Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

The Free Flow of Scientific Information Is Critical for Democracy – Scientific American (blog)

The more than 60,000 scientists who work in the U.S. government form one of our nations greatest assets. Their research is as varied as science itself, ranging from understanding the fundamental workings of atoms to building the next great space telescope to determining unsafe levels of chemicals in waterways to predicting the impacts of future climate change to creating new vaccines and cancer treatments.

We have a clear interest in knowing what the scientists we support are doing, both as a matter of public accountability, and so that we can make informed decisions. While we can obtain this information in a variety of ways, including journal articles and information on agency websites and social media accounts, I would argue that no channel of information about government science is more critical than the independent media.

Consider, for a moment, the word media. The media mediate between sources of information and the public. They make decisions about what is most important and relevant to readers (since no one has time to keep up with all the science being done at federal agencies, or even one agency). They translate from the technical to the accessible. They place science in larger social and political contexts, and they hold institutions accountable when they try to manipulate or suppress scientific results for political reasons. No other institution in our society is capable of fulfilling all these roles. For this reason, free and open access to government scientists must remain open, evenindeed, especiallywhen scientists results challenge the governments political outlook.

How open are federal agencies to the press now? The answerat the moment, at leastdepends greatly on the agency. At some, such as NASA, NIST and NOAA, a reporter can in most cases speak to a scientist without having the interview cleared in advance with a public affairs officer, or PIO. PIOs at these agencies generally help reporters connect with scientists, and provide backup information to support a story.

At other agencies, however, staff put up substantial barriers between journalists and scientists. The EPA, for example, requires many interview requests to be approved by PIOs. This may make sense in some cases, as the EPA is under constant pressure from both anti-regulatory and environmental groups, and wants to tailor its message to avoid costly political blowback. But that does not get it off the hook for providing timely scientific information to the publicand delays in approving interviews can kill stories being written on tight deadlines.

Access barriers can also pop up for seemingly innocuous topics. When I contacted a U.S. Forest Service scientist a few years ago to learn about research being done to understand threats to the eastern hemlock treehardly an area of major public controversyI was shocked to get a reply from a PIO asking for a list of questions I planned to ask. (I did eventually talk to the scientist, but only after several days delay.) I have had a few similar experiences at other agencies, and have heard and read far more egregious stories from others.

I will grant that on matters of policy, an agency has an interest in speaking with one voice, so as not to confuse the public. But when it comes to the science informing policy, the public deserves the unfiltered and unmanipulated truth, directly from the scientists who did the research. Its not just I who believe this. The Union of Concerned Scientists has for years advocated for openness at government agencies, and its 2015 report card on agencies media and social media policies reported an overall improvement over the Obama years. Scientists now have the expectation that theyll be able to share their research and their views with the public, says Michael Halpern, deputy director of the unions Center for Science and Democracy, and our democracy is better for it.

But the report found many agencies policies still falling short of ideal. (One of the agencies to which the union gave an incomplete, the Department of Energy, implemented a strong openness policy in the waning days of the Obama administration. Lets hope the new administration honors it.) Meanwhile the Society for Professional Journalists wrote several letters imploring the Obama administration to live up to its promise to be the most transparent administration ever. (I chair the National Association of Science Writers information access committee, which has supported several of these letters.)

I can almost hear you getting impatient at this point. What, youre asking, is information access at federal agencies going to be like under Trump? As with so many things, the incoming administrations plans in this area are still largely unknown. But early signs are troubling. Confusingly worded directives led to temporary freezes on communications at several agencies, though some of these have been reversed after a public outcry. (On the plus side, these events showed that the public is engaged on this issue, and that pressure can have an impact.) At the moment, sources at various agencies tell me its mostly business as usual, but those agencies are still awaiting confirmed nominees. And its abundantly clear that Trump himself is no fan of the press, to put it mildly.

