Mediaboss Marketing

The protests following President Donald Trumps inauguration and recent protests calling for the president to release his tax returns have this in common: his the-rules-dont-apply-to-me behavior is a presidential style rejected by both our tyranny-fearing founding fathers and the majority of voters in last Novembers election.

To guard against an autocrat in the White House, our ancestors in 1787 replaced the political power once held by sovereign monarchs in Europe with a popular sovereign, placing the nations political power, collectively, in the hands of the people.

With this power shift, each American now shares responsibility for the manner in which political power is wielded and a civic obligation to challenge abuse of power in Washington.

Historically, engaged Americans have aimed their anger against major close-to-home issues, not anti-democracy presidents. Tax protests in the late 18th century were followed by abolition, womans suffrage and workplace conditions protests in the 19th century.

Citizen activism took off in the 1800s, so much so, that some observers warned that the spread of popular sovereignty fever was endangering democracy itself.

By the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous "Democracy in America," wrote, In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is neither barren nor concealed, as it is with some other nations . If there is a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated and where its dangers and its advantages may be judged, that country is assuredly America [where] the people reign in the American political world as theDeity does in the universe.

But Tocqueville also tempers this glowing account by pointing out some dangers associated with Americas rush toward mass democracy.

It is a constant fact that at the present day the ablest men in the United States are rarely placed at the head of affairs I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice. Whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.

Fifty years later, Princeton University professor Woodrow Wilson sized up the hectic late 19th century period of social and political change by declaring that government by the people was not working, that an elite public workforce was needed to make democracy work.

There is, he wrote, scarcely a single duty of government whichwas once simple which is not now complex; government once had but a few masters; it now has scores of masters. He declared none other than the founding principle of popular sovereignty of the people was standing in the way of a more efficient government.

The very fact that we have realized popular rule in its fullness has made the task of organizing that rule just so much more difficult An individual sovereign will adopt a simple plan and carry it out directly But this other sovereign, the people, will have a score of differing opinions.

The protests matter because they are a reminder that with the election of Mr. Trump we are once again, as a nation, engaged in a tug-of-war between autocratic efficiency and popular government.

Efficiency has never been the foremost goal of our democratic government. Rather democracy is designed to be responsive to the values and traditions near and dear to liberty loving citizens. Public officials who do not understand the difference do not understand democracy.

And, because it is a dangerous step toward tyranny, the office of the president is no place for an autocrat.

Ronald Fraser, Ph.D., of Colden is the author of "America, Democracy & YOU: Where have all the Citizens Gone?" He can be reached at fraserr@starpower.net

Read more:
Protests help keep American democracy alive - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

The eyes of the world are on France this weekend, and President Donald Trump and former president Barack Obama are lining up on opposite sides of the battle.

Trump stopped just short of endorsing the National Fronts Marine Le Pen, telling the Associated Press Le Pen is the strongest on borders, and shes the strongest on whats been going on in France.

Trump also predicted the recent terrorist attack would boost Le Pens chances.

Her rival candidate, a former investment banker, Emmanuel Macron, is widely seen as the front-runner in the French presidential election. He tweeted out a recent phone call he had with Obama.

Make sure you that [sic], as you said, you work hard all the way through, Obama told Macron. Because, you never know it might be that last day of campaigning that makes all the difference.

Though the former presidents spokesman deniedit was a formal endorsement, liberal media outlets in the United States seized on the call as another reason to back Macron, widely seen as the lefts best hope of keeping Le Pen out of the lyse Palace.

Sarah Wildman at Vox gushed about the bromantic call and declaredit frankly adorable.

But more serious observers believe the stakes of the upcoming election are nothing short of existential.

One enthusiastic Le Pen backer is Paul Nehlen, the populist Republican who challenged House Speaker Paul Ryan in a 2016 primary. Hesthe producer and director of the new documentary Hijrah: Radical Islams Global Invasion.

