Mediaboss Marketing

American constitutional democracy is in anexistential crisis right now, and it's not easy to see how this ends.

President-elect Donald TrumpDonald TrumpMcConnell breaks with Trump on NATO Trump makes unannounced stop at his DC hotel Rick Perry misunderstood Energy Secretary job: report MORE has made clear hewill not respect limitson presidential power. Even before taking office, he and his minions have threatened to clamp down onjournalistsanddissenters, demonstratingcontemptfor the First Amendment.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) recently suggested that Trump could "close down the elite press"by choosing which press outlets he personally decides are legitimate. Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, warns that Trump has "serious conflicts of interest" that will place him in violation of the Constitution as soon as he takes office.

Most troubling of all, the U.S. intelligence community has concluded thatRussian President Vladimir Putin ordered a cyber espionage operationaimed at helping Trump win election. There are unconfirmed reports that Russiaalso collected compromising informationit could use to blackmail Trump.There is also reporting raising concerns that the FBI "blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr. Trump [and Russia]."

Recently, civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) has concluded that, because of Russian interference in the election, Trumpcannot be a legitimate president.

The first step, when it comes to Russia, is sorting out what actually happened. That requires anindependent, nonpartisan investigation. The Senate intelligence committee hasannounced that it plans to begin investigating"counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 election."

That's a good start (though not the kindof independent commissionmanyhave in mind), but we can't passively sit back and assume this will be sufficient.If the investigation confirms assessments and reports that Russia helped Trump win the presidency and is now in a position to blackmail him, that would require the extraordinary and unprecedented remedyof a new election. None of this can happen unless Americans of all political stripes recognize the danger we are in and support their elected representatives in doing what is necessary to set things right.

Whether we can find a path through this thicket depends on all Americans recognizing this is about the legitimacy of our constitutional democracy, not typical partisan divisions.

Some Republicans understand this. Mark Salter, former chief of staff to Sen. John McCainJohn McCainUS democracy is in crisis. Trump voters must help us get past it. The rise of Carlson, and the fall of Van Susteren Booker to vote against Tillerson MORE (R-Ariz.), suggests that we need "an uncommon country-before-tribe commitment from Republican and Democratic politicians"and others. He's right and elected officials can only find the courage to act if they have the support and urging of their constituents.

That means Trump voters must acknowledge they made a mistake. This is, without a doubt, a difficult thing to do. I understand this.

I was too young to vote in 1988, but I thought that year's presidential election was a contest for the soul of America. Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush'scampaign rhetoricand choice of an unqualified running mate, convinced me that he would be dangerous for the country. I worried he was in the pocket of the religious right and other extremist elements in the Republican Party.

I was wrong; Bush was no extremist. The elder Bush was a better president than Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis would have been, and likely would have been better in many if not most ways than Bill ClintonBill ClintonHillary Clinton tweets well-wishes to Bushes Chelsea Clinton: We must keep fighting Lanny Davis: Farewell, President Obama: Your legacy as one of the best presidents is secure MORE, the man elected to replace him in 1992.

We all make mistakes. What matters is owning up to that, taking responsibility for our actions, and trying to set things right. Those of us (which includes a number ofRepublicans andconservatives) who already are confronting the crisis our nation faces must reach out to Trump voters in friendship, as our fellow citizens.

This is not about bitterness, settling scores, or showing anyone up. It is about recognizing that we face the most serious constitutional crisis since Nixon's presidency. As we did more than 40 years ago, Americans must cross partisan lines to defend our constitutional democracy.

None of this will be at all easy, but it is an essential test of our patriotism, integrity and national character.

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

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

More here:
US democracy is in crisis. Trump voters must help us get past it. - The Hill (blog)

WASHINGTON, D.C.It was not a hearing. It was the mere burlesque of a hearing, rendered meaningless by a preposterously accelerated process that rendered all questioning perfunctory and that left all cheap evasions hanging in the air of the committee room the way cigarette smoke used to canopy the proceedings back in the day. You would not hire a gardener through the process by which Betsy DeVos likely is going to become the Secretary of Education. A public school system wouldn't hire her to work the cafeteria line at lunch. It was appalling. It was unnerving. It was a grotesque of how an evolved democracy should operate. It was business as usual these days and it likely isn't going to matter a damn.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

As nearly as I can tell, the nominees for the president-elect's Cabinet fall into several different categories. There are the people you'd pretty much expect from any Republican administration. (James Mattis, Stephen Flynn, Ryan Zinke). There are the people who understand the mission of their departments and have spent their lives undermining it. (Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, Rick Perry at Energy, Andrew Puzder at Labor). And there are the people who are fundamentally clueless about the general nature of public service. (Rex Tillerson at State.) On Tuesday night, DeVos demonstrated that she is that rarest of Trump administration fauna: Someone who fits capably into all three categories.