Those who wish to explore the darkest possible future might read the American Heritage Foundations 2016 Blueprint for Balance documentbelieved by some to be the basis of President Trumps budget planwhich suggests saving $262 million (.007 percent of the total federal budget) by eliminating public affairs staff at agencies. This would, of course, not stop journalists from finding their ways into agencies, but would probably make their work more reliant on scientists willing to leak or go outside authorized communication channels, and would certainly make the American public more ignorant about the workings of its governmentand about science.

Even without this nuclear option, there are plenty of ways that administrators can restrict access to scientists and information. They can ignore or delay responses to inquiries in hopes of delaying or killing a story. They can route interview requests to scientists they know will toe the party line. They can try to suppress individual scientists ability to use social media, speak at conferences, and, in the worst case, publish research without review. Unfortunately, Donald Trumps team would not need to invent these tactics, because they have already been demonstrated by his predecessors. They would merely need to make them the rules instead of the exceptions.

As the new administrations media access policies become clear, journalists and the public must be vigilant to ensure that scientific integrity and free flow of information remain enshrined as policy and practice across the federal government. These principles are vital to our democracy.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Gabriel Popkin

Gabriel Popkin is a freelance science journalist and chair of the National Association of Science Writers' information access committee.

More:
The Free Flow of Scientific Information Is Critical for Democracy - Scientific American (blog)

President Trump’s Tweets Demonstrate How Social Media Can Hurt Democracy – Fortune

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before Rex Tillerson was sworn in as 69th secretary of state in the Oval Office of the White House on February 1, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images

Last March, three months before Britons voted to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union, then Prime Minister David Cameron asked Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere to fire the newspaper's editor, Paul Dacre. The press baron, descendant of the family which did more than any other to create the British tabloid press, refused, and did not even tell Dacre of the request until after the result of the referendum. The incident, reported by the BBC, has not been denied by any of the parties involved.

It was a grubby event on the road to Brexit. Unlike many of their kind, the owners of the Mail do seem to have stuck to the line that they may own, but Dacre may edit. Rothermere is in favour of remaining in the EU; the Mail was and is the most devoted Brexiteer in the land. And, without peer, still the most powerful organ of the press: the "newspaper that rules Britain."

Dacre, now 68 and apparently still a tireless workaholic, is the last of that line of Fleet Street editors who have the confidence and talent to address the country like a revivalist pastor does his flockwith heat, passion and a supreme sense of being right. Dacre is right in the political sense of the word too: a hater of the left, a scorner, above all, of the liberals who, he believes, constitute the intellectual and cultural establishment, and a profound believer in the primacy of the British parliament.

No other editor commands in that way. Cameron's forlorn quest for freedom from the Mail 's daily sermons on the evils of the EU was a tribute to Dacre's power, but a power that may not be transferred to another if he ever he retires. This is not just because Dacre is, in character and sense of rectitude, a hard act to follow. It is also because the long running drama of the newspaper business is coming to an end. The news media now give way to the social media; the people, not the proprietors, editors, commentators and reporters, speak for themselves.

American historian Jill Lepore believes that the dominant medium of communication in any age is a large element in determining the way politics are conducted. In fact, she has claimed it can be the only element. "The American two-party system is a creation of the press," she argues. "When the press is in the throes of change, so is the party system It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the accelerating and atomizing forces of this latest communications revolution will bring about the end of the party system and the beginning of a new and wobblier political institution."

"At some point," she adds, "does each of us become a party of one?"

Get Data Sheet , Fortune's technology newsletter.

The political power of social media has been evident for some time. Pictures of a fruit seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, immolating himself in a Tunisian town after police confiscated his unlicensed vegetable cart in 2010 helped spark a revolution that became one of the first heralds of the Arab spring. In countries like Iran, Turkey, and Russia, texts on cell phones have brought demonstrators onto the streets. In China, information on Weibo and WeChat, the local equivalents of (banned) Twitter ( twtr ) , flash news of scandals, strikes and protests across the country, prompting President Xi Jinping to thunder that the media, including social media, must be disciplined. Until a couple of decades ago, you had to be very rich to acquire the technology to address the nation. Now, you have to be very poor indeed not to have the technology to address the world.

