Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn during a meeting in the Oval Office on May 13, 2019, in Washington, D.C. Mark Wilson/Getty Images Gbor Scheiring, Harvard University

Hungarian leader and strongman Viktor Orbn, who presided over the radical decline of democracy in his country, is scheduled to meet with former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, at Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort on March 8, 2024.

Orbn has been Hungarys prime minister since 2010. Under his leadership, the country became the first nondemocracy in the European Union an illiberal state, as Orbn proudly declared. Trump expressed his admiration for Orbn and his authoritarian moves during their meeting at the White House in 2019.

Youre respected all over Europe. Probably, like me, a little bit controversial, but thats OK, Trump said. Youve done a good job and youve kept your country safe.

Ive followed their mutual romance with illiberalism for a long time. Although I am now in the U.S. as an academic, I was elected to the Hungarian Parliament in 2010 when Orbns rule started.

As the U.S. braces for a potential second Trump presidency, Americans may rightly wonder: Would Trumps America mirror Orbns Hungary in its slide toward authoritarianism?

I can still feel the pleasant spring breeze on my skin as I walked up the National Assemblys stairs in my freshly bought suit. As newly elected members of Parliament, my Green Party colleagues and I stepped into our roles with high hopes and detailed plans to fix Hungarys ailing economy and move toward sustainability.

I also remember the cold winter day a year and half later when we chained ourselves to the parliament building. It was a demonstration against the hollowing of parliamentary work and democratic backsliding under Orbns rule.

If the parliament is the political home of democracy, Hungarys was vacant by 2012.

Orbn and his party in power hijacked democratic institutions. The nationwide right-wing media network is a crucial component of this authoritarian power. As the Voice of America reported in 2022, Orbns allies have created a pervasive conservative media ecosystem that dominates the airwaves and generally echoes the positions of the Orbn government.

His government gerrymandered local districts and allowed voters to register outside their home districts, both aimed at favoring Orbn and his party. The government also staffed the public prosecutors office with loyalists, ensuring that any misconduct by those in power stays hidden.

Republicans in the U.S. have followed a similar trajectory with their support of Trump as his rhetoric grows more authoritarian. Trump says if he wins the election, he wants to be a dictator for one day. A recent poll shows that 74% of Republicans surveyed said it would be a good idea for Trump to be a dictator only on the first day of his second term.

Orbn has spent years undermining the independence of Hungarys judiciary, ensuring its rulings are friendly to his government and allies. While still an independent institution, the U.S. Supreme Court with three Trump-nominated justices has become a pillar of Trumpism, handing down rulings overturning the constitutional right to abortion and limiting civil rights.

Fox, OANN, and other right-wing media ensure that large parts of America see the world through a Trumpian lens.

Authoritarian populists tilt the democratic playing field to favor themselves and their personal and political interests. Subverting democracy from the inside without violent repression allows leaders like Orbn and Trump to pretend they are democratic. This authoritarianism from within creates chokepoints, where the opposition isnt crushed, but it has a hard time breathing.

How can strongmen get away with these antidemocratic politics? If there is one lesson from Hungary, it is this: Democracy is not sustainable in a divided society where many are left behind economically.

The real power of authoritarian populists like Trump and Orban lies not in the institutions they hijack but in the novel electoral support coalition they create.

They bring together two types of supporters. Some hardcore, authoritarian-right voters are motivated by bigotry and hatred rooted in their fear of globalizations cultural threats. However, the most successful right-wing populist forces integrate an outer layer of primarily working-class voters hurt by globalizations economic threats.

Throughout the 20th century, Democrats in the U.S. and left-of-center parties in Europe provided a political home for those fearing economic insecurity. This fostered a political system that engendered equality and a healthy social fabric, giving people reason to care for liberal democratic institutions.

However, when the economy fails to deliver, disillusionment with capitalism morphs into an apathy toward liberal democracy.

If the liberal center appears uncaring, authoritarian populists can mobilize voters against both the cultural and economic threats posed by globalization.

In Hungary, the first signs of authoritarianism appeared in economically left-behind rural areas and provincial small and medium towns well before Orbns 2010 victory. While these provincial towns suffered from increasing mortality, deindustrialization and income loss, the parties of the liberal center continued to sing hymns about the benefits of globalization, detached from the everyday experience of economic insecurity.

As I showed in my book, neglecting this suffering was the democratic centers politically lethal failure.

By today, Hungarys liberal and left-of-center parties have retreated to the biggest cities, leaving their former provincial political strongholds up for grabs for the radical right. The same is taking place in the U.S., with the Republicans becoming a party of the working class and nonmetropolitan America.

The success of authoritarian populism in Hungary might seem disheartening. However, there is a silver lining: Those committed to democracy in the U.S. still have time to learn from Hungarys mistakes.

Gbor Scheiring, Fellow, Harvard University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Follow this link:
I watched Hungary's democracy dissolve into authoritarianism as a member of parliament and I see troubling ... - PennLive

Britain will sanction individuals whom it alleges are involved in Chinese backed-disruption of the democratic process on Monday.

