Mediaboss Marketing

Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.

By Dr. Stephen SchwalbeFaculty Member, Public Administration at American Public University

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

We have all recited this oath numerous times. But why does the Pledge of Allegiance characterize the United States as a republic and not as a democracy?

When it comes to government systems (such as a monarchy, a parliamentary democracy or a theocracy), democracy refers to the direct participation of all eligible citizens in making policy decisions throughout the country.

There have been only a few true democracies in history. There was a form of direct democracy in the ancient city-state of Athens, where all wealthy men were eligible to vote. In a republic, on the other hand, eligible voters elect officials to represent them at various levels of government, from local to national.

Direct democracies can quickly become unwieldy when the population of communities, cities or countries grows too large. Conversely, republics are a much more efficient and effective form of government because there are significantly fewer people eligible to vote on policies.

For example, in the U.S. today, each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represents approximately 743,000 citizens. In the 100-member upper chamber, each Senator represents approximately 3.23 million citizens.

The notion that the United States of America is a democracy stems from how some parents explain the country to their children. This concept is then often reinforced in elementary and middle schools.

What most people have in mind when they speak of democracy is the freedom to vote in private for our elected officials. Secret balloting has been around since the ancient Greeks and was practiced during the Roman Empire.

Also, when speaking of democracy, most people have in mind the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the freedom to peacefully assemble and protest. In essence, democracy means to live freely as opposed to living under a dictatorship with limited or no freedoms.

Does direct democracy exist anywhere in the United States today? Yes, it exists at the local levels of governance, such as at town meetings, at parent-teacher conferences and in homeowner associations.

Homeowner associations, for example, might meet quarterly, semi-annually or even annually with every homeowner invited to participate. During these meetings, issues of importance to the community are discussed and voted on as required. Members who cannot attend the meeting can still participate in the decisions by using proxy votes.

Town meetings have been common in the six New England states since colonial times. The people of a small town (usually fewer than 6,000 residents) gather once a year as a legislative body to decide local policy issues, such as the towns annual budget. For example, the communities of Freetown and Lakeville, Massachusetts, conduct town meetings every year to vote on the budget for their combined school districts.

Direct democracy will not threaten our republican form of government. However, as the country continues to grow in population, we can expect to see more direct democracy in action at the local levels of society.

About the Author

Dr. Stephen Schwalbe is an associate professor at American Public University. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia College and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Stephen received a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Public Policy from Auburn University in 2006. His book about military base closures was published in 2009.

comments

Sign up now to receive the InHomelandSecurity eNewsletter.

Read the rest here:
Do We Really Have A Democracy in America? - In Homeland Security

Middle East Eye

Democracy and the Arab axis of tyranny Middle East Eye The UAE has been actively involved in seeking to destabilise and discredit the country's nascent democracy, which is the only functional Arab spring nation that remains. Again, all this is calculated. For the Gulf-led counter-revolution, the message to ... and more »

See more here:
Democracy and the Arab axis of tyranny - Middle East Eye

Last week, President Trump decided to scale back President Obamas rapprochement with the communist government of Cuba. Every major story has talking points, and this one is no exception. After watching the medias reaction, it became clear that one of them would be that the older generation of Cuban Americans supports the presidents hard-line stance whilst the younger generation opposes it.

Theres truth in this. Despite exceptions like myself, younger Cuban Americans tend to be far less interested in maintaining longstanding U.S. policy toward Cuba than older ones like my grandparents are. But the implication, of course, is that this sentiment is unfashionable and obsolescent; in another generation or two itll be dead, along with the generation thats responsible for its influential persistence.

Perhaps thats true. So what? Is there something about being young and fashionable that makes one more competent than older people to speak on this topic or any other? On the contrary, people whove experienced Castroism are far more qualified than the relatively affluent Cuban-Americans of my generation whove lived as far away from the harms of communism as a person can be in this world.

