kind of talk that erodes the Rule of Law and encourages the civil unrest we witnessed at Berkeley in recent days. But neither this talk nor the anarchy in our streets is the result of fascism, Trumpian or otherwise. Ferguson and Dallas occurred on Obamas watch and were not funded with money from the Koch Brothers or Chick-fil-A. No, these are all manifestations of the political Left.

Is our democracy imperiled? Undoubtedly. Look Left.

See more here:
Leftist Anarchy, Not Trumpian Fascism, Is the Real Threat to Democracy - American Spectator

A refugee is someone who seeks refuge in another country than their own because of legitimate fear of persecution, capture and imprisonment, torture and/or death based on their religion, gender, race, ethnicity or political beliefs.

We are a country of immigrants, and many of our forebears were refugees escaping religious or political persecution, as well as a new way of life to escape poverty.

Pilgrims came to Massachusetts, Catholics sought haven in Maryland, and many Jews were welcomed to Savannah by Georgia Gov. George Oglethorpe, who welcomed all religions. This is how our country was formed, but at the expense of the indigenous Indians, and with the moral blight of slaves brought into servitude from Africa.

Our history is not perfect, but it is built on welcoming immigrants from all over, which has made our country a beautiful quilt of diverse peoples and cultures.

President Donald Trumps executive order banning refugees from seven Mideastern and African countries raises many serious legal questions that will be resolved in the courts. But the even bigger question for us as Americans is whether we believe this is what America stands for. Is this who we are?

One of the inevitable effects of this order is to enable extremist jihadists to recruit members, because the U.S. is demonstrating that we hate Muslims and indicating that our two cultures can never live peaceably together.

We are jeopardizing our military who are working alongside Muslim soldiers in the Mideast who may now view the American beside them as the enemy.

Some of the banned refugees are interpreters for the American military stopped from entry to the U.S., along with their families, even though if they are returned to their countries or not allowed to leave they will likely be killed.

Yes, we want an effective vetting system, but refugees denied by this order have been fully vetted and cleared, and should be admitted to our country unless there is new information showing them to be risks.

As a country, we failed our moral duty before when we failed to allow ships full of Jews from Europe seeking refuge from the Nazis to deliver passengers to Cuba or Miami. Instead, we ordered them to return to Europe, and almost every one of them died in concentration camps in the Holocaust.

That moral stain will stay on the American conscience forever.

Let us avoid another moral stain on the honor of our country. It is simply not American to ban Muslims simply because of their faith, but to allow Christians from the same countries to be admitted.

Even more important than the First Amendment to the Constitution, which this policy violates, is our humanity, which is central to who we are.

The welcoming light of the Statue of Liberty welcomes those yearning to breathe free, not just Christians. And, for those of us who are Christians, if we really ask ourselves what would Jesus do, we have to know the answer: Do not judge and discriminate against your fellow man based on his religion.

If we dim the bright light of fairness and mercy that the Statue of Liberty has always symbolized, then it may be the first light of democracy that goes out in America. Others will follow.

Dorian is a DeLand resident.

Read more here:
Linda Colvard Dorian: Don't dim the bright light of democracy - The West Volusia Beacon

The confirmation hearings for Betsy DeVos provided an inordinate amount of drama: guns and grizzlies, an all-night talkathon on the Senate floor, and Vice President Mike Pences tie-breaking vote and with good reason.

DeVos, now confirmed as secretary of Education, is not just another inexperienced member of the presidents Cabinet. She is an ideologue with a singular educational passion replacing our system of democratically controlled public schools with a universal voucher program that privileges private and religious ones.

If you care about our public schools and our democracy, you should be worried.

Every state constitution enshrines the right to a free education for all children, and the U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld this right. In its landmark decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, the high court noted that education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. It went on to recognize its role in a democratic society, calling education the very foundation of good citizenship.

Given the controversy surrounding DeVos, Republicans initially may go easy in pushing school vouchers. But beware the bait and switch, the seemingly reasonable initiative that disguises radical change.

For more than a quarter-century, I have reported on the voucher program in Milwaukee:the countrys first contemporary voucher initiativeand a model for other cities and state programs, from Cleveland to New Orleans, Florida to Indiana.

