Mediaboss Marketing

When news broke in March that an independent commission was recommending a $14,000 pay raise for Minnesota legislators, Republican Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt came out swinging.

In 2014, Democratic majorities in the Legislature put an initiative on the ballot to create the salary commission, and voters overwhelmingly approved it in the 2016 election. But Daudt, who's been Speaker since 2015, quickly sought advice from attorneys about whether the Legislature could block the raises without violating the state Constitution. He issued a press release and called a news conference to make his intentions clear: Middle-class families needs must come first.

Paul Gazelka had a different take. When approached by reporters, the majority leader of the Minnesota Senate said voters took the issue out of legislators hands. He had no plans to fight the commissions decision.

The reactions, from two leaders within the same party, reflect dramatically different leadership styles now at play in the Capitol.

Daudt, now in his second term as Speaker of the House and sizing up a run for governor in 2018, has emerged as the leader of a more openly conservative caucus, and a more vocal opponent of Democratic policies, particularly the legacy and priorities of DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Gazelka, only four months into the job of Senate majority leader, has chosen to operate mostly behind the scenes, building friendly relationships with Dayton and other Democrats in the minority.

Part of the sharp difference in style can be attributed to the two leaders different political realities. After the dust settled on the 2016 election, Daudt emerged with a 77-seat caucus and a comfortable majority in the 134-seat Minnesota House, allowing him to push more conservative policies on everything from education and health and human services funding to Real ID compliance. Gazelka and Senate Republicans hold the chamber by a single vote, a tight margin that has already proved difficult in getting controversial bills passed.

In order to the end of session on time, the two Republicans will not only need to find agreement with Dayton they'll need to find it with each other.

Both elected to their current seats in 2010, Daudt and Gazelka have gone through political evolutions over the last half a dozen years.

Daudt worked at car dealership and as political operative when he first won his House seat, quickly emerging as one of the more politically savvy freshman in St. Paul. When Republicans lost the majority in the House and Senate in 2012, Daudt rose from a rank-and-file lawmaker to the minority leader of the House. At the time, he was considered a more moderate legislator with a reputation for working well with Democrats, a good position to be in given Republicans' minority status. He was repeatedly attacked by the Tea Party wing of the party, who criticized him for not pushing to trim back state spending enough and making deals with Democrats.

Over the years, Daudt's relationship with Democrats soured, however, particularly after Republicans reclaimed the majority in 2014 and he rose to the speakers rostrum. With the DFL in control of the Senate and Dayton in the governors office, Daudt and the House were positioned as the only Republican foothold in government. He became the de facto spokesman for Republican ideals in budget battles and transportation debates, both of which ended in chaos in 2015 and 2016. As the House majority grew in the 2016 election and Daudts political star continued to rise he pushed the door open for him possibly running for governor in 2018.

MinnPost photo by Briana Bierschbach

Gov. Mark Dayton

Daudt and Daytons relationship also hit a low point late in 2016 over whether to call a special session to deal with rising health care insurance premiums. An open negotiation in front of reporters ended in a shouting match with both storming out of the room. I will tell you that the relationship is damaged, Daudt said at an event previewing the 2017 session. He has done and said some things that I dont think were appropriate. I probably have responded in a way that wasnt the best.

Gazelka's rise was also swift. After serving a single term in the House, he was recruited in 2010 to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Paul Koering, who was openly gay and the center of a media scandal after he dined with a gay porn star in Brainerd.

Gazelka, a mild-mannered, Christian conservative whose district includes Little Falls and Staples, beat Koering in a primary. During his first term, he made social issues a big part of his agenda, co-sponsoring an amendment to the states Constitution that would have banned gay marriage. After the amendment failed and the GOP lost control of the chamber in 2012, Gazelka switched to focus on health care and tax issues.

His eventual rise to power after the 2016 election was unexpected, even for him: Republicans took control of the Senate last fall by just a single seat on the same night their leader, Sen. David Hann, lost his seat in suburban Eden Prairie.

Gazelka emerged the top pick to lead the Senate Republican caucus, now with a one-vote majority. Three days ago, I had no intention of running for majority leader, told reporters after he was elected, surrounded by many of the members of 34-member caucus. That one-vote majority wasnt lost on him from the start he vowed to leave controversial social issues behind and work with Democrats. I guarantee to do my part to do the best for Minnesota, said Gazelka. We have to be able to reach out to the governor and with the House.

Now halfway through the 2017 session, the divide between the House and Senate can be seen through their respective budget bills.

In the K-12 education finance bills, for example, House Republicans eliminated Daytons signature pre-kindergarten education program, which the governor perceived as a political shot. In the Senate, Republicans left the pre-kindergarten funding alone. House Republicans have also called for deeper cuts to health and human services and other government programs than both Dayton and Senate Republicans. The Senates tax cut bill is about $900 million, far more than Dayton's package of $280 million in tax cuts, but far less than the $1.35 billion House package.