For some years, though, it's been clear to some that popular communications come with a sting in the tail. One of the loudest voices in explaining that sting has been Evgeny Morozov, a young Belarusian polymath who branded the utopian view of online freedomendorsed by both Bill and Hilary Clintonas "excessive optimism and empty McKinsey-speak," insisting that the ability to identify dissidence would lead to the strengthening, not the overthrow, of authoritarian power.

Morozov was referring to despotic states. More recently, President Trump is one of those who have shown us how the power of social media works in a great democracy. It works so that the powerful, the very rich and the celebrated rule in that spacenot as they did in the mainstream media's high period, but in a more interactive, yet at times more effective, way.

A politician or business leader or a celebrity speaking on television usually addresses the masses through an interlocutora presenter, a journalist. On social media, the same figure is talking to you, on your cellphone, through your twitter feed. Youweare a party of one.

To be and remain the person who can so command our personal channels of communication does, of course, take talent, organization, and the rare ability to sense and shape a mood. The rich and celebrated have the tools and the help to work in that way. Social media do not democratize them in themselves. As long as the powerful master the medium they increase, not reduce their power.

The interlocutor in the studio, the editor in his office, is almost gone. It's the celebrity and you. The famous figure can say anything which is judged to please or rouse you: and if you like it, why check whether it's true? Those who publish fake news boosting Trump (as much of it did) and who live as far away as Georgia (the one in the former Soviet Union, not the American South) make a good living from churning it out, all the while expressing amazement, and a little contempt, that so many seem to believe it.

To the powerful, power has again been given. It isn't that social media don't help sociability. But is it better for our politics?

John Lloyd co-founded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, where he is senior research fellow. The opinions expressed here are his own.

View original post here:
President Trump's Tweets Demonstrate How Social Media Can Hurt Democracy - Fortune

Donald Trump Has Hijacked Democracy. The Response Is Up to the Country. – Esquire.com

(In fact, that whole debate was surreal when you consider that it concerned an industry that likely will die before the planet it's helping to kill, but one that, somehow, has become the avatar for straight-shootin' smalltown Americans of all professions, obsolete or not. I think there's more concern for coal in Washington these days than there has been since 1902.)

But, in general, even these two did all they could to throw sand in the gears of what the majority party was trying to get done. (Manchin and Heitkamp both voted with the party on the two pre-dawn votes Friday.) The Democrats fought as hard as they could in committee against these nominees, and with every tool available to them. (Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, emerged as a ferocious opponent of the Sessions nomination, and Oregon's Jeff Merkley may end up being the last man standing against Gorsuch.) They even forced the Republicans twice to change committee rules in order to approve nominees with Republican votes only.

The GOP Has Your Back, Multinational Corporations

There simply is only so much they can do, given their status in both houses of Congress, and the remarkable ability of the Republican majority to hold its votes together. They have pulled every delaying tactic available to a minority in the Senate and they've done so full in the knowledge that Mitch McConnell is perfectly willing to blow up whatever political normsHi there, Merrick Garland!and change whatever political norms are in the way of getting what he and his president want. Right now, the administration has fewer Cabinet officers confirmed than any other administration at this point in the calendar. That's something, anyway.

The wires and pulleys by which Trumpism is hijacking democracy have been exposed. The rest is up to the country.

"Look, I'm headed home to Oregon," said Senator Ron Wyden. "I've had five town meetings when there was more snow in Oregon than any day since 1937. We had very big crowds with people really speaking out. Political change doesn't start in Washington, D.C. and trickle down. It starts from the bottom up, as people become aware of the facts.

"What's understood now, and it will increase, is they were told certain things in the campaign. Like with Obamacare. They were told there was going to be a repeal of Obamacare and a replacement. What we've really seen is repeal-and-run. They just wanted to repeal this program, get an ideological trophy, but they knew that just doing that would cause an enormous number of problems going forward. Looking for ideological trophies was not what the public was told during the campaign."