My great-grandfather was an officer in Cubas regular army during the rebellion. Sometime after the communists took over the country, he was arrested as a political prisoner because the cancer of Batista was in his blood, they told him. According to my great-grandmothers account, he wouldve been executed if it hadnt been for a connection in the new government, who secured his release. Her brother, my great-uncle, wasnt as lucky; he was murdered by the regime.

A few years later, they decided to flee Cuba. Government expropriated their housefor which they had worked many yearsand their personal effects, down to my grandmothers wedding ring. Unfortunately, this wasnt uncommon. Hundreds of thousands of other Cuban Americans have similar stories to tell. I havent yet mentioned the other half of my family, who were also persecuted.

Despite the above, my family were relatively lucky. The communist usurpers enormous seizure of property is only one of their many crimes. Summary executions, torture, and imprisonment of counter-revolutionaries were common in Fidel Castros Cuba, especially in the immediate aftermath of his revolution. And thats only scratching the surface. The Castro regime outlawed religious practice and sent homosexuals to labor camps, for just two more examples.

All of these facts are why the older generations tend to be much more sceptical of leftism than the younger generations: theyve experienced it and would like very much never to do so again. Thats why Cuban Americans have been the only Hispanic community in this country that reliably supports the Republican Party. Its unfortunate this is changing.

In the light of the above, it isnt difficult to see why the opinions of the older Cubans are more weighty in this matter than those of millennials: One group experienced the scourge that is revolutionary socialism; the other enjoys the benefits of capitalism in Che Guevara T-shirts. If truth is what were interested in, then the older folk are much more reliable guides than the younger ones. Thats why Ive chosen to put much more stock in my grandparents experiences than in the underdeveloped political opinions of third-generation Cuban Americans.

Not surprisingly, then, the rational case for rapprochement is weak. A common claim is that the United States regularly does business with other repressive states like China. Why not Cuba as well?

This argument seems to involve a pretty appalling principle, according to which if a country subsidizes oppression anywhere then it ought to subsidize it everywhere. And the Left doesnt apply this principle to right-wing repressive regimes. Afrikaner apartheid comes to mind. There the Left supported isolating and boycotting the Afrikaner government until they relinquished their power and ended apartheid. Its only leftist regimes that they oppose sanctioning.

The next argument one invariably hears involves the claim that the embargo hasnt worked, and theres truth in this. Its true that the embargo and travel restrictions havent led to significant human rights reforms on the island. Far from being a bastion of liberalism, Cuba remains an illiberal, country-sized shanty town frozen in the 1950s. From this, it is concluded that we should normalize relations with the Cuban government.

Even supposing that the premise were true, the conclusion wouldnt follow. It would follow only if we had reason to suppose that normalization would lead to significant liberal reform, for if it wouldnt, then all wed achieve by normalizing relations is to help a repressive regime, enabling them to profit from American money and business for nothing in return.

Is there any reason to suppose that normalization would lead to significant political reforms? Not really. President Obama got virtually nothing in return for his rapprochement. (This shouldnt surprise anyone who sees that the communists wouldnt have supported normalization if they didnt think it would help them maintain their grip on the country.)

Moreover, we have lots of inconvenient empirical evidence against this hypothesis. Over the last few decades, millions of tourists from other Western countries (e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, France, etc.) have visited the island, pouring in millions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of tourists from these countries visit Cuba every year. Despite this, there have been no significant political reforms that have even a tenuous connection to Western tourism and trade. Is there something magical about American tourists that will suddenly cause the Cuban government to have an epiphany and relinquish power?

The failure of other countries normalization approach isnt remotely surprising. Over the last few decades, the Cuban government has succeeded in making an entire population completely dependent on the government. Whats more, they ingeniously allowed the entirety of their political opposition to flee decades ago, leaving only those brainwashed to believe that capitalism and the United States are the reason for their destitution. Given these facts, we shouldnt expect that allowing millions of dollars to flow into the hands of the government would lead them to change the status quo, which they like very much.

Consequently, as with the hard-line approach, we have reason to suppose that normalization would not lead to liberalization, but unlike the hard-line approach, it would involve American business and money helping prop up Cubas odious regime.