State Rep. Greg Davids

I agree with the House approach, of course, Republican Tax Chairman Rep. Greg Davids said. I have a lot of confidence with our leaders. Daudt listens and he is a consensus builder [in the caucus]. Ive served with Gazelka too and hes very calm hes very measured. Hes not going to be the one burning bridges.

Outside of the budget, the biggest policy bridge the House and the Senate need to cross is on Real ID, a federal requirement that all states have drivers licenses with enhanced technology features in order to board an airplane. With a deadline of January 2018 to comply, House Republicans moved ahead with a proposal that not only complies with federal law, but makes it a law not just a rule that the state cannot issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Dayton wanted lawmakers to go in the opposite direction, giving the state explicit authority to issue licenses to undocumented immigrants to make them more accountable.

The issue got even more complicated in March, when five Republican senators voted with all Democrats to defeat the Senate's version of a Real ID bill. Gazelka then wedged himself in the middle of the issue, stricking a deal to remove any rule-making on drivers licences from the bill. The new deal passed off the Senate floor, but a larger debate with the House looms.

Gazelka said he intentionally took the middle ground on many issues to act as a mediator between Dayton and the House in the negotiations ahead. If you look at a lot of the Senate bills, they are in the middle of two sides, Gazelka said. I do see that as the Senates role this time around.

For his part, Dayton said said he recently had lunch with Gazelka and walked away feeling that he genuinely wants to end the session without contention or by going into overtime. He will play a pivotal role in that scenario, Dayton said. However that unfolds.

Dayton also recently had a cordial lunch with Daudt, he added, even if he hasnt said anything good about me since. When asked if he thinks Daudt wants to end the session smoothly, Dayton paused.

I think the proof is in the pudding.

See original here:
To battle or buddy up? Republican leaders' styles reflect sharp divide in dealing with Dayton - MinnPost

New York Times

Is It Too Late for Turkey's Democracy? New York Times Representative democracy has never come easily for Turkey. Founded in 1923, the Turkish republic did not hold its first multiparty elections until 1946. Few Turkish governments since have run the country effectively; none has truly adhered to the rule ... Turkey's referendumThe vote that will determine the fate of Turkey's democracyThe Economist Q&A: 'Executive presidency will help Turkish democracy'Aljazeera.com Turkish government 'is against democracy'Deutsche Welle The Independent -Daily Sabah all 220 news articles »

Read the rest here:
Is It Too Late for Turkey's Democracy? - New York Times

In the West, it is difficult to escape the pessimism that pervades current discussions of global affairs. From Russias invasion of Crimea and the never-ending crises of the European Union, to the Syrian catastrophe and the rise of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), the world appears to be tearing at the seams. Meanwhile, democracy itself appears to be unravelinghelped along by resurgent authoritarianism, weakened liberal democratic values, rising populism, and contagious illiberalism.

Democracy has unquestionably lost its global momentum. According to Freedom House, there are only a handful more electoral democracies in the world today than there were at the start of this century. Dozens of newer democracies in the developing world are struggling to put down roots, and many older democraciesincluding, of course, the United Statesare troubled. The theory that democratic transitions naturally move in a positive direction and that established democracies dont tumble backward no longer holds water.

The gloom has become so thick, however, that it obscures reality. A number of politicians, journalists, and analysts are overstating or oversimplifying negative trends and overlooking positive developments. They too easily cast U.S. President Donald Trumps rise, the Brexit vote, and the mainstreaming of populism in many parts of Europe as part of an all-embracing, global counterrevolution against liberal norms. Although the state of democracy around the world is indeed very troubled, it is not uniformly dire, especially outside the West.

IDEALIZING THE PAST AND FOCUSING ON THE NEGATIVE

Todays intensifying apprehension is infused with nostalgia for the 1990s and early 2000s as a period of strong global commitment to liberal norms. Yet even then, illiberal forces were asserting themselves. In 1997, for example, the political commentator Fareed Zakaria famously warned in Foreign Affairs of the rise of illiberal democracy, arguing that half of the democratizing countries in the world today are illiberal democracies. Earlier that year, also in Foreign Affairs, one of the authors of this article (Thomas Carothers) gave a

More here:
Democracy Is Not Dying - Foreign Affairs (subscription)

By Isaac Stone Fish By Isaac Stone Fish April 11 at 3:42 PM

Isaac Stone Fish is a journalist and senior fellow at the Asia Societys Center on U.S.-China Relations, on sabbatical from Foreign Policy Magazine.

A few hours after the recent U.S. airstrikes on Syria, Chinas foreign ministry press spokeswomananswered a question about whether Beijing still considered the beleaguered regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the sole legitimate government in Syria. We believe that the future of Syria should be left in the hands of the Syrian people themselves, the spokeswoman unironically replied. We respect the Syrian peoples choice of their own leaders and development path.

The irony, of course, is that neither the Syrians nor the Chinese choose their own leaders, or their development path. (Syrian state media still claims Syria is a democratic state.) Both are authoritarian governments one failed, one flourishing masquerading as democracies.

