Mediaboss Marketing

The sky is not falling and no lights are flashing red, but Americans have nonetheless embraced a highly charged, counterproductive way of thinking about politics as a new Cold War between democracy and totalitarianism. The works of Hannah Arendt and George Orwell have risen on the best-seller charts. Every news story produces fear and trembling.

History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom. Excessive focus on liberal fundamentals, like basic freedoms or the rule of law, could prove self-defeating. By postponing serious efforts to give greater priority to social justice, tyrannophobia treats warning signs as a death sentence, while allowing the real disease to fester.

If there is one lesson from the 20th century worth learning, it is that an exclusive focus on the defense of liberal fundamentals against a supposed totalitarian peril often exacerbates the social and international conflicts it seeks to resolve. This approach to politics threatens to widen the already yawning gulf between liberal groups and their opponents, while distracting from the deeply rooted forces that have been fueling right-wing populist politics, notably economic inequalities and status resentments.

The anti-communist politics in the United States of the early 1950s were rooted in assumptions that had much in common with those of anti-Trumpism today. There was, it was claimed, a serious risk to liberal democracy from American subversion within, in alliance with the Russians without, peddling seductive untruths. Other goals like the creation of a more just and equal society had to take second place to the countrys military posture.

Ironically, many who rallied to the anti-tyranny banner were liberals of a vital center who did so out of sincere belief in the need to create an American welfare state. Yet focusing on exaggerated threats to freedom and stigmatizing the communist enemy undermined their progressive goals. National Security Council Report 68 of 1950, for example, argued that the Cold War justified the reduction of nonmilitary expenditure by the deferment of certain desirable programs, including welfare. And while the New Deal was not dismantled, efforts to extend it which still seemed a real possibility in Harry Trumans early years in office were denounced as pink tyranny, boosting state power at the expense of democracy. Casualties included attempts to create a national health care program. The consequences for American politics have been momentous.

The absolute priority given to liberal fundamentals also promoted serious misunderstandings of the rest of the world. Capitalism (though not democracy) had to be defended at all costs, while foreigners were commonly viewed as subject to brainwashing, manipulation and mass irrationality just what we fear today in the United States itself. And while those assumptions led to terrible mistakes and cost millions of lives in American military interventions, the end of the Cold War only reinforced the tyrannophobic worldview in an even purer form now including liberal democracy and even freer markets.

The ease with which the Soviet-bloc regimes collapsed seemed to prove that communism had no foundations other than manipulation and repression. Now that the tyrants had been brought down, equality was unimportant and markets could be left to work their magic. Communism in the Eastern bloc was certainly moribund, but the liberals who urged its replacement with market fundamentalism have lessons to learn, not to teach.

The rude awakening has been a long time coming, and even now has not fully occurred. The 2008 financial crisis failed to dent the political establishments complacency, even though it had become very clear that market-friendly policies were helping to destroy the social mobility and economic opportunity that underpins a well-functioning democracy.

And while the shock of the 2016 election caused unprecedented soul-searching, tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained and voting patterns are to be changed in the future. Yet there is too little recognition of the need for new direction in either party. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recently declared that the Democrats have merely failed to get their message across. Many Republicans are convinced that the party can correct its Trumpian aberration by reasserting the status quo ante of free markets and social conservatism. Neither side, it would seem, is ready to depart from its prior consensus.

The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.

Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale University. David Priestland is a professor of modern history at Oxford University.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 13, 2017, on Page SR2 of the New York edition with the headline: A Problem Worse Than Tyranny.

Go here to see the original:
Trump Isn't a Threat to Our Democracy. Hysteria Is. - New York Times

President Trump will not speak with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro until "democracy is restored" in that country, the White House said in a statement Friday night hours after Trump floated the idea of "military option" against the Maduro regime.

