Mediaboss Marketing

Governments, even democratic ones, are often ineffective or simply bad. Elections sometimes produce uninspiring results, particularly when a patchwork of parties forms an unwieldy coalition government that struggles to get much of anything done. This doesnt mean it should be overthrown. Nor should the United States ignore coup attempts staged in the name of bypassing the messiness of democracy. Yet in Tunisia, this is what the Biden administration appears to be doing, revealing the widening gulf between American words and deeds.

On Sunday, Tunisian President Kais Saied, who is supposed to share power with Parliament and a prime minister, suspended the former and dismissed the latter. In case anyone doubted his intentions, Saiedaddressed the nationwhile flanked by top military and security officials. On Monday, the army surrounded Parliament andblocked legislatorsfrom entering the building. Most Americans probably dont care that Tunisia isor, perhaps more precisely, wasthe lone success story of the Arab Spring. But the atmospherics of the story might resonate. A president longing to be a strongman is something that we in the United States recently experienced. As a long-standing democracy, America had institutions that rose to the challenge and restrained former President Donald Trumpsauthoritarian instincts. Young, fragile democracies are rarely so lucky.

From the very start of his presidency, Joe Biden identified the struggle between democratic and authoritarian governments as the central challenge of both the present and future. As heput itin his first press conference as president: It is clear, absolutely clear that this is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies. This lofty rhetoric was somewhat surprising, especially for a man who had viewed the 2011 Arab uprisings with evident skepticism. In one memorable moment, just two weeks before the Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak fell amid mass protests, Bidensaid: Look, Mubarak has been an ally I would not refer to him as a dictator.

Believing in the power and possibility of democracy is easy in theory. The problem with democracy in practice is that it is never quite as good as its proponents hope it might be. The same can be said for how the United States responds to breaches of democracy in the Middle East. Despite ostensibly being on the side of popular rule, the White House has so far refused to take sides in Tunisia, instead expressing concern over the developments there. White House Press Secretary Jen Psakiinformed reportersthat administration officials were in touch with their Tunisian counterparts to learn more about the situation, urge calm, and support Tunisian efforts to move forward in line with democratic principles. (After Egypts 2013 coup, it was Psaki whoinfamously said, We have determined we are not going to make a determination about whether to call it a coup.)

In the Middle East, Tunisias crisis is the first real test of Bidens professed commitment to anew democracy doctrine. During the unusual presidency of Donald Trump, Americans could easily forget that sustaining a gap between rhetoric and policy was a storied U.S. tradition. In his unapologetic disregard for supporting human rights and democracy abroad, Trump offered a natural experiment. The difference wasnt so much that he couldnt be bothered, but more that it didnt occur to him to be bothered in the first place. For the first time in decades, the gap between words and deeds closed considerably. The United States, under Trump, had becomelesshypocritical. Dissidents no longer had to wonder if the United States would come to their aid. Under no illusions about American interest in their plight, they could adapt their activism accordingly and focus exclusively on their own local context. In his frank disregard, Trump was simply incapable of betraying them.

Under Joe Biden, America is speaking in terms of values and morality once again, both at home and abroad. Other countries, particularly weak ones, do not have the luxury of high-minded idealism. To pretend, in other words, is a privilege, one that America has insisted on and even earned. Its unrivaled power allows it two things: the ability to have ideals but also the ability to ignore them. For the United States, the charge of hypocrisy is effective precisely because it speaks to something true: We would like to be better, but we cant.

Butwhycant we? Why cant we thwart a slow-motion coup in Tunisia, a relatively remote country where the risks of being too bold are minimal? Unlike Egypt, the Middle Easts most populous nation, Tunisia cant claim to be central to U.S. regional objectives, such as the promotion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (howeverimaginary such a solution might be).

A related question is to what extent the United States can actually influence the internal affairs of faraway countries. Is there much Biden can do? The short answer is yes. If Tunisias president doesnt begin reversing course, the Biden administration can threaten a fullnot a partialsuspension of aid. Partial aid suspensions dont generally work, because they confuse and dilute American leverage. They are also self-undermining, because they communicate to authoritarian leaders that U.S. officials are hedging their bets and unwilling to follow through on their own stated commitments. Half measures can be the worst of both worldsthey anger target governments while failing to accomplish much besides virtue signaling to the foreign-policy community. If youre going to piss off an ally, at least make it count.