Thats why this argument is seriously flawed: It assumes that the only goal of having an embargo and travel ban is to cause regime change or political reform. Not so. The primary reason to maintain this policy is to prevent us from being complicit in evil without any compensating good.

On that front, the policy has, until Obama, been a resounding success. It would be a resounding success on the other front as well if only other Western countries had followed our example, but the regime has been able to maintain its grip on power precisely because of the kind of normalized relations for which people on the Left advocate. Without that profit and with international isolation in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the regime likely wouldve gone the way of Afrikaner rule in South Africa.

The older generation happen to be right on this issue. Im glad President Trump decided to listen to them.

CZar Bernstein is a philosopher whose interests include topics in applied ethics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of law. He has published essays in peer-reviewed philosophy journals on a variety of topics including the morality of abortion and gun rights. He graduated from the University of Oxford with a masters in philosophy and will begin as a law student at The George Washington University School of Law this August.

Go here to read the rest:
We Should Trust The Cubans Who Fled Communism And Testify Of Its Horrors - The Federalist

Thirty-five years ago this month, President Reagan delivered what is now considered one of his most consequential speeches. Standing in Londons Palace of Westminster, he predicted that the Soviet regime would end up on the ash-heap of history, provided the forces of freedom and democracy not only held firm, but supported one another.

This address is remembered chiefly as a vindication of Reagans muscular opposition to communism. Yet the speech was no mere jeremiad against the Marxist-Leninism it marked the beginning of an historic foray into helping to build the architecture of democracy worldwide.

It is poignant, yet perhaps fitting, that the anniversary of Reagans landmark speech should fall in close proximity to the latest terrorist attack on the city in which it was delivered, and to which the world owes so much in the development of modern democracy.

While Reagans address focused on the fight against communism, his central ethos is entirely relevant to the war against violent extremism. He said, The ultimate determinant in the struggle thats now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

We know we have the military strength to defeat ISIS on the battlefield. Even with limited U.S.-backing, Iraqi forces have been able to retake most areas of Iraq formerly occupied by ISIS. We know that our intelligence agencies are working hard to avert countless plots against domestic targets. And we know that, eventually, ISIS will be defeated.

The question is, how much slaughter are we willing to tolerate in the meantime and what comes next? As we know all-too-well, terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Nusra and Al Qaeda have found fertile recruiting ground amidst the chaos in Syria and Iraq. When not pressed into service through force, a combination of desperation, misguided devotion and sheer opportunism drives young Syrians and Iraqis to join ISIS.

Yet even in countries like Tunisia which, as a burgeoning democracy, remains the sole success story of the Arab Spring young people are leaving in droves to become foreign fighters. The drivers are complex, but it is clear that at least one of the motivations is a profound feeling of disenfranchisement and hopelessness the sense of many young adults that their voice is not heard, and that they have no stake in the future of their country. In contrast, the Islamic State offers the false promise of adventure, of absolute certainty, and perhaps most importantly, of purpose and self-worth.

Democracy assistance programs supported by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy are helping countries such as Tunisia to combat vulnerabilities to extremism by building a better future for their people. Through my involvement as a board member of the International Republican Institute, Ive seen the incredible impact of these efforts first-hand.

By deploying our expertise to support and strengthen democratic institutions such as the rule of law, representative government and free expression, the U.S. can help to stabilize and strengthen vulnerable countries and undercut the appeal of violent extremism. This approach complements military and counterintelligence efforts, and has been widely cited by military leaders as a crucial means of preventing costly future interventions. As General James Mattis observed when asked about funding for foreign assistance programs,If you don't fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately Its a cost-benefit ratio.

In the 35 years since President Reagan launched his campaign for democracy, weve seen numerous examples of successful transitions to democracy, ranging from the former Eastern Bloc to Indonesia. Those transitions were very often aided by the institutes which arose in the wake of the Westminster speech. And at less than 1 percent of the total U.S. government expenditure, its hard to argue against the wisdom of our investment.

