Mediaboss Marketing

December 15, 2023

Confidence in U.S. democracy remains low. Most of the public think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidential election next year, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.

The public has lacked confidence how democracy is working for several years. Fifty-one percent say its not working well, 40% think it is working somewhat well, and just 8% feel its working very or extremely well. These results were similar when the question was asked previously, including October 2022, when 9% said democracy is working very or extremely well and October 2020, when 14% said it was working well.

People feel the stakes are high for the next election. Sixty-two percent of adults think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidency in November. About equal shares feel democracy is already so broken that the election doesnt matter (19%) and that democracy is strong enough to withstand the outcome (18%).

Fifty-five percent of Republicans think democracy could be at risk depending on the 2024 winner, as do 72% of Democrats. Republicans are more likely to think democracy is already broken than Democrats (23% vs. 10%).

Partisans on both sides feel that each partys front-runner poses a risk to the health of the democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats believe that if Trump is elected again in 2024 he will weaken democracy, and 82% of Republicans say the same about Biden. However, Republicans are more likely to believe that if Trump wins reelection in 2024, democracy would be strengthened compared with Democrats view of a Biden reelection.

People think the outcome of the 2024 election will have serious stakes for a range of issues as well. Three quarters of adults say the outcome of the election will be important for the economy, and about two-thirds think it will have important consequences for government spending, the future of democracy in the U.S., and immigration.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to regard the 2024 election as extremely or very important to the future of climate change (65% vs. 24%), issues around race and ethnicity (64% vs. 33%), abortion policy (76% vs. 47%), the future of democracy (76% vs. 61%), health care (67% vs. 55%), and gun policy (62% vs. 51%). Republicans are more likely compared with Democrats to expect the election to have an important impact on border security (78% vs. 53%), crime (68% vs. 47%), government spending (77% vs. 63%), immigration (76% vs. 63%), and the economy (82% vs. 73%).

The nationwide poll was conducted November 30-December 4, 2023 using the AmeriSpeak Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,074 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

Read more:
Widespread feeling that the 2024 presidential election carries serious stakes for the country. - AP-NORC

by Hannele Ottschoffski | 14 December 2023 | I have often wondered why we do not learn from our history.

Then I realized that many people do not know our history. Even as a person who has lived more than 75 years on this earth, there are lots of things I dont know, just because I wasnt an eyewitness and didnt experience it myself. That is why we need monuments and museums to transmit information to succeeding generations.

Our German constitution, the Grundgesetz, is based on democracy and equality. No matter what political parties make up the government, that is one thing that the parliament agrees on.The never again to anti-semitism is echoed repeatedly. However, the surge in extremism is a source of concern to all responsible people. That is one reason why it is so important to transmit to the population a sound knowledge of history and information about how democracy works.

We need information now more than ever. The last survivors of the Shoah are old and will soon be gone. We need to hear their stories. The generation born after the fall of communism needs to hear what life was like for people who lived without freedom. The same could be applied to the whole world with its various experiences of suppression and discrimination.

East Germany

Recently we joined a group on a trip to Berlin. We visited the Reichstag, Germanys seat of the parliament. We also visited the Jewish Museum, the Topography of Terror (the documentation center for crimes of the Nazi regime), memorials of the Berlin Wall, and the prison of the Stasithe East German secret police. These left impressions that are hard to digestbut it is good to get first-hand information.

Not having lived in Berlin, east or west, the division of the city and the isolation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) is something I have heard and read about but not experienced. I had seen the wall, and we even once visited East Germany and experienced harassment at the border. But still, our visit to the Trnenpalast (Palace of Tears) at the former border crossing at the Friedrichstrasse train station made a deep impression on me. It helped me to catch a glimpse of the emotional side of living under a dictatorship, in a country without freedom.

After the uprising on June 17, 1953, was repressed by Soviet tanks and the arrest of thousands of demonstrators, many East Germans tried to leave the country. The government attempted to stop the mass migration to West Germany. From 1949 to its end in 1990, the GDR population fell from 18.79 million people to around 16.43 million people, in spite of a high birth rate. With thousands crossing over to West Berlin each week, closing the border and building a wallstarting on August 13, 1961seemed to be the only way to keep the nation from bleeding out.

While the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was founded in 1948 under democratic principles, the GDR was democratic only in name. It was a dictatorship hiding behind a farce of democracy, with a one-party system and threats and retribution for any opposition. It was intended to be a communist bulwark against the West during the Cold War.

The older generation still remembers what it was like to live in that restrictive community, where political prisoners could also be stripped of their citizenship, expelled, and exchanged for Western currencies.

A bleeding church

I hardly dare suggest the comparison that comes to mind with the world church I belong to. Maybe you see the similarities, too.

Church leadership is proud of the increasing numbers in, claiming thousands, sometimes millions, of accessions through baptism. But at the same time, the statistics show a constant bleeding of members leaving the church. Instead of considering why people are leaving, the church is tightening its rules about membership and taking a hard line toward those that disagree with them.

We know that our church, in its early years, was more open and egalitarian. Those early believers understood unity in diversity.