I strongly endorse Marine Le Pen, he told WND. I pray to God she wins the French presidency. Vive La France!

Nehlen suggested nothing less than Frances future is at stake, as French society is confronted withMuslim immigrants who dont want to assimilate. The issue of terrorism, Nehlen argues, is simply a symptom of the larger issue of Islam itself.

France isnt (yet) a Muslim majority country, but Islam is a terrorist majority cult of a religion, he said. Increasing Muslim immigration into a country increases terror in that country there is a direct correlation. You do not retain a culture by diluting it with other cultures. Its that simple.

France needs to elect Marine Le Pen and support her efforts to shut down the spread of Islam in France. Islam and Western civilization cannot coexist because Islam, which by definition means submission, seeks to destroy all which is not Shariah compliant.

Its an Islamic invasion which could end our civilization forever. And its being enabled by the very people who are supposed to protect us. Discover the terrifying truth behind our cultures oldest enemy and unveil the darkest treason in the history of Western Civilization. Brought to you by Paul Nehlen, the man who challenged Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Hijrah is the most explosive documentary of the year, and its available now in the WND Superstore.

Philip Haney, a former member of the Department of Homeland Security, a veteran counter-terrorism expert and co-author of See Something, Say Nothing, also argues the issue of terrorism is secondary to the more fundamental issue of whether Shariah law will replace French law if mass immigration continues.

France, like every other country founded on the principles of liberty and equality, must not only find the courage to admit that it is facing an outbreak of Islamic terrorism, but it must also address the malevolent influence of Shariah law within French society, he told WND.

Haney was especially critical of Emmanuel Macrons dismissalof terrorism as an imponderable problem thatwill simply be part of our daily lives for the years to come.

Haney contrasted this nihilistic attitude with the attitude of Israel, which faces terrorism on a daily basis but never accepts it as normal.

Israel has lived with the reality of Islamic terrorism since it was founded as a modern state in 1948, Haney said. Even so, the government of Israel has never had a policy that its citizens should simply surrender to terrorism, or that they must accept it as a part of their daily lives for years to come. Everyone in Israel is directly involved in helping protect their country from terrorist attacks. The French, and Americans, should be doing the same thing.

Haney also echoed Marine Le Pens call for France to regain control over its borders as a necessary step to fighting terrorism. Le Pen recently declared France must stop being nave, reinstate border checks and deport foreigners who are on terrorist watch lists.

A country without secure borders is not really a country, said Haney. Since control of immigration is the true test of a countrys sovereignty, France must take steps to reassert its right to secure its own borders. Otherwise, the frequency and intensity of attacks will only increase.

Nehlen meanwhile blasted Macron as another example of a weak Western leader surrendering his country to tyranny.

This is the effect of globalization and the brainwashing that goes with it, he said. To the contrary, I say we must accept nothing that undermines our culture and our safety. Macrons comments are the worst kind of surrender surrender by appeasement. I wear my grandfathers dog tag, the one he was wearing when he landed on Omaha Beach, the last time Americans saved the French from their feckless leaders.

However, Nehlen suggested Macron may well be right about the regularity of Islamic terrorist attacks if current immigration patterns continue. He said there is a predictable pattern for how Muslims take over a society.

First they claim victim status when their numbers are low, he explained. Then as numbers climb, they create no-go zones. Then they start winning elections, as in London.Then you have people like Emmanuel Macron echoing statements like London Mayor Sadiq Khans infamous pronouncement about how terrorist attacks are simply part and parcel of living in a big city.

You cannot appease Islam. It does not stop until the population is subdued. France needs Marine Le Pen right now. America needs Marine Le Pen right now. We can ill afford another Muslim apologist in office in a Western nation.

Its an Islamic invasion which could end our civilization forever. And its being enabled by the very people who are supposed to protect us. Discover the terrifying truth behind our cultures oldest enemy and unveil the darkest treason in the history of Western Civilization. Brought to you by Paul Nehlen, the man who challenged Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Hijrah is the most explosive documentary of the year, and its available now in the WND Superstore.