Getty The Washington Post

She and her family and the Amway gozillions they control have been a bottomless reservoir for the dark money that is the engine behind a dozen different conservative fetish objects, from right-to-work laws, to gutting campaign finance regulations, to injecting splinter Protestantism into every part of the political commons. So she's pretty much what you'd expect from any Republican administration. She understands the mission of the Department of Education and truly dislikes it. And, as was graphically demonstrated even in the truncated questioning Tuesday night, she doesn't know enough about education policy to feed to your guppies.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

This was most clearly demonstrated during an exchange with Senator Al Franken. Franken asked her about the distinction in education between proficiency and growth. Then, this happened.

Franken: This brings me to the issue of proficiency, which the senator cited, versus growth. I would like your views on the relative advantage of assessments and using them to measure proficiency or growth.

DeVos: I think if i am understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would correlate it to competency and mastery, so each student is measured according to the advancements they are making in each subject area.

Franken: That's growth. That's not proficiency. In other words, the growth they are making is not growth. Proficiency is an arbitrary standard.

Devos: Proficiency is if they have reached a third grade level for reading, etc.

(Ed. Note: At this point, the nominee was further at sea than Magellan ever was. We continue.)

Franken: I'm talking about the debate between proficiency in growth, what your thoughts on that?

DeVos: I was just asking the senator to clarify

Franken: This is a subject that has been debated in the education community for years. I have advocated growth as the chairman, and every member of this committee knows, because with proficiency teachers ignore the kids of the top who are not going to fall below proficiency, and they ignore the kid at the bottom who they know will never get to proficiency. I have been an advocate for growth. But it surprises me that you don't know this issue, and Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good reason for us to have more questions. This is a very important subject -- education, our kids' education. I think we are selling our kids short by not being able to have a debate on it.

As I may have mentioned, my father was a teacher and an administrator in the public high schools for over 35 years. He explained the essential difference between proficiency and growth to me 40 years ago. That a prospective Secretary of Education hadn't the faintest idea what Franken was talking about should have been enough to make the committee adjourn itself in helpless laughter.

What a Weekend It Was for Civil Rights

But there were even more risible moments to come. DeVos clumsily dodged every question about her family's financing of the dingier segments of the conservative movement. Rookie senator Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire doggedly pursued a $5 million donation made by a foundation ostensibly run by DeVos' mother to Focus on the Family, the anti-gay extremist chop-shop that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group.

Hassan: There is a foundation named for your parents, correct?

DeVos: My mother's foundation.

Hassan: And you sit on the board?

DeVos: I do not.

Hassan: So when it made the $5 million donation to Focus on the Family, you did not know anything about it?

DeVos: My mother makes the donations.

Here is the original post:
The Betsy DeVos Hearing Was an Insult to Democracy - Esquire.com

Citation: C N Trueman "Democracy" historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 27 Mar 2015. 16 Aug 2016.

Democracy is a word frequently used in British Politics. We are constantly told that we live in a democracy inBritain and that our political system is democratic and that nations that do not match these standards are classed as undemocratic. D Robertson, writing in 1986, stated that:

Robertson continued by stating that the word only starts to mean something tangible in the modern world when it is prefixed with other political words, such as direct, representative, liberal and parliamentary.

This belief is based on the right of every citizen over a certain age to attend political meetings, vote on the issue being discussed at that meeting and accepting the majority decision should such a vote lead to a law being passed which you as an individual did not support.

Part of this belief, is the right of every one to hold political office if they choose to do so. Direct democracy also believes that all people who have the right to, should actively participate in the system so that it is representative of the people and that any law passed does have the support of the majority.