Today, the church is ruled by fear: fear that everything will fall apart if freedom of thought and change is permitted. The church structure is a sham democracy with hierarchical tendencies. Yet according to his address at Annual Council in 2023, its leader wants us to believe that its every decision is divinely inspired.

Opposition is not welcome. Workers who do not agree 100% with the leader, suggested the president, should resign. He speaks approvingly in his sermons of the shaking to justify the loss of members brought, at least partially, by his constant disapproval. In its efforts to enforce compliance, the leaders in Silver Spring have become very manipulative.

It is no wonder that many are leaving the organized church. Staying might be a better solution if there were any hope of change coming. But many have given up hope. They would rather escape outside its unwelcome walls.

Recently the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Narges Mohammadi, in absentia. She said from her Iranian prison, I gave up everything for my commitment. Her motto is: Woman Life Freedom. She has fought for change in her country all her life. She is not the only one subjected to imprisonment in various countries for their commitment to freedom and democracy.

We could learn a lot from political and social activists who fight for change.

Hannele Ottschofski writes from Hechingen, Germany. She is the author ofTired of Waiting: Women in Church and Society.

Follow this link:
Democracy, Freedom and My Church Adventist Today - Adventist Today

The United States stands with those seeking to safeguard democracy and rule of law in Guatemalaand ensure that the will of the Guatemalan people is respected. Under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on nearly 300 Guatemalan nationals, including over 100 members of the Guatemalan congress, as well as private sector representatives and their family members for undermining democracy and the rule of law. The United States will continue to take steps to impose such restrictions on any individuals who undermine Guatemalas democracy.

The United States strongly condemns ongoing anti-democratic actions by Guatemalas Public Ministry and other malign actors who undermine Guatemalas rule of law. Most recently, the Public Ministrys announcement of arrest warrants for electoral workers and party representatives, its request to remove the immunity of President-elect Arvalo, and its attempts to annul electoral results constitute evidence of its clear intent to delegitimize Guatemalas free and fair elections and prevent the peaceful transition of power. These actions are plainly inconsistent with the Inter American Democratic Charter.

These brazen measures follow a long list of other anti-democratic actions including: the lifting of immunity of electoral magistrates, the political targeting of opposition members, the intimidation of peaceful protestors, raids on storage facilities housing election result records, and the opening of ballot boxes.

Todays actions reinforce previous measures by the U.S. government to promote accountability for corrupt and undemocratic actors in Guatemala and to support the will of the Guatemalan people. The Guatemalan people have spoken. Their voices must be respected.

Continued here:
Additional Steps Taken to Impose Visa Restrictions in Response to Anti-Democratic Actions in Guatemala - United ... - Department of State

This week,Donald Tuskwon avote of confidencein Polands parliament to lead a new government as the countrys new prime minister, following a failed bid by the incumbent, Mateusz Morawiecki, to remain in that role.

The vote provoked a visibly nervous reaction from the leader of the outgoing populist government, Jarosaw Kaczyski, who stormed up to the rostrum todenounceTusk, a former prime minister who subsequently served as president of the European Council, as a German agent. Kaczyskisbehavioursince the October election has been all too revealing: the all-powerful national populist leader of the past eight years has lost control of himself, as well as of the country.

Kaczyski can thank his own hateful policies for his electoral defeat on 15 October (following a record voter turnout of75 per cent). Though his Law and Justice (PiS) party won more seats than any other single party, Tusk has built a broad four-partycoalitionwith a solid parliamentary majority. He is now taking great pains to show his appreciation for his partners, including bycreating26 ministerial positions in the new government.

Tusks administration will need to show consistency and unity to deal with Polands many crises. After years of PiSillegally packingmajor judicial institutions with political cronies, a top domestic priority is to restore the rule of law. Tusk alsopromisesa return to Europe, prompting celebrations across the European media, especially in Germany, a key neighbour with which Kaczyski had been picking absurd fights.

In hisexpos, Tusk looked directly at PiSs parliamentary deputies and made clear that no one in the EU will be able to push him around.

Paradoxically, the PiS government was generally an easy partner for Germany, since it isolated Poland within the European Union. While Tusks victory wasgreetedwith joy in Berlin, German leaders surely know they will be dealing with a serious, seasoned player who will defend Polands interests more effectively than PiS ever did.

In hisexpos(a speech outlining the new governments plans), Tusk looked directly at PiS parliamentary deputies and made clear that no one in the EU will be able to push him around. In doing so, he took the air out of PiS aggressive propagandising about him being subordinate to Berlin, and he sent a clear signal to both the German and French governments. He has already announced that he will oppose proposed EU treaty changes designed to remove the unanimity requirement,warningagainst naive, sometimes even unbearable Euro-enthusiasm behind efforts to change the character of the EU.

In terms of foreign policy, Tusk says he will focus primarily on maximising support for Ukraine from Poland and other EU and NATO states. He did not mince words: I cannot listen to politicians who talk about being tired of the situation in Ukraine. They are tired, they say it to the face of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Polands task is to loudly and firmly demand that the West fully resolve and help Ukraine in this war. There was a clear message here for Hungarys pro-Kremlin prime minister, Viktor Orbn, whom Tusk knows well and once considered a friend.