Getty

Wyden is correct on the facts, of course, but he may be minimizing the primary "ideological trophy" that people wanted in the campaign and that the election of Donald Trump gave thema defeat of That Woman, who was standing in for all of The Others who have made the world an insecure place for people who believed that their world should never be insecure at all. (That's for The Others.) That was all ideological trophy enough for them, and they got it in November. Now, we're all living with the consequences.

Both of the pre-dawn votes were bad ones. The DeVos nomination is ghastly on its face, but the vote on the Resource Extraction regulation is a vote for serious national security problems down the road. I know I'm harping on this a little but, if you allow American corporations to get back in the business of subletting despots all over the world, you're buying an awful lot of trouble down the line. You're going to have corruption and instability in the places under which resources we need are buried. You're lining up with people who loot their countries and then flee with their ill-gotten gains.

A Working Class Trump Voter Is Something to Be

When this happens, you get more instability and more civil wars in which the only things on which both sides agree is that the Americansor, more generally, the Westare to blame. Of course, this is also how you breed terrorists.

"There's no question that people's public health can suffer," Wyden said. "There is no question that you can have economic dislocation, and real economic pain, for families in a number of parts of the world where every day is an economic struggle just to survive."

They did all of this before the sun came up on Friday and then, for the most part, they were gone, off into a country that doesn't know what's happening to it, and seems to be happier that way, a land of constant surprises now, most of them bad ones.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump Has Hijacked Democracy. The Response Is Up to the Country. - Esquire.com

Death of Congo’s ‘Father of Democracy’ Leaves Dangerous Vacuum – Newsweek

For Congos political opposition, the timing of Etienne Tshisekedis death couldnt be worse.

The vast Central African country is finely poised between progress and chaos. After the failure of President Joseph Kabilas government to organize elections scheduled for late 2016, an opposition coalition managed to hammer out a transition dealagreed in principle on New Years Evethat would see a national vote held before the end of 2017.

But with the death of Tshisekedia towering former prime minister who has tormented the past three regimes in Congothat schedule may now be a pipedream.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The opposition Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS)which Tshisekedi founded in 1982announced Wednesday that its leader, who was 84 years old, had died in Brussels, where he had traveled for medical treatment. No cause of death was given in the statement published by UDPS spokesman Augustin Kabuya.

His death comes at a time of great uncertainty in Congo. People held mass protests in late 2016 as it became clear that promised elections would not happen; Congos election commission stated in October that the earliest a vote could be held would be in April 2018. Opposition activists accused Kabila, 45, of adopting a strategy of glissementFrench for slippagei.e. perpetually delaying elections while he prepared a bid to amend the constitution so that he could run for a third term. (Kabilas camp have denied this allegation.)

Supporters of veteran Congolese opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi of the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS) stand outside his residence as they mourn his death in the Limete Municipality of Congo's capital Kinshasa, February 2. Tshisekedi's death leaves the country's political opposition leaderless and could endanger elections due in 2017. Robert Carrubba/Reuters

Around 50 people were killed in a protest in the capital Kinshasa in September 2016, as anti-government protesters clashed with security forces. The U.N. envoy to Congo sounded a warning that the country was at extreme risk of descending into large-scale violence, perhaps even civil war. The New Years Eve deal mandated that Kabila could not change the constitution and that a transitional government, with an opposition prime minister, be formed. Tshisekedi was selected by both sides as the man responsible for overseeing the implementation of the deal.

We need to go back to the negotiation table, Kabilas chief diplomat, Barnabe Kikaya bin Karubi, tells Newsweek. The December 31 agreement identified Etienne Tshisekedi, because of his political weight, as the only opposition leader who will be able to lead the follow-up committee during the pre-electoral period. Its him and nobody else.

Kikaya says that it will be up to the opposition to put forward a new candidate to oversee the deals implementation, who will then have to be approved by Kabila. I dont know how long that process will takeThe longer we delay that process, thats how the elections themselves will be pushed back, he says.

Born in 1932 in what is now Kananga, in central Congo, Tshisekedi studied law under Belgian colonial rule and entered politics shortly after the countrys independence in 1960. He held various ministerial positions in Mobutu Sese Sekos government, though his relationship with the authoritarian leader was marked by significant distrust.