China is now the worlds second-largest economy, and its rulers run it with an authoritarian ruthlessness that is envied by many politicians around the world. And yet Beijing goes on insisting despite its lack of free and fair elections, uncensored media, or an independent judiciary that its a democracy.

One recent article published by Chinas state news agency Xinhua declared that in China, democracy means the people are the masters of the country. On a trip to Beijing in October, I saw several posters featuring an old man urging Chinese to cherish the power of democracy, and cast their sacred and solemn vote. One of Chinas Communist Party Secretary Xi Jinpings favorite slogans refers to the 12 core socialist values of which democracy is second only to national prosperity. At a conference I attended last year, several Chinese Communist Party officials were quick to stress that, like the United States, China can accurately and credibly be called a democracy.

During his presidential campaign Trump talked tough on China, accusing them of undervaluing the yuan. The International Monetary Fund has said that Chinese currency is "no longer undervalued". Does China still deserve to be called a "currency manipulator"? (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Considering where Beijing is now politically, its an astonishingly obtuse claim. In reality the Chinese political system, which ensures obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom, could only be described as authoritarian. Its true that Xi is not a dictator like Mao Zedong, who wielded virtually absolute power. Moreover, Xi rose to the top of the Communist Party through a process of selection. But Xis electorate isnt the people at large. It consists of a much smaller group of the top elite: the hundreds of active and retired members of the Politburo (the top political body), the provincial party secretaries, generals, senior aides and advisers, and the CEOs of major state-owned and private corporations.

So why does China still call itself a democracy? Making this claim allows Beijing to legitimize its own actions and, in the case of its views on the U.S. missile attacks, the Syrian governments as representing the will of the people. This hoodwinking and hypocrisy has served Beijing well. Imagine calling yourself the Peoples Autocracy of China, or the Glorious Autocracy of China, said Perry Link, a professor at the University of California at Riverside who has studied Chinas human rights issues for decades. Alternatively, he said, the Peoples Republic of China, or, for example, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea the official name of North Korea shifts the burden of proof to the other side to show that the country is not, in fact, democratic.

Yes, Beijing means something different with the word democracy than Americans do and this has a lot to do with the Chinese Communist Partys ideological origin story. Vladimir Lenin preached democratic centralism, a system where supposedly democratically elected officials dictated policy. Similarly, Mao called for the peoples democratic dictatorship a dictatorship by the people, for the people, allegedly far superior to the bankrupt system of Western bourgeois democracy, where elites plundered the working class. In her 2015 essay The Populist Dream of Chinese Democracy, the Harvard University political scientist Elizabeth J. Perry contextualizes Chinese democracy as more akin to populism. She quotes Xi Zhongxun, the former propaganda chief (and the late father of Chinas current leader), who once exhorted fellow party members to put your asses on the side of the masses.

In November 2014, when a Trump presidency was still unimaginable, Chinas longtime ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai compared Americas political system with Chinas. In the United States, you could have somebody just a few years ago totally unknown to others, and all of a sudden he or she could run for very high office because you could use all kinds of media, Cui told me in an interview. You look at the Chinese leaders, they spend long years in the grassroots. Indeed, Xi, and most of the rest of Chinas top elite, are lifelong politicians. Throughout his nearly four decades in politics, Xi served as a delegate to Chinas national Congress, a political commissioner in the military, the executive vice mayor of a second-tier city, the party secretary of a province and so on.

But as Syrians have learned over their decades of authoritarian rule, and as Americans are learning from a president with only a casual relationship to facts, lying to the people does not the sound foundation of good governance make. In the seven years I lived in China, no Chinese person who was not a Communist Party hack could tell me with a straight face they were living in a democracy. In justifying Chinas autocracy, Cui told me that to govern such a big country, you need the experience of serving for decades around the nation. Debatable. But a much truer statement than pretending China is a democracy.

See the rest here:
Why does China pretend to be a democracy? - Washington Post

White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway took part in a media forum on Wednesday morning, where she defended Donald Trump while shrugging off the notion that she contributed to the negative relationship between the president and the press.

Conway spoke with Michael Wolff at the Newseums President and the Press event, where they brought up The Washington Posts tagline Democracy Dies in Darkness. The paper adopted the slogan approximately one month after Trump was sworn into office, and Wolff told Conway that when they say democracy dies in darkness, youre the darkness.

Didnt you see the skit Walking on Sunshine, Conway said, shaking her head. Just because somebody says something doesnt make it true.

Conway seemed to be referring to a Saturday Night Live skit from last year, where Kate McKinnon depicted her as she tried (and failed) to have a joyful day off from politics to the tune of Katrina and the Waves Walking on Sunshine.

Conway seemed to get pushback from the audience at certain points, particularly as she spoke about the media and falsehoods. At one point, there was laughter from the attendees when Conway said You can turn on the TVand people literally say things that just arent true.

Watch above, via ABC.

[H/T Evan McMurry]

[image via screengrab]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Continue reading here:
'Walking on Sunshine': Kellyanne Conway Mocks WaPo's 'Democracy Dies in Darkness' Slogan - Mediaite