Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans tried, after the collapse of their long campaign to end Obamacare, to put a good face forward as they pressed on to tax reform and other issues on their ambitious legislative agenda. But they just couldnt help themselves.

The blame game launched quickly. Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested that the House had done its job, but colleagues in the Senate had failed to deliver.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), unwilling to shoulder all the blame, passed some of it off to the White House, saying President Trump was so new to politics that he had excessive expectations about how Washington works.

And then Trump who had already been busy scolding Republicans in tweets unleashed a fresh round of attacks over the last several days, stopping just short of calling for McConnell to resign.

For a political party that has a once-in-a-generation opportunity, controlling both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, this was not a good sign.

As the infighting spilled into the open in recent days, the messy airing of grievances threatened to jam the partys complicated legislative agenda this fall.

Diminishing McConnells standing predictably would erode the ability of Congress to advance legislation. When leaders are weak, fewer lawmakers will follow them. Its a problem that has repeatedly plagued the House since the Republicans took control in 2011 and could now affect the Senate as well.

Trumps criticisms could also heighten the fear Republican lawmakers already have that he will not back them up if they take unpopular votes. Those worries became more widespread earlier this summer after Trump urged House Republicans to approve the leaderships bill to repeal Obamacare and then openly criticized the measure as mean.

The sniping between Trump and congressional leaders also worsens the risk of Republican losses in next years midterm elections. Congress already suffers from dismal approval ratings, but convincing voters that lawmakers are ineffective could dampen Republican turnout and further harm the partys chances of retaining control of the House.

A Gallup poll released Wednesday showed that the number of Republicans who approve of Congress work has plunged. At the start of the year, half of Republicans said they approved of Congress; now only about 1 in 6 say the same.

As if all that were not enough, the infighting comes at a particularly inopportune time for congressional leaders. When lawmakers return to work in September, they will have just days to act to avert a potential financial crisis and federal shutdown, needing to pass legislation to raise the governments debt ceiling and fund federal agencies before they can begin to make progress on goals such as tax reform.

Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, said that while the founding fathers anticipated friction between Congress and the executive branch and between the House and Senate with each part acting as a check on the others ambitions, Trump has taken that to a new level.

Trump neither knows nor cares about institutional roles or traditions, said Pitney, a former Republican official who left the party after Trumps election. He seems to think he can intrude on the internal politics of Congress, and so he risks generating a lot of resentment.

Republicans were bound to take shots at each other after the Senate last month lost, by one vote, the GOPs best chance to begin dismantling Obamacare, something they had long promised.

One lawmaker, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, went so far as to suggest that fellow Republican Sen. John McCains recent brain cancer diagnosis may have affected his thinking in casting the deciding vote that defeated the healthcare bill. Johnson later insisted he was only expressing sympathy for McCains condition.

Trump, as he often does, escalated the sniping to a new level. The president started with a series of tweets and quickly jumped to suggestions that without better legislative outcomes, it might be time for the Senate leader to step down.

Im very disappointed in Mitch, Trump told reporters Thursday at his Bedminster, N.J., resort. They lost by one vote. For a thing like that to happen is a disgrace.

Asked if McConnell should step aside, he said: I'll tell you what, if he doesn't get repeal and replace done and if he doesn't get taxes done, meaning cuts and reform, and if he doesn't get a very easy one to get done, infrastructure -- if he doesn't get them done, then you can ask me that question.

Trump appears to have accepted no blame for his inability to influence Republican lawmakers whose votes he needs, especially those in the Senate.

Instead, the president has chosen to rally his most dedicated supporters as his popularity among others drops, shifting blame to the Washington swamp, as embodied in Congress.

Trumps attacks on McConnell came after Sean Hannity, the Fox TV host, targeted the Senate leader. Hannitys show has often been a sounding board for the White House to try out messages designed to appeal to its core voters.

If all you're going to do is whine like a 10-year-old and complain and make excuses and blame the president for your failure after eight months of him now being in office, and you have in the House and Senate -- guess what? It really is time to drain the sewer and swamp, Hannity said.

You know, Mitch McConnell, have you ever had in all your years in politics an enthusiastic crowd like President Trump? I doubt it. The American people voted for this president's agenda, Hannity said. Senator, if you can't get it done, get out of the way! Retire. Leave Washington. Go play golf. Go fishing.

McConnells allies, who are many in the Senate, quickly rallied to his support, knowing that the majority leader perhaps even more than Ryan remains the most powerful leader in Congress.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the longest-serving Senate Republican, said McConnell has been the best leader weve had in my time in the Senate, through very tough challenges. I fully support him."

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) tweeted that McConnell is the single biggest reason why Neil Gorsuch is now a SCOTUS, referring to the Senate leaders year-long strategy of blocking then-President Obamas nominee for the Supreme Court and then changing Senate rules to allow easier confirmation of Trumps pick.

The second-ranking Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, tweeted: Passing POTUS's legislative agenda requires a team effort. No one is more qualified than Mitch McConnell to lead Senate in that effort.

As Benjamin Franklin said, Cornyn added, we can hang together or hang separately.

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

@LisaMascaro

ALSO

McCain's surprise vote doomed GOP healthcare bill, but did it open the door for Senate bipartisanship?

Is this small-town congressman from New Mexico tough enough to win Democrats the House majority?

Their relationship at a low, Trump and Congress cast blame on each other heading into break

More coverage of Congress

More coverage of politics and the White House

Follow this link:
Trump escalates the Republican blame game, but it doesn't help his agenda in Congress - Los Angeles Times

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