Direct democracy gives all people the right to participate regardless of religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, physical well being etc. Only those who have specifically gone against society are excluded from direct democracy. In Britain, those in prison have offended society in some way and, therefore, their democratic rights are suspended for the duration of their time in prison. Once released, and having learnt a lesson, their democratic rights are once again restored.

Direct democracy is fine in theory but it does not always match the theory when put into practice. Direct democracy requires full participation from those allowed to. But how many people have the time to commit themselves to attending meetings especially when they are held mid-week during an afternoon? How many wish to attend such meetings after a day work etc?

If Britain has 40 million people who can involve themselves in politics if they wish, how could such a number be accommodated at meetings etc? Who would be committed to being part of this system day-in and day-out when such commitment would be all but impossible to fulfil? How many people have the time to find out about the issues being discussed whether at a local or a national level ? How many people understand these issues and the complexities that surround them? How many people understood the complexities of the problems surrounding the building of the Newbury by-pass, the installation of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Greenham Common etc?

If people are to be informed on such issues, who does this informing? How can you guarantee that such information is not biased? Who would have time to read all the information supporting the building of the Newbury by-pass and then read the material against it, before coming to a balanced personal decision?

Because of the realities of direct democracy, few nations use it. Some states in New England, USA, do use it at a local level but the number of people involved is manageable and the culture of the towns involved actively encourages participation. The issues discussed are relevant purely to the town and ,therefore, there is a good reason for involving yourself if you want your point of view heard. Meetings are held in town halls across New England which, apart from cities such as Boston, is not highly populated. But how could the system work in heavily populated areas?

In the recent mayoral election in London, the small turnout of voters indicates that one aspect of direct democracy was not there active participation by those who could have participated. Of those who did vote, how many will actively participate in the running of the city? Is the mechanism in place for people, other than those appointed by Ken Livingstone, to involve themselves in day-to-day decisions? This will be done by acabinet selected by the mayor. The people of London will have no choice as to who sits on this city cabinet (just as the national electorate has no say in who sits on the governments cabinet when it is picked). Is it physically possible to have a system that involves all those in London who wish to do so? How many Londoners understand the complexities of the issues which the city government will have to deal with? At this moment in time, London cannot be run by a system of direct democracy.

Technological developments in the future may change this. The expansion of the Internet and the speed with which communication can now be achieved, may favour direct democracy. The present government set-up a system in 1997, whereby 5,000 randomly selected members of the public (the so-called Peoples Panel) are asked about their reactions to government policy. However, there is no system in place which allows the public to help formulate government policy, and critics of the Peoples Panel have called it a gimmick with no purpose.

Representative Democracy

Several off-shoots have grown out of representative democracy : participatory democracy and liberal democracy.

Britain is a representative democracy. This is where citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them. Every 5 years in Britain, the people have the chance to vote into power those they wish to represent us in Parliament. These MPs meet in the House of Commons to discuss matters and pass acts which then become British law. Within the House of Commons, each elected MP represents an area called a constituency. The voters in this constituency passed on the responsibility of participating in law making to this MP who, if successful within the Commons, could be re-elected by that constituency at the next general election. However, in stark comparison to direct democracy, the people hand over the responsibility of decision making to someone else who wishes to be in that position.

For five years, MPs are responsible to their electorate. In this way they are held accountable to them. If they fail to perform (or if the party has done badly during its time in office) they can be removed by the people of their constituency. In this way, the people exercise control over their representatives.

However, by handing to their MPs the right to participate in decision making within the Commons, the electorate is removing itself from the process of decision making. Though MPs have constituency clinics where the people can voice an opinion on an issue, the electorate play no part in the mechanism of decision making that process has been handed to MPs and the government.

Within representative democracy, usually two types of MPs emerge. There are those who believe that they should act and react to what the party and electorate wish they believe that they have been elected to represent both; though an argument would be that the party wants the best for the electorate so the two are entirely compatible.

The other type of MPs are the ones who believes that they should act in accordance to their conscience regardless of party and electorate stance. This gives such a MP the flexibility to ignore the wishes of both his party leadership and his constituency therefore allowing himself to do as he/she sees fit. Is this democratic in any form? However, is it realistic for a MP to do what his/her constituency electorate wishes all the time? If he/she always follows the wishes of the majority within his/her constituency, what happens to those in the minority? Are they condemned to five years in which their views may be heard but are not acted on? Does a representative within the boundaries of representative democracy, only represent the majority view and thus state that the wishes of a democratic society have been fulfilled? The Tyranny of the Minority is something that pure democracy is meant to prevent.