Tshisekedi established the UDPSthe first opposition party in Congoin an affront to Mobutus system of one-party rule. His steadfastness in challenging Mobutuwho took on such titles as Father of the Nation and Messiahwas one of the first examples of democracy in Congo. Tshisekedi taught the whole nation that Mobutu was a dictator, a human being, that he could be opposed and he had to be opposed, says Kikaya, who reveals he supported the UDPS at the start of his political career.

In the early 1990s, when Mobutu came under international pressure to relinquish his one-party rule, Tshisekedi served on three occasions as prime minister, but never for more than a matter of months. After Mobutu was overthrown by the current presidents father, Laurent-Desire Kabila, in 1997, Tshisekedis name was added to a list of 250 people who would not be allowed to run for the presidency.

Tshisekedi boycotted the 2006 elections at which the younger Kabilaalready in power since the assassination of his father in 2001was victorious. At the next vote in 2011, Tshisekedi was beaten by Kabila in a controversial poll but maintained that the majority of voters had backed him; the UDPS website still describes Tshisekedi as the president elect of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the elections of November 2011.

The UDPS leader returned to Congo in July 2016 following a two-year absence in Belgium for medical treatment. His return was greeted by hundreds of thousands of supporters, who lined the streets of Kinshasa and hailed his return as a sign of hope against Kabila.

Tshisekedis popularity is unmatched among politicians in Congo and will make taking on Kabilas government much more difficult, says Freddy Matungulu, leader of the opposition Congo na Biso party and a member of the main opposition Rassemblement coalition, of which UDPS is a part.

With him out of the picture, the oppositions capacity to mobilize the streets is dramatically reduced, says Matungulu, who says that his father-in-law was a partner of Tshisekedis in setting up the UDPS.

Felix Tshisekedi (C) in the UDPS headquarters after a press briefing, one day after his father died, on February 2, in Limete, Kinshasa, Congo. The UDPS proposed Felix Tshisekedi as prime minister in a transitional government in Congo, but his popularity is nothing like that of his late father. JUNIOR KANNAH/AFP/Getty

Perhaps the only other opposition politician who could rival Tshisekedis status is Moise Katumbi. The former governor of the mineral-rich Katanga province and owner of Congos most successful football club, Katumbi declared himself a presidential candidate in 2016 but fled the country after a Congolese court issued fraud charges against him, which he has described as completely fabricated.

A poll by the respected Congo Research Group in October 2016 found that 33 percent of respondents said they would vote for Katumbi if a poll was held before the end of 2016, ahead of Tshisekedi on 18 percent and Kabila on 7.8 percent. But according to Phil Clark, an expert on Congo at SOAS University of London, Katumbis popularity with the people does not translate to the political class. Katumbi is the most obvious unity figure to potentially replace Tshisekedi, but hes also compromised in some key aspects. One source of compromise is that hes quite popular with the electorate but less popular with other opposition leaders and parties, says Clark.

Within the UDPS, Tshisekedis son, Felix Tshisekedi, has risen to prominence. The Rassemblement coalition put Felix Tshisekedi forward as their suggestion for prime minister in the transitional government in January, but his ascent within the UDPS has sparked allegations of nepotism. Felix doesnt have half of the charisma or popularity of his father. Even within the party, its not clear that hes very well supported, says Clark.

Regardless of who steps forward to replace him, Tshisekedis death has left a gaping hole in Congolese politics and society. Hundreds of mourners gathered for an impromptu vigil outside his house Thursday. Kikaya says that even President Kabila is sad for the family and has ordered a state funeral to be held for his late rival.

We all see him as the father of the democracy movement in the country, says Freddy Matungulu, the opposition politician. He was the cement in the talks [with the government], so its going to be extremely difficult to replace [him].