"Since the start of this administration, President Trump has asked that Maduro respect Venezuela's constitution, hold free and fair elections, release political prisoners, cease all human rights violations, and stop oppressing Venezuela's great people," the White House statement said. "The Maduro regime has refused to heed this call, which has been echoed around the region and the world. Instead, Maduro has chosen the path of dictatorship. The United States stands with the people of Venezuela in the face of their continued oppression by the Maduro regime. President Trump will gladly speak with the leader of Venezuela as soon as democracy is restored in that country."

Maduro had requested to talk on the phone with Trump.

Hours earlier, Trump said he is not ruling out military action against the government in Venezuela for its recent moves to weaken the country's democratic institutions.

The Pentagon says it hasn't received any instructions on the matter.

This week, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on eight of Maduro's allies, accusing them of violating human rights and democratic norms.

The Trump administration had previously imposed sanctions on Maduro himself, condemning the socialist leader as a "dictator."

The actions against Venezuela come after Maduro created a political body called a constituent assembly to consolidate power. The assembly contains only Maduro supporters and has the power to rewrite the constitution to grant total authority to the country's leftists.

Venezuela has been wracked with hunger and poverty, which has sparked protests against the government.

View post:
Trump won't talk with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro until 'democracy is restored' - Washington Examiner

Simon Wren-Lewis

A constant refrain from politicians and others is that we have to leave the EU because we have to respect democracy, where by democracy they mean that 52% voted to do so. Arguments that the vote was based on lies by the Leave side are met with dismissive remarks like both sides were the same, or what do you expect from politicians and so forth. The important thing, we are told, is to respect democracy.

In Poland the government recently passed a law which will dismiss all existing judges and allow the state to directly appoint their successors. This government was democratically elected, and the plan was in their manifesto. So why did the Polish President veto the plan, and why was the EU deeply concerned about it? Surely there was a clear mandate for this policy? Shouldnt the President and the EU respect democracy?

The reason why the President and the EU were right is that democracy is much more than having elections or referendums every so often. Checks and balances, and the rule of law, are crucial ingredients of a well functioning democracy. But having an independent judiciary is not the only essential characteristic of democracy besides voting.

I personally think an important part of democracy is that politicians do not base campaigns on complete lies, and that knowledge, evidence, facts and expertise are respected and are easily accessible to all voters. Otherwise elections can be won by those who tell the biggest lies. If this happens and is not remedied democracy is a sham. As I noted here, lies were central to the Leave campaign (more money for the NHS, Turkey about to join the EU) and have already been shown to be untrue, while the central plank of the Remain campaign (dubbed Project Fear by Leave) has already come to pass. Polls suggest the Leave lies gained them votes. Only one side in the campaign spent a large amount of time dismissing or denigrating academic expertise (be it economists or lawyers).

In the US the Republicans control Congress and the White House, all won by democratic elections, where a key part of the Republican platform was repealing Obamacare. The Republicans therefore appear to have an overwhelming democratic mandate for this repeal. So why are so many people protesting against this repeal? Isnt it important for democracy that repeal goes ahead?

You may say that the Republicans did not say how they would repeal Obamacare, but neither did the Leave campaign say how they were going to leave the EU (or rather they said whatever people wanted to hear). You may say that Leave voters will lose their faith in the democratic system if Brexit doesnt happen, but the same is surely true for Republican voters if Obamacare is not repealed. That is hardly a reason to do it.

But referendums are not like elections, we are told. Mandates from elections can be challenged but referendum results must be respected. But where is it written that referendum results (particularly those that are so close) can never be challenged? Where is it written that we must be bound by the words of politicians during the referendum (we could add whether we should be bound by an electorate chosen to keep Brexiteers happy). If it turns out that the claims of one side in the referendum have been shown to be false, where is it written that the referendum result should nevertheless be cast in stone for a generation. The answer is nowhere, and for the good reasons that David Allen Green explains. All that is written is that parliament is sovereign.