One way of expanding the participation of the electorate and therefore the whole ethos of democracy would be to initiate more mechanisms whereby the public can participate, should they wish, in the decision making process. Such mechanisms could be the greater use of public enquiries and referendums. Both would allow the public the ability to participate in the complete process of examining an issue, but they would not guarantee that the public would have any say in the final decision made by government.

Britain, as well as being a representative democracy, has also been labelled a liberal democracy. Historically there are five main points behind liberal democracy :

the government should be limited in its impact on the person and the government should not enjoy arbitrary power.Elections must be free and fair. the government should do what it can to remove obstacles limiting the well being of people. This includes all groups with none excluded. the governments involvement in the economic market of a country should be minimal. the government should be there to deal with problems when needed the right to vote should be extended to all (no longer applicable to Britain).

A country that claims to be a liberal democracy, embraces the whole issue of civil liberties. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly freedom of religion etc. (within the confines of the law) are of paramount importance. Within Britain these have been safe guarded by what is called the rule of law. This guarantees someone equality before the law and it also ensures that the powers of those in government can be curtailed by laws that are enforceable in courts. This has been further developed by the growth of the impact of the European Court which can act as a check and balance against the governments of member states.

Visit link:
Democracy - History Learning Site

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the UK based Economist Intelligence Unit, that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are UN member states. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

The index was first produced for 2006, with updates for 2008, 2010 and the following years since then. The earlier versions are fully open access, the 2015 document requires registration.

As described in the report,[1] the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.

The questions are distributed in the five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. Each answer is translated to a mark, either 0 or 1, or for the three-answer alternative questions, 0.5. With the exceptions mentioned below, the sums are added within each category, multiplied by ten, and divided by the total number of questions within the category. There are a few modifying dependencies, which are explained much more precisely than the main rule procedures. In a few cases, an answer yielding zero for one question voids another question; e.g., if the elections for the national legislature and head of government are not considered free (question 1), then the next question, "Are elections... fair?" is not considered, but automatically marked zero. Likewise, there are a few questions considered so important that a low score on them yields a penalty on the total score sum for their respective categories, namely:

The four category indices, which are listed in the report, are then averaged to find the democracy index for a given country. Finally, the democracy index, rounded to one decimal, decides the regime type classification of the country.

The report discusses other indices of democracy, as defined e.g. by Freedom House, and argues for some of the choices made by the team from the Economist Intelligence Unit. In this comparison, a higher emphasis has been put on the public opinion and attitudes, as measured by surveys, but on the other hand, economic living standard has not been weighted as one criterion of democracy (as seemingly some other investigators[who?] have done).[2][3]

The report is widely cited in the international press as well as in peer reviewed academic journals.[4]

Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected, yet are also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments which function adequately, and media which is diverse and independent. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.[5]

Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement). Nonetheless, these nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[5]

Hybrid regimes are nations where consequential irregularities exist in elections regularly preventing them from being fair and free. These nations commonly have governments which apply pressure on political opponents, non independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[5]

Authoritarian regimes are nations where political pluralism has vanished or is extremely limited. These nations are often absolute dictatorships, may have some conventional institutions of democracy- but with meager significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections- if they take place- are not fair and free, the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and the presence of omnipresent censorship and suppression of governmental criticism.[5]

According to the issue of the index for 2012, Norway scored a total of 9.93 on a scale from zero to ten, keeping the first-place position it has held since 2010, when it replaced Sweden as the highest-ranked country in the index. North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, the same as in 2010 and 2011.[1]

There was no significant improvement or regression in democracy between 2011 and 2012. In 2012 the index score stayed the same for 73 out of 167 countries, improved for 54 countries, and declined for 40. Libya experienced the biggest increase of any country in its score in 2012. Average regional scores in 2012 were very similar to scores in 2011. An exception is the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) where the average score increased by more than a tenth of a point, from 3.62 to 3.73 and three countries moved from authoritarian to hybrid regimes (Egypt, Libya, Morocco).[1]