Originally posted here:
Death of Congo's 'Father of Democracy' Leaves Dangerous Vacuum - Newsweek

Evan McMullin Is Trying to Save Democracy – The New Yorker

As Trump unleashes his id on the American people, Evan McMullin seeks to encourage civic engagement; point out the early signs of authoritarianism; and demonstrate that it is still O.K. to criticize our leaders.CreditILLUSTRATION BY BEN KIRCHNER; SOURCE PHOTOGRAPH BY RICK BOWMER / AP

Last year, on December 4th, the screenwriter Brian Koppelman posed a question to Evan McMullin, who, a month before, had received roughly half of one per cent of the vote in the Presidential race. Koppelman, who built up a large social-media following with daily Six-Second Screenwriting Lessons, describes himself as a liberal Democrat. What can the average American do, right now, in a real way, to resist the authoritarian moves that are about to commence? he asked McMullin on Twitter. McMullin spent most of his career in the C.I.A., followed by stints at Goldman Sachs and on Capitol Hill; when he announced his independent bid for the Presidency, last August, few people knew who he was. He responded to Koppelman with a list of ten tips, which included, Read and learn the Declaration of Independence, support journalists, artists, academics, clergy and others who speak truth, and never lose hope. Each item was retweeted thousands of times. The next day, a writer for Slate declared that McMullin had done more than almost any Democratic figure to organize opposition to Donald Trumps kleptocratic and Constitution-hostile tendencies.

After the election, as the vast majority of Republican lawmakers either celebrated Donald Trumps victory or kept quiet, many people who voted for Hillary Clinton felt a deep desire to forge anti-Trump ties across the traditional political divide. A handful of Never Trump conservative commentators continued to express concerns about the President-elect, but many of those writers had low standing with Democrats, given what theyd advocated in the past. McMullin seemed to offer himself as a bipartisan symbol of oppositionand he was saying all the right things. Trump has empowered the white nationalist movement in America, he tweeted. Mike Pence is his enabler in chief. And on Thanksgiving, Feeling grateful for artists and a free press this year. On December 6th, the actor and activist George Takei tweeted to his two million followers, We need strong voices from all political persuasions to help curb the excesses and dangers of Trump. Evan McMullin is one such voice.

McMullins critique of Trump began quietly, when he was serving as the chief policy director for the House Republican Conference, in 2015. Trump announced his candidacy that June, and right away, McMullin saw in Trump telltale signs of authoritarianism, he said. Attacks on the press. Probably even before that, attacks on Hispanics and African-Americans. Those two things really concerned me. He began writing posts against Trump on Facebook. He anonymously designed anti-Trump images, and paid to promote them on Facebook, targeting states where primaries were taking place. After Trump won the nomination, McMullin tried to persuade a congressman he knew to enter the race as an independent. (The Washington Post reported that it was Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois; McMullin declined to confirm that.) The congressman asked him if hed run himself, and pointed him to Better for America, a nonprofit organization that was trying to get an independent conservative on the ballot. McMullin spoke with the groups founder, Joel Searby, then consulted friends and family, as well as people he knew in the media. He prayed. At what he believes was the last possible momentthe deadlines for getting on state ballots had already begun to passhe quit his job, got on a train to New York, and announced that he was running for President of the United States.

The bid was so quixotic that a handful of observers, some suspicious of McMullins C.I.A. background, wondered if someone was pulling the strings. Who put him up? Sean Hannity asked on his radio show in late October. The Bush people? The Romney people? At the time Hannity was asking these questions, the polls had tightened in Utah, where McMullin, whos Mormon, had based his campaign, with an eye on the one, exceedingly unlikely path he had to the White House: If the race were close, and he prevailed in a single state, he might prevent Trump and Hillary Clinton from attaining an Electoral College majority. In that case, the House of Representatives would decide the next President, and, who knows, maybe they would settle on him.