To be sure, threatening an aid suspension is risky. But all bold policy action is risky (otherwise it wouldnt be bold). We also know thatnotthreatening an aid suspension seems almost certain to lead to an undemocratic resulta continuation of Tunisias current course of elevating a would-be strongman over Parliament and other constitutional constraints. So one option, while risky, is considerably more promising than the other. Some observers legitimately worry that suspending assistance to the Tunisian government might backfire. But this perspective misunderstands the direction of leverage; Tunisia needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs Tunisia. The Biden administration should of course coordinate any such effort with the European Union and individual member states. Considering Europes proximity to and influence in Tunisia, any pressure campaign is likely to fail without European buy-in.

Also capable of playing a decisive role is the International Monetary Fund, which has invested in bailing out Tunisias battered economy (exacerbated by some of theworst per capita COVID-19 death ratesin the world). The IMFsArticles of Agreementimpose no political conditions; autocrats and democrats alike are eligible for support. Even so, the U.S. and European nations, as the largest shareholders, can exercise their voting rights as they see fit. There is precedent for attaching conditions to prospective financial-support packages. During Egypts brief democratic opening in 2012 and 2013, the IMFrequestedthat the elected Islamist government secure broad support, including from opposition parties, for an IMF deal. In short, the claim that President Biden lacks sufficient leverage to pressure the Tunisian government simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

I realize that this may be a losing battle. To be disappointed is to be realistic. The Biden administration is unlikely to act boldly, however bold its rhetoric has been up until this moment. In a small, obscure Arab country, then, a surprise coup attempt may markafter a short interregnumthe return of American hypocrisy.

Read more here:
Tunisia, democracy, and the return of American hypocrisy - Brookings Institution

A major Democratic nonprofit group is taking aim at President Biden in a new television ad, urging the president to take a more aggressive and concrete stand on overhauling the filibuster to pass federal voting legislation.

The ad, aired by a group called End Citizens United and Let America Vote Action Fund, is the first to publicly call out the president by name on the issue and is yet another sign of growing tension between the White House and left-leaning voting rights groups over the federal response to a wave of new laws governing elections from states with Republican-controlled legislatures this year.

The ad, which will begin airing on Friday, is centered on comments by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made at a 1963 news conference. In those remarks, the civil rights leader denounced the filibuster, a procedural tool that requires a supermajority of 60 votes to bring bills to a final vote. Its use has often stymied major legislation.

In the ad, as the screen flickers between long voting lines in the 1960s and more recent elections, King says: Senators who will use the filibuster to keep the majority of people from even voting and certainly they would not want the majority of people to vote because they know they do not represent the majority of the American people.

The group said it would spend $1.1 million on the ad, which will air on broadcast and cable television in Washington, D.C.; Michigan; Pennsylvania; and Wisconsin, including during Olympics broadcasts.

This moment calls for presidential leadership, and were asking President Biden to fight like heck and use every tool available to him, including using his relationships in the Senate, to call for a reform to the filibuster to protect this sacred right, said Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United and Let America Vote Action Fund.

The president has called on Congress to pass a federal voting rights law, including in an impassioned speech last month in Philadelphia in which he called restrictive voting laws in states like Georgia, Florida and Iowa the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.

But he has stopped short of publicly calling for a change to the filibuster, which would almost certainly be necessary to pass any kind of voting legislation in the Senate, where both parties hold 50 seats and Vice President Kamala Harris can break ties.

The ad closes with a clear directive: President Biden, please, tell the Senate: Reform the filibuster. Everything is at stake.

Read the original here:
Democratic Group's Ad Pushes Biden on Voting Rights and Filibuster - The New York Times

Jan. 6, 2021 will be remembered tragically as one of the worst days in the history of the United States.

Five persons died after a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to overturn the certified results of the presidential election, which had been won by Joe Biden. More than 140 police officers were injured in the vicious attack.

The injuries suffered by these officers were horrific, including broken ribs and concussions. One officer was beaten with an American flag pole. Many are still trying to recover from the physical and psychological trauma.

Hundreds of suspects have been charged with participating in this terrible assault on our democracy, and sadly, two of the suspects have connections to Fontana:

A Fontana resident, Daniel Rodriguez, 38, was arrested by the FBI on March 31 for allegedly injuring a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer with an electroshock weapon.

A former deputy police chief in Fontana, Alan Hostetter, 56, was one of six men from California arrested on June 10 and charged with various federal offenses, including conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, and unlawful entry on restricted building or grounds. Hostetter now resides in San Clemente.