The Democracy Index for 2011 highlighted the impact of the Arab Spring and the greater effects it might have, as well as the impact of the global financial crisis in 200708 on politics throughout most of Europe. The Democracy Index score was lower in 2011 than in 2010 in 48 countries out of the 167 that are covered. It was higher in 41 ranked countries, and it stayed the same in 78.[6]

In nine countries there was a change in regime type between 2010 and 2011; in four of these there was regression. Russia was downgraded from a hybrid regime to an authoritarian regime, which the report attributes to concerns over the December 4 legislative election and Vladimir Putin's decision to run again in the 2012 presidential election. Portugal was also downgraded to the flawed democracy category, attributed to the effects of the global financial crisis. Tunisia, Mauritania, Egypt, and Niger were all upgraded to hybrid regimes, and Zambia moved up to the flawed democracy category.[6]

The following table gives the number and percentage of countries and the percentage of the world population for each regime type in 2015[7]

World population refers to the total population of the 167 countries covered by the Index. Since this excludes only micro-states, this is nearly equal to the entire estimated world population.

The following table gives the index average by world region, and the number of covered countries in 2015. Note that some regional groups (e.g., the 'Eastern Europe') are very heterogeneous and composed of full democracies as well as authoritarian regimes:

Listing by country is available on the Economist website;[7] for by-country tables in Wikipedia using similar measures, see List of freedom indices.

View original post here:
Democracy Index - Wikipedia

Rex Tillerson and Exxon Spent Big on Climate Change Denial while Misleading Public, Evidence Shows Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump's likely choice to be America's top diplomat as Secretary of State, has spent years funding climate change denial and underwriting efforts to block measures to address climate change while misleading the public, according to evidence compiled by the Center for Media and Democracy.

As CMD detailed in a joint complaint filed with the IRS shortly before the election, Exxon has used the American Legislative Exchange Council "as a key asset in its explicit campaign to sow uncertainty about climate science, undermine international climate treaties and block legislation to reduce emissions."

This includes attacks on the Clean Power Plan which sets out modest steps to try to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Read the rest of this item here.

Certainly, Trump wasn't the first choice of most ALEC members. Many other Republican presidential hopefuls had come to kiss the ALEC ring over the course of the Republican presidential primary. ALEC prince Scott Walker came before he fell off the presidential cliff. Kellyanne Conway appeared before ALEC in July, then a mere pollster. She (correctly) identified the mood of the electorate (very angry), and said that only a "change agent" like Trump could prevail. Even Mike Pence showed up to ALEC, but still no Trump. The ALEC audience was Trump wary. Read the rest of this item here.

Expect trouble.

McGahn was ethics lawyer to scandal-ridden Rep. Tom DeLay, played a lead role in transforming the FEC into a toothless watchdog, and has represented the Koch Brothers' Freedom Partners and its PAC, which bankroll a large network of right-wing groups and political campaigns.

McGahn has been a controversial figure for more than a decade, and is notorious for politicizing and crippling enforcement of federal campaign finance laws while serving as a GOP-selected FEC commissioner from 2009-2013. Read the rest of this item here.

For example, the fracking giant Devon Energy gave $500,000 to the "Congressional Leadership Fund," a Super PAC "exclusively dedicated to protecting and strengthening the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives." Devon is notorious for helping to bankroll the fight against citizens in Denton, Texas, who won a bid to ban fracking in 2014 . The Denton ban passed with 59% of the vote, but Texas state legislators and members of the American Legislative Exchange Council nullified that local initiative and pre-empted. Devon spent $195,000 in disclosed spending in the local battle and has spent an untold sum to influence the results local and in the state capitol. Read the rest of this item here.

The move came to name Priebus to the top spot as a bit of a shock to Trump's base, some of whom referred to Priebus as #Ryansboy, but it is another big win for the Koch wing of the Republican Party. The Kochs already have deep ties to Trump's running mate Mike Pence who took over the Trump transition team this weekend. Top Koch advisor Marc Short, who worked for Pence before heading the Kochs' Freedom Partners, is also aiding the transition effort reports Politico. Read the rest of this item here.

View post:
SourceWatch - SourceWatch