He didnt finish higher than third in any state. But by then Trump had publicly complained about that guy in Utah, and when Trump went on his victory tour, in December, he blasted McMuffin repeatedly, boosting McMullins stature. For those who arent conspiracy-minded, this is the more plausible doubt to harbor about McMullin: that taking a stand was also a way of kickstarting his career. Frankly, I think thats a good question, he said, when I asked whether he was opportunistic. And it goes back to my belief that influential institutions should have constant scrutiny. Well, so should people who seek to lead us. McMullin tends to talk this way, with an almost unrelenting high-mindedness. He explained that the attention is simply a necessary vehicle for the work hes trying to do: to encourage civic engagement; point out the early signs of authoritarianism; and demonstrate, by example, that it is still O.K. to vociferously criticize, and even to mock, our leaders. Right now my platform is Twitter, McMullin told me at one point, with a small chuckle. (Thats going to change, he added.) I had asked about the pushback he got there after posting an anti-abortion message; he noted the difficulty of addressing, in a hundred and forty characters, more complicated kinds of policy, the sort that require compromise and extended discussion. Still, the medium is handy for proclaiming the grand principles of American democracy.

Last week, McMullin and his running mate from the campaign, Mindy Finn, launched Stand Up Republic, a 501(c)4 nonprofit. When we met, it was still in the planning stages. The goal, he said, would be to engage people in defense of democracy and our Constitution, which means engaging with Congress and their leaders to advance things or to stop things, or whatever. He said that they also want to promote truth and some democratic principles and you know, respect for the Constitution. I mean, broadly, I would think of it as digital media plus movement. Movement plus media. This week, they asked their followers to urge Congress to fight the executive order on immigration, which, McMullin said, is a Muslim ban.

When McMullin becomes more specific about policy, he sometimes loses people. That anti-abortion post, for instanceand a more recent one congratulating Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuchseemed to cost him a few followers on the left. He lost some fans on the right, meanwhile, when he praised Sally Yates for defying Trumps immigration order. So far, though, Stand Up Republic reflects his continued effort to somehow find common ground. As part of the launch, the group released two videos, one of which, a black-and-white ad that questions Trumps ties to Russia, first ran in New York and D.C.during Morning Joe, which Trump watches. The other video, which is running online, features a clip from John F. Kennedys 1961 Inaugural Address, in which he speaks of the survival and the success of liberty, and then a longer clip from a speech Ronald Reagan gave that same year, in which Reagan says that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. As we listen to this studiously bipartisan pairing, the camera cuts between a diverse group of Americans, seemingly scattered across the country. They look thoughtful, optimistic. The video ends with the simple words: Join Us.

McMullin hasnt gotten used to being recognized, though it has begun to happen more often. In the Agency we called ourselves gray men because were neither white nor black, we justwe blend, McMullin told me when we met for breakfast at a former bank lobby turned bakery in Manhattan. He wore jeans and a navy-blue sweater over an Oxford blue button-down, and drank sparkling water. He told me that he had experienced growing pains in becoming a public figure, but that he didnt want to go into too many details, because theyre just too personal. When I asked him, after wed been talking for a couple of hours, what he did for fun, he paused. Youre looking for color, like what do I like to do? He looked up and off to the side. Really, the biggest thing that I like to do is just spend time with friends and family, he said.

If McMullins lack of color was a handicap on the campaign trailWhen he talks about his personal story at rallies, it sounds mostly like a man quickly reciting his rsum, a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune wrote in late Octoberit seems, in the early days of the Trump Administration, to be part of his appeal. As the President unleashes his id on the American people, McMullin is a kind of civic superego, a Constitution-minded Jiminy Cricket. Listening to him speak about responsibility and fundamental principles, it was not hard to conjure his years as a Boy Scout and, later, a Mormon missionary. I thought I also detected a trace of that Mormon upbringing, which I share, in his sense of vocation, of being called to things. McMullin grew up in a working-class family in Auburn, Washington, the oldest of four siblings. His father worked for Boeing and then a power company, while his mother sold bulk goods out of their garage. (She now oversees economic development efforts in Everett.) When McMullin was in third grade, she took him to Washington, D.C. We visited the monuments and the museums and that sort of thing, and it really made an impression on me, he said. And I sort of had this feeling, even as a third grader, which is bizarre, that something in my future was there for me, you know?