This work is by no means easy, nor does it always yield immediate returns. It requires patience, fortitude and commitment to long-term strategic objectives. Yet as President Reagan recognized, evil cannot be vanquished by weapons alone. Ultimately, terrorism wont be defeated just with superior weaponry, but by helping to build stronger societies capable of consigning this scourge to the ash-heap of history.

Kelly AyotteKelly AyotteOPINION: Democracy will send ISIS to the same grave as communism Kelly Ayotte joins defense contractor's board of directors Week ahead: Comey firing dominates Washington MORE served in the U.S. Senate for New Hampshire from 2011 to 2017. She is now a member of the board of directors at the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on advancing democracy around the world.

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

Read this article:
OPINION: Democracy will send ISIS to the same grave as communism - The Hill (blog)

In a Sunday article for the New York Times, Sarah Leonard argues for socialism. Socialist leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, Leonard says, are working with a coalition of young leftists to serve millennials.

An editor at The Nation, Leonard's case fixes on three points. First, that millennials need stronger union power in order to attain better living standards. Second, that capitalism has failed. Third, that larger government is beneficial.

Leonard is wrong on each count.

She starts by lamenting that "...there is no left-wing party devoted to protecting the interests of the poor, the working class and the young." Leonard blames declining union influence over political parties. Unions, she says, are the best way to empower the poor, the lower skilled, and the young.

I think not.

At a basic level, unions serve their members, not society. When, for example, a transport union shuts down commuter access to a city, it is not doing so to help commuters. It is doing so to extract wealth from those consumers, via the transport company, and redistribute that wealth to its members. Moreover, when unions demand absolute protections for older workers, they make it near-impossible for companies to hire younger workers. As I've explained, there is a damning correlation between greater union power and increased youth unemployment.

Voters seem to realize this problem. On Sunday, the newly elected president of France won a huge parliamentary majority. His key promise? Unshackling France's labor market from union power.

Leonard does not accept this reality.

Instead, deriding "...precarious and non-unionized labor," she lurches into an attack on the sharing-economy of Uber, AirBnb, and others.

Most millennials take the opposite view. An Airbnb study from last July showed overwhelming millennial support for the industry. Contrary to Leonard's suggestion, conservatives actually have an opportunity to earn millennial support by defending these industries!

Next, Leonard jumps to the crux of her argument: "The post-Cold War capitalist order has failed us..."

"Especially since 2008," Leonard says, "we have seen corporations take our families' homes, exploit our medical debt and cost us our jobs."

Here Leonard implies that "the system," rather than individuals, is responsible for all the ills of the world. It's that favorite socialist trick: do not blame the person in the mirror, blame anyone else. Her attack on the private sector is particularly odd. After all, the private sector accounts for the vast majority of jobs in the United States. Which, incidentally, is one reason why union power is declining so substantially. People believe unions hurt them.

Leonard's final point is the most important. She claims that "within this generation, certain universal programs single-payer health care, public education, free college and making the rich pay are just common sense."

The problem here is Leonard's inversion of "common sense."

For one, the U.S. already has one of the world's most progressive tax systems. The top 5 percent of U.S. earners hold 36 percent of national income, but account for 60 percent of total federal tax revenue. Think about that. About 5 percent of taxpayers pay for more than half of the U.S. government.

Still, when it comes to Leonard's "common sense" case for big government, her main failing lies at the intersection of millennials and math. As I noted recently, we already spend far too much. "As the CBO shows... the national debt will reach 106% of GDP by 2035 and 150% by 2047." And that's assuming none of the new spending Leonard calls for! It's a joke. The existing debt already poses big problems. Why double down on failure?

Of course, Leonard is right about one thing. Millennials are increasingly supportive of socialism. And if nothing else, her piece should be a wakeup call for conservatives. Employing math, history, and meaningful dialogue, we must prove why and how socialism would be disastrous.

Read more from the original source:
Why socialism would be disastrous for millennials - Washington Examiner