People overseas, in the EU or outside, are mystified at what the UK is currently doing. The main supporter of Brexit overseas is an authoritarian regime, which should give you a clue about what is going on. There are two overwhelming reasons for challenging the referendum result: it was arrived at after a deeply flawed campaign, and we now have information that clearly shows the extent of the Leave campaigns lies. The Leave campaign abused democracy before the vote with lies, and then abused the word subsequently to stifle any dissent. When a vote is won narrowly in an election based on lies that have now been exposed, it seems to me that a hallmark of a functioning democracy is that the original vote is challenged and voters have a chance to vote again.

First posted on Mainly Macro

Simon Wren-Lewis is Professor of Economics at Oxford University.

Visit link:
Brexit And Democracy - Social Europe

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A prominent member of Hong Kong's Democratic Party said on Friday he was beaten and "stapled" by mainland agents in the Chinese-controlled city before being dumped on a beach in what activists said was the latest warning to the democracy movement.

Howard Lam, a key pro-democracy activist in the former British colony, said he was even told in a telephone call not to give a photo signed by Barcelona footballer Lionel Messi to the widow of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

Lam was confronted by men speaking Mandarin, spoken in Beijing but not widely in Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong, outside a sports store, he told reporters.

He said the men took him away, interrogating him and stapling his skin 21 times for being "unpatriotic" in a nine-hour ordeal. He was knocked out and eventually found himself dumped on a beach in Hong Kong's remote Sai Kung district.

"This is either to warn off the people of Hong Kong or create problems between Xi and Hong Kong," said democracy activist Lee Cheuk-yan, referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping. "We do not know the whole objective of the beating up. Both may be the case."

Hong Kong became a "special administrative region" of China in 1997, since when it has been governed under a "one country, two systems" formula that guarantees a range of freedoms not enjoyed in China, including a direct vote for half of the 70-seat legislative assembly.

But activists say those freedoms have come under threat with perceived meddling by Communist Party rulers in Beijing.

Hong Kong's police commissioner, Lau Wai-chung, told media he was taking Lam's accusations seriously and they were attaching great importance to investigating the case.

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of China's State Council was not immediately available for comment.

Chinese authorities have repeatedly said they would never do anything illegal and that Hong Kong's autonomy was fully respected.

Mainland officers cannot enforce Chinese law in Hong Kong. If Chinese agents were found to be involved, the case is expected to send ripples through the local and diplomatic community about the Chinese state's willingness to flout both its own and international laws.

In an exclusive interview with Reuters less than two weeks after she was sworn in as Hong Kong leader on July 1, Carrie Lam said it was her obligation to stand up for the city's core values if she thought they were being undermined.

Lam has pledged to unify Hong Kong at a time when public resentment swells over Beijing's perceived growing interference in its affairs.

In July, Hong Kong's high court expelled four pro-independence lawmakers from the city's legislature after invalidating their oaths of office, in what was seen as the clearest indication of direct intervention by Beijing.

The 2015 abduction of several Hong Kong booksellers, who sold publications critical of China's leaders, by mainland agents also shook confidence in Beijing's promise of non-interference, activists say.

Howard Lam said he had received a call from a Chinese person claiming to be part of the mainland intelligence service. He said he was warned not to give the Messi photo to the widow of Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned Chinese Nobel laureate who died from cancer last month.

It was not immediately clear how they knew of his plans to do so.

Pro-democracy lawmakers, academics and political activists worry that Hong Kong is becoming more like mainland Chinese cities, where the internal security services join forces with police to crush dissent.

Xi swore in Hong Kong's new leader last month with a stark warning that Beijing won't tolerate any challenge to its authority in the city as it marked the 20th anniversary of its return from Britain to China.

Reporting by Farah Master and Stefanie McIntyre in Hong Kong, additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Editing by Anne Marie Roantree; and Nick Macfie

Continued here:
Hong Kong democracy activist says he was 'stapled' by Chinese agents - Reuters

When Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission met Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban in Riga in May 2015, he greeted him by saying hello dictator.