Ministers will step up pressure on China tomorrow when they set out further details of the attack on the Electoral Commission and 43 individuals, including MPs and peers.

The Politics at Jack and Sam's podcast reveals this will include sanctioning individuals connected with the alleged efforts.

Listen above then tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam's wherever you get your podcasts

The UK will tighten its espionage rules at the same time, with the Investigatory Powers Bill in the Commons on Monday as well.

This is one of a number of increased threats to UK and global security discussed in the podcast.

Read more: China 'trying to undermine democracy', senior MP warns

Meanwhile, Whitehall is also coming to terms with the implications of Friday night's Moscow attack.

President Vladimir Putin has blamed Ukraine for the murder of dozens of Moscovites, in a move that could mark the beginning of a fresh escalation in the conflict.

The podcast also reveals how a former senior civil servant has written a novel detailing how Whitehall deals with security threats and funding the security services.

Sky News has approached the Chinese embassy for comment.

Email with your thoughts and rate how their predictions play out: jackandsam@sky.uk or jackandsam@politico.co.uk

More here:
More UK sanctions expected over China democracy and security fears - Yahoo News UK

From: Larry Shade

Columbus

I have written many articles these past few years to educate and inform the public on the disruption of Americas unity. Our founding fathers in writing the Constitution insisted that Congress be their top priority. So Article One laid out the rules and duties that Congress must follow. Article Two was written to address the executive branch. It stated the job requirements and the specifics of the job. They put the executive branch beneath the Congress because they feared the threat that one time in the future a president may try to seize too much power. The founders had seen the effect of too much power where a king in Europe had control of all facets of the government.

But in recent years, our country has fallen into the trap and has been reducing the power of the Congress as the presidents have been allowed to seize more power. This change has allowed partisan politics to enter the fray and have a big influence on the president. Thus, the direction of the government may move in a way that does not benefit the majority. It is vital for our democracy that our two independent political parties be maintained. That is the only way the country can hear all sides of the issue being debated.

I am retired and I go to Florida for a few months in the winter. While there, I have had many conversations with some Canadians and Europeans. They are very knowledgeable on the happenings going on in America. But they cannot understand why the people in America continue to go down this path of self-destruction. I have no answer. All I can say is that America has lost its moral compass, and I dont know if we can get it back.

I am a veteran who served in Vietnam. Watching the extreme political divide in the country with no ending in sight is very disheartening. But I have said for years that when Americans go to the polls to vote, they are the least educated in relation to all the other democracies around the world. A country filled with people who dont know what their government is doing, and have little desire to learn, is in danger of losing their country. My views have company. Several American historians who have studied the entire history of America are saying that America is closer to losing its democracy than at any time since the Civil War!

Read this article:
Letter: America is at a crossroads, at risk of losing democracy - The Republic

Democracy is easy to take for granted because we have always had it. But democracy in Iowa is weak and our freedoms are being chipped away by a very partisan government in Des Moines.

If democracy were strong, we would not pass:

A law to ban books, reminiscent of Hitlers Germany.

A law to limit teachers free speech when students confide in them.

A law to attack minorities instead of teaching a little humanity.

A child labor law allowing children to be more easily abused.

A bill to restrict a womans reproductive freedom and freedom for a doctor to practice, leaving everyone to equate pregnancy with death.

Freedom of religion took a hit when the state legislature in Des Moines broke the unwritten law of separation of church and state by passing a law giving government the power to take tax dollars levied for public schools and redirecting those dollars to church schools. Freedom of religion means no government intervention, and preventing that intervention is why tax exemption for church property has existed for nearly 200 years.

Poor laws like the above should not stand, especially in Iowa that was long known for common sense.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read this article:
Letter: Democracy is weak in Iowa due to partisan state politics - The Dispatch Argus

Idahoans revere democracy. Its the system of government our Founders created, and its proven to be a resilient one. For more than 200 years, it has withstood crises, bad leaders, even civil war. It has fostered freedom, growth, prosperity and peace. It has also been a beacon to the world.

But it takes work to keep it strong.

And in Idaho right now, democracy could use some help.

A democracy a democratic republic is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

In the recent much-hyped GOP presidential caucus, a measly 39,584 people in the entire state participated. That is less than half the population of Twin Falls County.

That is only 6.8% of registered Republicans.

For a democratic republic a system of government that is supposed to involve everyone that is terrible.

But to Dorothy Moons GOP, that is surely not a surprise or a disappointment. As University of Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell noted, when participation in precinct caucuses is low, it is the most polarized people who are most likely to show up.

Primary elections attract more voters, but not nearly enough. Since 2016, for example, while an average of more than 76% of registered Idaho voters participated in the general elections, only 28% voted in the primaries. Thats just 19% of the voting age population.

Thats bad, too. Because, heres the thing and its an important thing:

Around these parts, primary elections are the ones that really matter. Almost without fail, whoever wins the primary and gets an R by their name will win the general election. Period.

When fewer people vote in the races that really matter, only a small sliver of the citizenry end up calling all the shots. That sounds a lot more like a different form of government one in which (according to dictionary.com), all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique.