It is difficult to comprehend the actions of rioters who, while claiming to love the U.S. and its freedoms, were enthusiastically showing their contempt for the rule of law.

----- INJULY, during a House select hearing, four officers provided testimony of the physical and verbal abuse they endured that day. One of those officers, Michael Fanone, said that he was "grabbed, beaten, tased, all while being called a traitor to my country." He suffered a heart attack as a result of the violence.

And yet, after the hearing, television personalities Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham had the audacity to mock Fanone during their programs. The obnoxious comments by Carlson and Ingraham were disgraceful and must be repudiated by all true Americans who show respect to police officers and our system of justice.

As Lynda Williams, the national president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, said in a statement, the four officers who testified "should be embraced, supported, believed and above all praised for their courage to push past the terror and torment they suffered on Jan. 6 to their resounding triumph over threats, over treason, over betrayal to exemplify bravery, honor, sacrifice, integrity."

Fortunately, the heroic officers at the Capitol were able to stop the raging thugs and ultimately preserve our democracy. And now, we all need to work together to make sure that the awful events that transpired on Jan. 6 will never happen again.

Excerpt from:
It's very important to defend the police who saved our democracy - Fontana Herald-News

This week, Americas most watched cable news host is broadcasting from an authoritarian state not to criticize its leadership but to praise it.

Foxs Tucker Carlson is currently in Budapest, airing his show from Hungarys capital city. In his Monday monologue, Carlson told his listeners that they should pay attention to Hungary if you care about Western civilization, and democracy, and family and the ferocious assault on all three of those things by leaders of our global institutions. He tweeted out a friendly photo with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn and is confirmed to speak at a government-supported conference in Budapest on Saturday.

Make no mistake: Foxs marquee host is aligning himself with a ruler who has spent the past 11 years systematically dismantling Hungarys free political system.

A 2021 report from V-Dem, the leading academic institute assessing the state of global democracy, found that Hungary crossed the line into autocracy in 2018. In March, Orbns Fidesz party was pushed out of the EPP, an alliance of center-right European parties, because its European peers felt it had strayed too far into authoritarian territory.

Despite the increasingly clear evidence that Hungary has abandoned democracy, many conservative intellectuals in America have come to see the Orbn regime as a model for America.

These right-wing observers, typically social conservatives and nationalists, see Orbns willingness to use state power against the LGBT community, academics, the press, and immigrants as an example of how conservatives can fight back against left-wing cultural power. They either deny Fideszs authoritarian streak or, more chillingly, argue that its necessary to defeat the left a chilling move at a time when the GOP is waging war on American democracy, using tactics eerily reminiscent of the ones Fidesz successfully deployed against Hungarys democratic institutions.

Carlsons visit to Budapest, a follow-up to previous pro-Orbn coverage, shows that this authoritarian envy is no longer confined to a fringe.

To understand why the American rights admiration for a small Central European state is so concerning, its important to understand exactly how democracy in Hungary died.

For roughly the first two decades of Hungarys post-communist history, 1990 to 2010, Hungary was a young but stable democracy. When Orbn was elected prime minister the first time, in 1998, he governed as a relatively conventional European conservative; when Fidesz lost the 2002 elections, a new prime minister from the rival Socialist party took over.

But though Orbn stepped aside, he and his followers never really accepted the 2002 defeat as legitimate. When Fidesz returned to power after the countrys 2010 election, winning a two-thirds majority amidst the Great Recession and incumbent corruption scandals, the party set about seizing complete control of the Hungarian state turning it into a machine designed to subtly lock the opposition out of power without having to formally abolish elections.

Orbn and his allies gerrymandered parliamentary districts and packed the Constitutional Court. They seized control over the national elections agency, the civil service, and over 90 percent of all media in Hungary. They used economic regulation to enrich themselves and punish their opponents persecuting a major university, for example, until it was forced to leave the country altogether.

Hungary is not a democracy anymore, Zsuzsanna Szelnyi, a former Hungarian member from Prime Minister Viktor Orbns party, told me when I met her in Budapest in 2018. The parliament is a decoration for a one-party state.

Fidesz justified its power grabs by demonizing a series of outgroups and external enemies. If you read the state-aligned press, youll learn that only Viktor Orbn can save Hungarian civilization from the threat posed by Muslim immigrants, liberals in the European Union, the LGBT community, and the Jewish billionaire George Soros.