Junckers words were perhaps an ironic response to Orbans earlier statement that he wants to build an illiberal state based on national foundations, citing Russia and China as examples. He might also have been referring to the way Orban has been gradually amending Hungarys constitution to give his government more power. His efforts to date have left his Fideszparty with significant control over the judiciary, media and banks.

Whatever Junckers motivation back at that meeting in 2015, the scathing greeting now doesnt look all that misplaced. (A year earlier US senatorJohn McCain had labelledOrban a neo-fascist dictator.)

Orban has long been a nationalist but his rhetoric of late has whipped up xenophobia. His government has cracked down on the media and non-governmental organisations that are considered disloyal to the nation. All this seems to be part of a general shift away from Hungary as a liberal democracy.

Orban is a staunch critic of Western European multiculturalism and immigration. When the migration crisis hit in 2015, his country quickly became notorious for the brutal way it was treating the refugees arriving at its borders. Orban himself referred to the refugees as poison and erected razor-wire fences on Hungarys southern borders to keep them out.

State acquisitions

Orban presents himself as the defender of the Hungarian nation. His nationalist rhetoric is laced with references to the the Treaty of Trianon, signed by the allies and Hungary tomark theend of World War I. The treaty deprived Hungary of two-thirds of its territory and Orban takes every opportunity to remind people of that.

The strategy seems to be to redress what Orban sees as a historical injustice by stoking ethnic nationalism. He regularly clashes with the EU over anything that could be construed as an attack on the identity and integrity of the nation state. The EUs efforts to deal with the migration crisis through a quota system were a particular point of contention. He even took the matter to the European Court of Justice, so opposed had he become to Brussels asking him to take in a certain number of refugees.

Dont let Soros have the last laugh: aposter targeting the US-based billionaire

Orbans government has been acquiring various print, broadcast and online media outlets. According to the latest report by USthink tankFreedom House, Hungaryhas the lowest democratic scorein the Central European region: 3.54 out of 7. The report raises concerns about corruption networks and the use of public power and resources to reward friendly oligarchs.

Slovakia-based NGOGlobsec also recently warned that the Hungarian government has a firmly pro-Russian view and that its national media is weakened by a vast concentration of ownership by pro-government oligarchs who are completely biased on issues of the EU, Nato and Russia.

This pro-Kremlin stance was particularly interesting to witness while Hungary benefited from a 10bn loan from Russia for the development of its nuclear power.

The EU looks on

Yetthe EU only began to officially debate Hungarys drift to illiberal democracy in April. Thats when the Hungarian parliament adopted a higher education law that threatens the survival of the prestigious Central European University (CEU) in Budapest.

The university was founded by the Jewish Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros to promote liberal democracy and open society in post-communist Eastern Europe. The law places restrictions on the CEU that many argue will make it impossible for it to operate freely, if at all.

Orban and his government did not stop at the legislationbut continued with a sustained attack on Soros in a thinly disguised anti-Semitic campaign, casting him as manipulative and powerful. Posters have appeared showing a grinning Soros above a caption reading,Dont let Soros have the last laugh!.

Speaking to students in July, Orban claimed that a Soros plan was under way, aiming to bring hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Muslim world into the territory of the EU. This agenda, he argued, lies behind Brussels continuous withdrawal of powers from the nation states.

Similar attacks onliberal values can be heard from populist politicians the world over andOrbans is a particularlyworrying case. His intensifying rhetoric and growing indifference to democracy, combined with his governments slow but systematic dismantling of democratic institutions are evidence that he is making steady progress towards establishing the illiberal state he so openly envisages.

This is not to say that Hungary will leave the EU, but Orban is playing a dangerous game. He is exploiting nationalism at home and attacking the EU, all the while taking its cash for short-term political gain.

Erika Harris is a professor of politics at the University of Liverpool. This article was originally published on The Conversation (www.theconversation.com)

Read more:
Democracy is on the brink in Hungary, so why is no one talking about it? - The Independent