Milwaukees program began in 1990, when the state Legislature passed a bill allowing 300 students in seven nonsectarian private schools to receive taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. It was billed as a small, low-cost experiment to help poor black children, and had a five-year sunset clause.

That was the bait. The first switch came a few weeks later, when the Republican governor eliminated the sunset clause. Ever since, vouchers have been a divisive yet permanent fixture in Wisconsin.

Conservatives have consistently expanded the program, especially when Republicans controlled the state government.(Vouchers have never been put to a public vote in Wisconsin.) Today, some 33,000 students in 212 schools receive publicly funded vouchers, not just in Milwaukee but throughout Wisconsin. If it were its own school district, the voucher program would be the states second largest. The overwhelming majority of the schools are religious.

Voucher schools are private schools that have applied for a state-funded program that pays tuition for some or all of itsstudent body. Even if every single student at a school receives a publicly funded voucher, as is the case in 22 of Milwaukees schools, thatschool is still defined as private.

Because they are defined as private, voucher schools operate by separate rules, with minimal public oversight or transparency. They can sidestep basic constitutional protections such as freedom of speech. They do not have to provide the same level of second-language or special-education services. They can suspend or expel students without legal due process. They can ignore the states requirements for open meetings and records. They can disregard state law prohibiting discrimination against students on grounds of sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or marital or parental status.

Wisconsin has sunk so deep into this unaccountable world that our voucher program not only turns a blind eye toward discrimination in voucher schools, it forces the public to pay for such discrimination.

I attended Catholic schools, and believe that this countrys long-standing defense of religious liberty is a hallmark of our democracy. But the voucher program has distorted this all-important concept of religious freedom.

In the guise of governmental noninterference in religious matters, the voucher program allows private schools to use public dollars to proselytize and teach church doctrine that is at odds with public policy for instance, that women must be submissive to men, that homosexuality is evil, that birth control is a sin, and that creationism is scientifically sound.

Privatizing an essential public function and forcing the public to pay for it, even while removing it from meaningful public oversight, weakens our democracy. And we arent talking about insignificant amounts of money. Since 1990, roughly $2 billion in public money has been funneled into private and religious schools in Wisconsin, and the payments keep escalating. This year alone, the tab is some $248 million.

For more than 25 years, conservatives have used the seductive rhetoric of choice to blur the difference between public and private schools. It has been a shrewd move. Individual choice has long been considered a component of liberty.

Used appropriately, choice can help ensure that public education is sensitive to the varying needs and preferences of students and families. But when it comes to voucher schools, its clear that choice is also code for funneling tax dollars away from public schools and into private and religious schools.

No one doubts our public school systems have deep-seated problems. But the solution is to fix them, not abandon them. Our public schools are the only institutions with the commitment, the capacity, and the legal obligation to teach all children.

With DeVosconfirmation, the entire country now must answer this question: If public education is an essential bedrock of our democracy, why are we undermining it?

Barbara Miner is a Milwaukee based reporter and the author of Lessons from the Heartland: A Turbulent Half-Century of Public Education in an Iconic American City (The New Press, 2013).

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionandFacebook

More:
If you care about our public schools and our democracy, beware of Betsy DeVos and her vouchers - Los Angeles Times

It can sometimes feel that humanity is taking two steps forward and one step backwards. Fewer people are hungry and poor these days, its true. But we're still far from a world where democracy and freedom are the norm, and where everyone shares in economic progress.

Take a look at these charts put together by Tariq Khokhar, global data editor at the World Bank. They show how constitutions, electoral democracies, and the language of "rights" are spreading, but also how fewer people are participating in elections and how electoral "integrity" is on the decline. More Latin American and eastern European countries have constitutions, for instance, but they're frequently amended, suggesting the documents are no more durable than ordinary laws.

The original charts come from a new World Bank report looking at how countries can be economically dynamic while serving a broad base of citizens. It argues that nations succeed in this way not because of their resources, or even the strength of their public services and infrastructure, but because of their level of social cooperation, their commitment to transparency, and the rough equilibrium of their power interests. In other words: whether or not they have effective governance.