Orbn won reelection in 2015 and 2018, in votes that were formally free but in no sense fair. Fidesz benefitted from massive resource advantages, backing from government-aligned media, and rules designed to tilt the playing field. Though Orbns party won less than 50 percent of the vote in the 2018 election, it still won a two-thirds majority in parliament thanks in part due to gerrymandering.

Today, political scientists see Hungary as a textbook example of something called competitive authoritarianism: a kind of autocratic system where elections happen and arent formally rigged but are so heavily stacked in the incumbent partys favor that the people dont have real agency over who rules them.

The sad thing is that the government can do whatever it wants, activist Gergely Homonnay told me during my 2018 visit to Hungary.

Competitive authoritarian regimes survive, in part, by tricking their citizens convincing enough of them that democracy is still alive to avoid an uprising. As such, Orbn claims his government is just a different kind of democracy he calls it illiberal democracy or, alternatively, Christian democracy thats being persecuted by Western liberals who hate its socially conservative governance.

This democratic facade is easier to maintain at home thanks to a pliant press. Whats more surprising, and depressing, is that American conservatives like Carlson are choosing to help him out.

The ideological affinities between Hungarys rulers and the American right are fairly obvious, and they explain why figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are increasingly describing it as a model for America.

Like American social conservatives, Hungarys leader claims to stand for the traditional Christian family against progressives, feminists, and the LGBT community. Like American nationalists, Orbn despises immigrants and assails the European Unions influence on his country (though hes more than happy to accept billions in EU subsidies in order to prop up Hungarys economy and enrich his allies).

How do those on the right address clear evidence of Orbns anti-democratic politics? Typically, they adopt a two-pronged and somewhat contradictory strategy both denying that Orbn is an authoritarian and arguing that his repressive tactics are justified in response to progressive culture war aggression.

Take Rod Dreher, a senior editor at American Conservative magazine. Dreher, who is currently in Budapest on a fellowship at the state-funded Danube Institute, claims to have been instrumental in brokering Carlsons visit that he lobbied the Fox host to visit and worked with the Hungarian government to clear the red tape standing in the way of Carlsons trip. Theres no Western thinker who more clearly exemplifies the rights Orbnist turn.

In a Wednesday piece, Dreher mocks the very idea that the Hungarian leader might have destroyed democracy: Golly, that Orbn must be an incompetent autocrat if he allows free and fair elections to take place, and he permits anyone to stand in the street in Budapest and denounce him.

But later in the same piece, he argues that Orbns willingness to wield power against his cultural enemies is precisely what the American right needs to emulate.

Which is the only power capable of standing up to Woke Capitalists, as well as these illiberal leftists in academia, media, sports, cultural institutions, and other places? The state, he writes. This is why American conservatives ought to be beating a path to Hungary.

In Drehers mind, Orbns illiberalism is not anti-democratic but simply a defensive reaction to the lefts attempts to stamp out traditional cultural practices.

The unhappy truth is that liberalism as we Americans have known it is probably dead. Our future is almost certainly going to be left-illiberal or right-illiberal, he writes. The right-of-center thought leaders who want to figure out how to resist effectively will be coming to Budapest to observe, to talk, and to learn.

This siege mentality allows Dreher to justify admiring an authoritarian who has forcibly stamped out the free press without seeing himself as betraying democracy. Hungarys government is not undemocratic but merely illiberal an unsavory but necessary reaction to the lefts stranglehold on the cultural realm.

This two-step its not really undemocratic, and its necessary to fight the left is exactly how Republicans justify their own attacks on democracy at home.

Extreme gerrymandering, seizing control over local election boards, purging nonvoters from the voting rolls, stripping power from duly elected Democratic governors, packing courts with partisan judges, creating a media propaganda network that its partisans consume to the exclusion of other sources all Republican approaches that, with some nouns changed, could easily describe Fideszs techniques for hollowing out from democracy from within.

The Republican turn on democracy is in significant part fueled by the rights sense of leftist ascendancy heightened by electoral defeats in 2008 and 2020 and strengthened by defeat in culture war battles like same-sex marriage. Drehers punditry on Hungary is an unusually honest expression of this attitude; hes articulating what many on the right believe but are afraid to own too openly.