Still, Tusk also declared that his government will show cordial and benevolent assertiveness when it comes to Polish interests on the Polish-Ukrainian border, where Polish truckers have set upblockadesto prevent their lower-paid Ukrainian counterparts from entering. Tusk says he will offer an immediate solution to this problem, which is destroying the Ukrainian economy.

On the fraught issue of immigration, Tusk showed during his stint as president of the European Council that he has a strong, principled position on the matter. His policy can be summed up as Borders First!. All borders must be secured before a properly functioning migration and asylum system can be established, though the authorities can protectthe Polish border and be humane at the same time. His government intends to seal the border but also to end the illegal practice of push-backs, which hascost the livesof more than 50 people on the Polish-Belarusian border in recent years.

During Tusks first government,Radek Sikorski and Swedens then-prime minister,Carl Bildt, forged a special relationship. Now, Tusk wants to do the same within NATO.

The importance of this issue is underscored by the fact that Tusk already hasplansto fly to Tallinn and meet with the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They have many of the same priorities: dealing with the war in Ukraine, securing their borders (all are targets of a Russian and Belarusian hybrid war that includes funnelling immigrants over their borders) and strengthening their cooperation with like-minded governments.

In his expos, Tusk made sure to mention Finland, signalling a stronger focus on NATOs northern front. During Tusks first government,Radek Sikorski(who is returning as head of the Foreign Ministry to rebuild Polands ruined diplomacy) and Swedens then-prime minister,Carl Bildt, forged a special relationship. Now, Tusk wants to do the same within NATO. It is a sensible strategy, since he cannot hope for cooperation within theVisegrad group, owing topopulist spoilerslike Orbn and Slovakias new prime minister, Robert Fico.

Poland today is like a ship that needs to be rebuilt while at sea. The situation is not unlike 1989. The biggest difference is that the economy today is in crisis, rather than in ruins. Still, other challenges are just as difficult, if not more so. Back then, Russia (or rather the USSR) was on its knees, whereas now it is waging wars of aggression. There is no Polish politician today who could handle these challenges better than Tusk.

Project Syndicat

See original here:
What Donald Tusks return means for Poland Democracy and society - IPS Journal

A majority of voters across seven Western countries, including the United States, France and the United Kingdom, believe their democracy is in worse shape than it was five years ago, according to a poll whose results were seen by POLITICO.

Nearly seven in 10 American respondents said the state of democracy had declined in recent years, while 73 percent of poll takers shared the same opinion in France. In the United Kingdom, more than six out of 10 respondents said that democracy was working less well than five years ago, according to the poll which was carried out by Ipsos in September.

The results reveal widespread angst about the state of democracy ahead of major votes in the United States, the U.K, and the European Union in the year ahead as well as mixed views of the 27-member union.

In all but one of the countries which also included Croatia, Italy, Poland and Sweden about half of voters reported being dissatisfied with the way democracy was working, while majorities agreed with the statement that the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful, and that radical change was needed.

Only in Sweden did a clear majority, 58 percent, say they were satisfied with how the system of government was working.

Among EU countries, the survey revealed deeply contrasting views on the state of the Union. A majority of respondents in the countries surveyed said they were in favor of the EU, but a plurality in all the countries said they were dissatisfied with the state of democracy at the EU level, while only tiny minorities reported feeling they had any influence over EU decisions.

Those views were offset by higher levels of satisfaction at the way democracy worked at the local level.

Only in Croatia was satisfaction with democracy at the EU level, at 26 percent, higher than it was for democracy at the national level, at 21 percent.

The results of the survey will give EU leaders food for thought as they gear up for European Parliament elections. While voters elect the Parliament directly, the choice of who gets the top jobs such as president of the European Commission, the blocs executive branch, or the head of the EU Council, which gathers heads of state and government is indirect. National leaders pick their nominees, which are then submitted to the Parliament for conformation.

In recent years, EU-level political parties have been trying to make the process more democratic by asking leaders to give top jobs to the lead candidates, or Spitzenkandidaten, from the party that wins the most votes in the election. But that system was ignored by leaders after the last election, when they rejected the lead candidate of the conservative European Peoples Party, Manfred Weber, in favor of current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

While all the major parties say they are committed to proposing lead candidates ahead of the next EP election, leaders havent publicly committed to follow the system.

These findings suggest that a key challenge for the EU ahead of the 2024 European Parliament elections will be to leverage continuing support for the EU project to help restore positive perceptions of EU institutions, agencies and bodies, Christine Tresignie, managing director of Ipsos European public affairs, said in a statement.

The poll was carried out September 21-30 via KnowledgePanel, an online random probability survey. Respondents aged 16 and over were questioned in Croatia, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, while in the United States adults aged 18 and over were polled.

Continued here:
Western democracies face crisis of confidence ahead of big votes, poll shows - POLITICO Europe