See the article here:
French election called choice between Shariah, democracy - WND.com

You all start with the premise that democracy is some good. I dont think its worth a damn. Churchill is right. The only thing to be said for democracy is that there is nothing else thats any better.

People say, If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better. I say Congress is too damn representative. Its just as stupid as the people are, just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish.

This dismissal of democracy, cited by historian H.W. Brands in The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War, is attributed to that great populist Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

Few would air such views today, as democracy has been divinized.

Indeed, for allegedly hacking the Clinton campaign and attacking our democracy, Vladimir Putin has been condemned to the ninth circle of hell. Dick Cheney and John McCain have equated Moscows mucking around in our sacred democratic rituals to an act of war.

Yet democracy seems everywhere to be losing its luster.

Among its idealized features is the New England town meeting. There, citizens argued, debated, decided questions of common concern.

Town-hall meetings today recall a time when folks came out to mock miscreants locked in stocks in the village square. Congressmen returning to their districts in Holy Week were shouted down as a spectator sport. A Trump rally in Berkeley was busted up by a mob. The university there has now canceled an appearance by Ann Coulter.

Charles Murray, whose books challenge conventional wisdom about the equality of civilizations, and Heather Mac Donald, who has documented the case that hostility to cops is rooted in statistical ignorance, have both had their speeches violently disrupted on elite campuses.

In Washington, our two-party system is in gridlock. Comity and collegiality are vanishing. Across Europe, centrist parties shrink as splinter parties arise and illiberal democracies take power.

Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism, have attracted admirers and emulators by the seeming success of their strongman rule.

President Trump, seeing the way the world is going, welcomes to the White House Egypts President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi, whose army dumped over the elected government and jailed thousands.

Following a disputed referendum that granted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, Trump phoned his congratulations to the Turkish autocrat. It was Erdogan who described democracy as a bus you get off when it reaches your stop.

Why is liberal democracy, once hailed as the future of mankind, in a deepening bear market?First, Acheson was not all wrong.

When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups, as members of Congress wish to designate the third. Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.

In Sundays election in France, a communist-backed admirer of Hugo Chavez, Jean-Luc Melenchon, and the National Fronts Marine Le Pen could emerge as the finalists on May 7.

Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesnt deliver, dispense with it.

Democracys reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.

The South African regime of Jacob Zuma, of Nelson Mandelas ANC, faces a clamor for his resignation. Brazils Dilma Rousseff was impeached in August. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been removed and jailed for corruption. Venezuelas Hugo Chavez was elected president four times.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a band of brethren and one united people who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

Seventy years later, the brethren went to war with one another, though they seem to have had more in common in 1861 than we do today.

Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.

Not only do we disagree on God, gays, and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong. One-half of America sees the other as a basket of deplorables. racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic bigots.

How, outside an external attack that unites us, like 9/11, do we find unity among people who dislike each other so much and regard each others ideas and ideals as hateful and repellent?

Democracy requires common ground on which all can stand, but that ground is sinking beneath our feet, and democracy may be going down the sinkhole with it.

Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.

Visions in conflict that democracy cannot reconcile.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor ofThe American Conservativeand the author of the bookThe Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

See the rest here:
Is Democracy in a Death Spiral? | The American Conservative - The American Conservative

By Pat Buchanan | Syndicated Columnist

You all start with the premise that democracy is some good. I dont think its worth a damn. Churchill is right. The only thing to be said for democracy is that there is nothing else thats any better. ...

People say, If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better. I say Congress is too damn representative. Its just as stupid as the people are, just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish.

This dismissal of democracy, cited by historian H.W. Brands in The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War, is attributed to that great populist Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

Few would air such views today, as democracy has been divinized.

Indeed, for allegedly hacking the Clinton campaign and attacking our democracy, Vladimir Putin has been condemned to the ninth circle of hell. Dick Cheney and John McCain have equated Moscows mucking around in our sacred democratic rituals to an act of war.