This, ultimately, is what makes Carlsons pilgrimage to Budapest so worrying. The Fox hosts massive following gives him unusual power to set the terms of the conversation on the right; when he talks, Republicans from Trump on down listen. His bear hug embrace of Orbn could not only bring the Dreher view out into the open but also strengthen its influence over the GOP.

Republicans today arent directly imitating Orbn; they have their own anti-democratic playbook, drawn from all-American sources. Carlsons active embrace of Hungarys strongman risks making that connection more direct, giving Republicans more ideas for how to seize control and a more powerful sense of justification in doing so.

Here is the original post:
Tucker Carlson, Hungary, and the rights embrace of authoritarianism - Vox.com

Tunisia currently faces its most critical political crisis since the 2011 revolution that introduced democracy. On Sunday 25 July, President Kais Saied announced that he was removing Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi, as well as thedefense and justice ministers. He also said he would suspend Parliament, insisting his actions were in line with the constitution. This intervention was a result of protests around the country over the governments handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a spike in cases. There has also been a drop in the economy and employment. Tunisia is the last living successor of the Arab Spring, but with its president putting a freeze on the entire government, the future of Tunisian democracy seems unstable.

According to The Guardian, President Saieds invoking an emergency article of Tunisias constitution came as a result of the intensified demonstrations against the countrys largest party-the moderate Islamist Ennahda (IE) faction. In his speech, Saiedexplained that Parliament would be suspended for 30 days, though he said it can be extended if needed until the situation settles down.After the announcement, tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of major cities to celebrate the suspension of political parties. However, as he stated he would assume executive authority with the assistance of a new PM, he received major backlash from authorities.

Parliament Speaker Rached Ghannouchi, head of the Ennahda, said to Turkish television: [K]ais Saied is dragging the country into a catastrophe. Additionally, the political elite emphasizes how the president has failed to deliver the democracy he was elected for. United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken encouraged Saied to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights. He also urged Tunisias leader to keep an open dialogue with all political actors and its people.According to Reuters, the dramatic move has been labeled a coup by some experts, but Saied has rejected all accusations.

With the Tunisian governments failure to handle the pandemic, there has been an outbreak of popular discontent of parliamentary politics. Thousands of people defied COVD-19 restrictions in demonstrations, which sparked clashes with security forces in several cities on Sunday, right before the Presidents announcement. Over 18,000 people among Tunisias population of 12 million have died of coronavirus since the pandemic began. Restrictions have had severe effects on health services and the vital tourism industry. However, President Saieds actions to sack the government and freeze all parliamentary positions are extremely drastic. Many politicians already warn that invoking article 80 of the constitution, which allows the president to take exceptional measures in the event of imminent danger, effectively translates to total executive power for an unspecified period. Putting a hold on the democracy Tunisia has built up over 10 years will impose serious consequences on its citizens.

Tunisia has been recognized as the sole success of the 2011 Arab Spring, but the current crisis has roots in a dispute over the constitution during economic pressures. Throughout his presidency, Kais Saied, an independent without a party affiliation, has made no secret of his desire for a new constitution that puts the president at center stage. Reuters reported that when he was elected president in October 2019, he described his victory as a new revolution. Additionally, he has previously threatened to dissolve parliament as a way to overhaul a complex political system plagued by corruption. However, the biggest dispute has been with the IE and its veteran leader Rached Ghannouchi.

Over the past year, Saied and Ghannouchi have clashed various times over cabinet reshuffles and control of security forces, which has complicated efforts to handle the pandemic and address an expanding financial crisis. Saied was one of the legal advisers who helped draft Tunisias 2014 democratic constitution, although he soon spoke out against elements of the document. Now, the political elite of Tunisias revolution is emphasizing his role as its executioner, claiming the government suspension and freezing of parliament are an attack on democracy.

As protests exploded in January, it was the government and Parliaments old parties that faced the publics anger as COVID-19 cases spiked. President Saieds decision to fire the PM and suspend the government, with plans to reestablish it, has not shown any signs of improvement. He has yet to make any significant moves. The place where the Arab Spring started, is now a test for an administration that pledged to strengthen global democracy. Some experts believe that the Arab Spring is not dead, but Tunisia needs outside encouragement. Particularly, a pushback against the autocrats is needed. The country has received far too little support from other democracies in Europe and the U.S. Their pro-democracy credibility is crucial to support the Tunisian government in re-establishing democracy.

View original post here:
Tunisia Facing Its Biggest Threat Against Democracy As President Suspends Parliament - The Organization for World Peace