Globalization has lifted 1 billion people out of poverty in the last 20 years. But the spread of technology and greater access to capital and world markets has had uneven effects, increasing inequality and promoting "vulnerability to global economic trends and cycles," the report says. And the development community has too often focused on "designing best-practice solutions and building the capacity needed to implement them," rather than the institutional underpinnings that allow those policies to succeed.

Download the full report here.

[Photo: Flickr user ]

See the original post here:
Democracy Is Advancing Around The World, But Also Deeply Fraying - Co.Exist

Observers were uncertain whether the American system, with its checks and balances and its diffusion of sovereign power across multiple levels of government, was up to the task of addressing these crises. Looking across the Atlantic, the political scientist Pendleton Herring pointed to the rising tide of authoritarianism: We face a world where discipline, organization, and the concentration of authority are placed before freedom for the individual and restraints on government. In this context, he asked: Can our government meet the challenge of totalitarianism and remain democratic? Is the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches compatible with the need for authority?

For some, the answer was that the United States would have to abandon its constitutional system, at least temporarily, to meet the roiling crises of the period. Alfred E. Smith, the former New York governor and Democratic presidential nominee, asked in 1933: What does a democracy do in a war? It becomes a tyrant, a despot, a real monarch. Since the depression was doing more damage at home to our own people than the great war of 1917 and 1918 ever did, he reasoned, it was similarly necessary to suspend constitutional government in order to combat it. As war approached in the late 1930s, Herbert Emmerich recalled, Praise for the efficacy of the Fascist dictatorship in Italy was heard in surprisingly high places in the democracies. Some doubts were being expressed as to the ability of the American system to supply the bold dynamic leadership required for solution of the problems of modern government.

Emmerich was among a group of administrative reformers, now largely forgotten, who worked to formulate a different response. Beginning with the 1937 Presidents Committee on Administrative Management, and continuing through the early years of the Cold War, these reformers crafted a number of institutional mechanisms that would enable the executive branch to decisively address emergency situations without undermining the traditions of American democracy.

Two innovations in particular were key to the success of this process of governmental reform. First, an array of new administrative devices increased the presidents capacity to take decisive action without undermining democratic procedures. For instance, the delegatory statute gave the executive branch powers normally reserved for Congress to make regulations and issue executive orders while maintaining a check on this power. Second, the Executive Office of the President was established as an apparatus of technical support for the executive that could be reorganized according to changing demands, providing input and guidance on complex problems of economic policy, foreign relations, and military strategy. Over the ensuing years, U.S. presidents have relied extensively on the counsel of advisory bodies based in this office, from the National Resources Planning Board and Bureau of the Budget of the 1930s and 1940s, to the post-war National Security Council and Council of Economic Advisors.

Today the tools invented by these administrative reformers are largely taken for granted, assimilated into the everyday workings of government. But in the mid-twentieth century, they were seen to have monumental significance for the preservation of American democratic institutions. The political scientist Clinton Rossiter argued in 1949 that the reorganization of the executive branch had been a far more momentous constitutional fact that anyone seems yet to have realized. It may, he wrote, have saved the Presidency from paralysis and the Constitution from radical amendment. The historian Barry Karl proclaimed that the reorganization was the American alternative to revolution.

These adjustments in our governmental system have not, of course, prevented terrible abuses of executive power. Witness, for example, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or the extrajudicial imprisonment and torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. But they did allow the U.S. to navigate crises that brought down many of the worlds democratic governments in the first half of the twentieth century. And for seven decades the structure of executive authority established during the depression and the Cold War has enabled the American government to manage economic and military emergencies without resort to dictatorship or martial law.

How disturbing it is, then, to see Trump, within a week of his inauguration, using the very institutional mechanisms that were designed to preserve democracy in actual crises to undermine constitutional order in response to fictional crises. We should be alert to the strategic fabrication of more such crises by this administration. As Evan McMullin has warned, the president will likely endeavor to create a threat as broad, pervasive, nebulous, and yet urgent as possible. And unlike the reformers of the mid-twentieth century, Trumps goal will be to thwart constitutional protections rather than to sustain them.

More here:
Trump's Fictional Crises and the Real Threats to American Democracy - New Republic