One night when McMullin was in junior high, his father rented the political thriller Three Days of the Condor, from 1975, which stars Robert Redford as a C.I.A. analyst and Faye Dunaway as the beautiful woman pulled into his effort to thwart a complicated plot hatched by rogue operatives. After watching the film, McMullin decided to read every book he could find about the C.I.A. After his sophomore year in high school, he called 411 and asked for Langley, Virginia. Once McMullin figured out that, as far as 411 is concerned, the C.I.A. is in McLean, he called again, and an operator connected him. Is this the C.I.A.? he recalls asking. Who are you calling for, sir? a mans voice replied. McMullin repeated, Is this the C.I.A.? The man said, Sir, who are you calling for? I thought, Oh, my goodness, this is the C.I.A., McMullin told me. He eventually reached someone in the agencys recruitment center. He told her he was studying martial arts, and asked if that would help. She told him to call back when he was older.

He called back two weeks later. This time he got a man who gave him his direct contact information, and the two stayed in touch for years (McMullin says that he never learned the mans real name.) McMullin served a two-year Mormon mission in Brazil, then went to Brigham Young University, in Utah, where he minored in Middle Eastern studies. He wrote a couple of papers about counterterrorism, and he had this sense that terrorism was going to be a big issue for the country, going forward, he said. Meanwhile, he was accepted into a C.I.A. program for college students; every other semester, he worked at Langley. I had to pinch myself. It was amazing what they allowed me to do and the kind of access they gave me. I mean, I was reading intercepts of all kinds of crazy things happening around the world.

During McMullins Presidential campaign, a volunteer made him a poster that he put up in his Salt Lake City headquarters, which read 007 for President. But McMullin does not generally describe his past career as glamorous. What got him excited watching Three Days of the Condor was seeing people committed to serving their country. The Redford character in that movie isnt James Bond; hes a low-level analyst who just happens to get caught up in something much bigger than himself. McMullin was at Langley on September 11, 2001. I asked what he was doing that morning. It wasnt anything flashy or C.I.A.-ish, he said. It was justcandidly, I was doing an Excel class.

Eventually, McMullin, who had studied Arabic for a year after college and then worked for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in Jordan, served undercover in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. Its not like I was going up to the local terror leader and saying, Hey, Id like to join your terror cell, he said. It doesnt work that way. Instead, youre the spymaster, right? Youre recruiting and managing and directing a network of penetrations of terrorist groups and foreign governments, and youre managing those people.

In 2009, McMullin went to business school at Whartonbecause one of my biggest professional deficiencies is that I had not acquired many analytical skills, he explained. Later, while working at Goldman Sachs in San Francisco, he volunteered for the Romney-Ryan Presidential campaign. Like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, McMullin thinks that the federal government is too large; if he were President, he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, he said. He personally believes in traditional marriage, as he puts it, but he doesnt think the government should make that decision for people. His parents divorced about a decade ago, and his mother, whom he called one of the most amazing people I know on earth for a variety of reasons, is now married to a woman. Her partner, Michelle, is the kindest person youll ever meet, he said. When I asked if their relationship had informed his position on the issue, he said it hadnt. I know there are a lot of politicians whoyou know, they were opposed to gay marriage and then they find out their sons gay and so then all of a sudden theyre changing their views. He paused. You know what, Im not going to delegitimize or disrespect that. But I do think that there should be some principled view.

When I met McMullin, it was a few days before the Womens March, and an anti-abortion group had just been added and then removed from its list of partners. I was just so disappointed by that because to me that says, O.K., whoever made that decision does not understand the threat, he said. Really, theyre objecting to him on policy grounds. The priority, he believes, is to oppose Trumps authoritarianism, and to unite with others in doing so. He still marched, though. The defense of an entire gender is really critical, you know? he said, when I called him up the following weekend. He didnt love some of the crude stuff he saw, but the overriding message against misogyny he found powerful and important. A week later, he attended the March for Life. Sometimes the messaging is a little bit hyperbolic, he told me over the phone. But if youre going to wait around for a march or a protest in which youre going to agree with every single message thats on display, youre never going to participate. You just never will.

More here:
Evan McMullin Is Trying to Save Democracy - The New Yorker