Thats the definition of an oligarchy. It is government by the few.

Governments naturally tend to drift in that direction. Like a funnel which starts wide, but then narrows to a small point, the political power is gradually taken away from we the people and funneled into the hands of the few.

That certainly describes whats been happening in Idaho.

Here are a few of many recent examples.

Last summer the Idaho Republican State Central Committee purged the voting rights for the official representatives of Idahos Young Republicans, College Republicans, and Republican Women.

The top brass of the party hatched a plot to get rid of another leader who didnt line up with their way of thinking National Committeeman Damond Watkins. Straight out of a Batman and Joker movie, their orchestrated operation was sinister, sneaky, and dirty, including a stealth recording of him speaking in church. As reported in the Idaho Post Register, they also violated many party rules in the process.

All of this was in order that Idaho Freedom Foundation officer Bryan Smith could slide into the role.

And so the funnel of power narrows.

Heres another example. Any GOP official who doesnt line up behind the current leaderships peculiar definition of conservative can now be summoned before a platform enforcement tribunal, where they can be censured and stripped of party support.

These and other similar developments illustrate how power is moving down the funnel away from the people and toward the few.

One of the most consequential steps toward narrowing this funnel of power happened in 2012 when the Republican party closed its primary elections.

This essentially denied many Idahoans a voice. And not just the 270,000 independents who make up 30% of Idaho voters. Regular old-fashioned Republicans those who want to think for themselves, who arent as intensely political, and who just want good government also have less influence.

Candidates quickly learn that in order to win, they only have to listen to the loudest voices. They really dont need to pay attention to anyone else. A lot of regular folks are effectively shut out from the process.

Today were living with the results. Our political system is less responsive to average Idahoans. And it is more dysfunctional. We do still have many good leaders, but they are all swimming against this tide.

Far too many lawmakers are not interested in healthy, honest, respectful dialogue to try to solve problems. They spend their time and energy keeping us divided and angry, instead of doing the hard work of actually tackling real issues that impact the lives of everyday Idahoans.

A potential solution to this problem will likely be on the ballot this November the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI).

The initiative would establish an open primary where all voters would be free to participate. The top four vote-getters from the primary would advance to the general election. This, supporters say, would generate more competition between candidates and more options for voters.

The initiative also allows ranked choice voting in the general election.

The process is simple. Youll see four candidates on your ballot. Just like you do now, you will vote for your first choice candidate. But, if you choose, you will also have the option to rank the rest of the candidates in order of preference. Its a way to assign where your vote will go if your preferred candidate loses.

When its time to count the votes, the first choices on all ballots are counted. If a candidate wins over 50% of the vote, the race is over. That candidate is declared the winner.

But if no candidate gets to 50%, then theres an instant runoff without having to come back to vote again. Once again, its simple. The last place candidate is removed. If you had voted for that candidate, then, in the instant runoff, your vote will now go toward your second choice candidate.

This process repeats until someone gets more than 50% of the vote, or else only two candidates remain, and whoever has the most votes is declared the winner.

This means that, if you choose, your one vote is never wasted. This, supporters say, is an exciting advancement in our election process.

It also means that the winner will need support from a broad range of voters and not just a narrow slice. It will motivate candidates not just to listen to the loudest, angriest, most divisive voices, but also to tune in to those who might rank them as second choice. It seems likely that this will also help increase healthy, honest, respectful dialogue and tone down the toxicity.

It should help us choose more leaders who can actually solve problems and get things done.

Experience from around the country has shown that this surprisingly simple adjustment to the way we vote can really help heal our dysfunction, and strengthen our democracy. If OPI passes, advocates say, the power can start to flow back to the people rather than to the few at the small end of the funnel.

Its no wonder that they dont like it.

One surefire sign that the OPI is onto something good is the reaction of those now pulling the strings of power. For example, Bryan Smith of the Idaho Freedom Foundation admitted, If Idaho gets ranked-choice voting, were finished. Its that simple.

So, no more IFF schemes to destroy our schools and other public institutions? No more of their out-of-state dark money infiltrating Idaho? No more pulling the marionette strings of IFF-backed legislators? Hmmm.

That sounds good. Sign us up.

The more people who participate in the democratic process, says Professor Campbell, the better. Greater participation not only makes it more likely that there is a true cross section of citizens expressing their voices but also that their voices are civil.

We believe that in a democracy all voices matter not just the loudest and most divisive. More citizens participating in choosing our leaders would be a good thing. And more respectful voices would be a very good thing.

If youre intrigued about a practical way to help strengthen our democratic republic one that would be attainable soon then we suggest taking a long look at the Open Primaries Initiative. It could be just the thing democracy needs.

In the recent much-hyped GOP presidential caucus, a measly 39,584 people in the entire state participated. That is less than half the population of Twin Falls County. That is only 6.8% of registered Republicans. For a democratic republic a system of government that is supposed to involve everyone that is terrible.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Follow this link:
OUR VIEW: Democracy Could Use Some Help. This One Adjustment Could Be Just What We Need - Times-News