Yet democracy seems everywhere to be losing its luster.

Among its idealized features is the New England town meeting. There, citizens argued, debated, decided questions of common concern.

Town hall meetings today recall a time when folks came out to mock miscreants locked in stocks in the village square. Congressmen returning to their districts in Holy Week were shouted down as a spectator sport. A Trump rally in Berkeley was busted up by a mob. The university there has now canceled an appearance by Ann Coulter.

Charles Murray, whose books challenge conventional wisdom about the equality of civilizations, and Heather Mac Donald, who has documented the case that hostility to cops is rooted in statistical ignorance, have both had their speeches violently disrupted on elite campuses.

In Washington, our two-party system is in gridlock. Comity and collegiality are vanishing. Across Europe, centrist parties shrink as splinter parties arise and illiberal democracies take power.

Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism, have attracted admirers and emulators by the seeming success of their strongman rule.

Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesnt deliver, dispense with it.

Democracys reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.

The South African regime of Jacob Zuma, of Nelson Mandelas ANC, faces a clamor for his resignation. Brazils Dilma Rousseff was impeached in August. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been removed and jailed for corruption. Venezuelas Hugo Chavez was elected president four times.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a band of brethren and one united people who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

Seventy years later, the brethren went to war with one another, though they seem to have had more in common in 1861 than we do today.

Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.

Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong. One-half of America sees the other as a basket of deplorables racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic ... bigots.

How, outside an external attack that unites us, like 9/11, do we find unity among people who dislike each other so much and regard each others ideas and ideals as hateful and repellent?

Democracy requires common ground on which all can stand, but that ground is sinking beneath our feet, and democracy may be going down the sinkhole with it.

Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.

Visions in conflict that democracy cannot reconcile.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out in May, Nixons White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Read the original here:
PAT BUCHANAN: Has democracy found itself in a death spiral? - The Northwest Florida Daily News

What might democracy mean in Africa? What, in particular, might it mean in cultural contexts, like those in Africa, in which freedom is not reducible to the exercise of choice, the equivalent to homo politicus of shopping to homo economicus? In which the political subject . . . is not an autonomous' individual but a social being? In which, also, the rights of citizensamong them the right not just to speak but also to be heard, the right to the basic necessities of life, the right to protection from the stateare taken to be more important than, well, political shopping? In which, in other words, democracy is presumed to be more than a procedure, more a matter of substance?(Jean and John Comaroff, Theory from the South).

They answer by noting a paradox they observed during an election in Botswana in the 1970s: On one hand, this country was taken at the time to be the ur-model of a popular African democracy. And yet, in the run-up to the ballot, we heard and readin the media, on the streets of the capital, in rural villageschallenges posed to the prevailing order of things. They called for the replacement of the multiparty system with a single-party government; this on the ground, contrary to everything assumed in the West, that the latter is more democratic, the former more prone to authoritarianism. In the vibrant political culture of the indigenous communities of this nation, democracy depends not on who rules, nor on their ideological dispositions, but on how they rule.

The situation sounds like a democratic ideal, but there were no elections. Chiefs, after all, were not chosen by universal franchise. This was a culture of participation without parties, of government, bogosi, without ballots. Political debate was intense, but it didn't have to do with exercise of choice. Democracy was necessary mainly if there was need to remove a sovereign who failed consistently to meet the standards of good government; publically attested performance, not the polling booth, was the ultimate source of legitimacy.

From this, they conclude that Africans are not impressed with proceduralist/formalist democracy of West and don't care to have it forced on them. There is frank disillusion in many quarterscontempt, evenfor market-friendly democracies that obsess over elections, but pay less attention to good government, accountability, or the rights and protections of their subjects. They resist Western democracy, not in favor of authoritarianism but in favor of substantive democracy.

See the original post:
Democracy Without Ballots - First Things (blog)