Mediaboss Marketing

President Trumps firing of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, is another move by the Trump administration that, though likely legal and not totally unprecedented, appears to violate core democratic values.

The firing was dramatic, with Attorney General William Barr announcing late on Friday night Bermans resignation and a replacement. Berman issued a statement roughly an hour later saying that he had not resigned and that Barr personally did not have the right to fire him due to the nature of his appointment. So on Saturday afternoon, Trump himself fired Berman, and Barr designated a different person to replace Berman than the one he had named on Friday. The firing was also somewhat surprising given that Berman is a longtime Republican who not only donated to Trumps first presidential campaign but also served on his transition team.

Yet underlying all the drama is something weve gotten used to in the Trump era: the breaking of democratic norms and values, which are two distinct concepts. As weve written about before, values are fundamental principles (e.g., free speech), whereas norms are the unwritten rules we abide by (dont cut in line) that sometimes reinforce those values (Supreme Court justices dont endorse political candidates, thereby bolstering the independence of the judicial and executive branches) but also sometimes dont. So lets look at Trumps firing of Berman in the context of some of those values.

Under Bermans leadership, the Southern District was reportedly investigating Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani, including Giulianis dealings with Ukranian officials that were scrutinized as part of the impeachment inquiry against Trump. We dont know the status of that investigation, whether Giuliani was likely to face criminal charges or even whether that investigation was a factor in the decision to oust Berman. There is some logic to the idea that Department of Justice prosecutors should avoid making decisions close to the election that might influence its outcome indicting the presidents attorney is arguably such an example. In fact, Democrats in 2016 criticized then-FBI Director James Comey on these grounds, when he announced less than two weeks before Election Day that he was reviewing new evidence involving Democratic nominee Hillary Clintons use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

That said, if Trump and Barr were trying to protect Giuliani (and therefore Trump), it fits a pattern of Barrs Justice Department seeming to extend special treatment to Trump allies. In February, DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors and asked for a significantly lighter sentence for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. All four prosecutors withdrew from the case and one resigned in protest of the decision. Even more unusual was the decision in May by a Barr-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to drop charges against Trumps first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Not only did a career prosecutor quit that case as well, but federal appeals judges are considering not allowing the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The democratic value at play here is equal justice under the law a person should not get unusually lenient treatment by the Justice Department if he or she is an ally of the presidents. Arguably, previous presidents have violated this value for example, as he was leaving office, Bill Clinton pardoned the ex-husband of a major Democratic Party donor.

The most alarming potential explanation of what happened to Berman is that Barr tried to fire him specifically for investigating Giuliani. A milder version may be that the Southern District, under Bermans leadership, demonstrated that it did not care about Trumps preferences and would investigate whichever crimes it deemed important, no matter the potential ramifications for Trump. Two years ago, the Southern District persuaded onetime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a number of crimes, including violating campaign finance law, with Cohen suggesting his illegal behavior came at Trumps behest. (Its worth noting that Berman recused himself from that case.)

So Barr and Trump may consider Berman insufficiently loyal to their interests and fear he would bring charges that would reflect badly on Trump or Republicans, even if Berman didnt bring forward a case clearly linked to the president.

Indeed, the Trump administration has a long record of demoting, reassigning, firing or otherwise sidelining law enforcement officials who show independence from the White House: Comey, former FBI general counsel James Baker, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump or his allies often hinted that Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller would be fired during their tenures as deputy attorney general and DOJ special counsel, respectively, in a manner seemingly designed to intimidate them. Trump has also recently complained about current FBI Director Christopher Wray and hinted that he could be fired.

And Barr has implied that the Justice Department will seek to bring charges against those involved with initiating the investigations of the Trump campaigns connections to Russia in effect, criminalizing efforts that bring scrutiny to the president.

Again, it is not unprecedented for presidents to replace law enforcement officials. Presidents in both parties traditionally replace with their own choices all the U.S. attorneys appointed by the previous administration, which often results in a wide partisan swap. As president, Clinton fired the FBI director, and most notably, in what came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre, then-President Richard Nixon purged the senior leadership of the Justice Department for refusing to quash an investigation of him he was forced to resign in part because of these moves.

The democratic value at stake here is the independence of law enforcement. That ideal, that their decisions should be divorced from politics, is hard to maintain if key law enforcement officials are constantly worried about being fired by the president, attorney general or anyone else for political reasons.

Its worth thinking about the initial bid to fire Berman on Friday night, because that is in part what made this move so problematic at first glance. It appeared to be an attempt by Barr and Trump to install at the top of an important law enforcement agency (the Southern District of New York) someone more likely to be friendly to their interests. Generally, when a political appointee like a U.S. attorney leaves, he or she is replaced by the No. 2 person in that office, usually a career civil service employee not formally aligned with either party. But on Friday Barr announced that Berman would be temporarily replaced by Craig Carpenito, a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, a close ally of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump loyalist.

This is a pattern for Trump: removing the leaders of various government agencies or departments, ignoring normal succession procedures and passing over the people who would normally step in, and instead replacing them with Trump allies. The temporary replacements role is essentially to do Trumps bidding in a way that the removed person would not. The most prominent example of this was when, after the 2018 midterm elections, Trump replaced Sessions with his chief of staff at the time, Matt Whitaker. Often, as in the case of Berman, Trump has removed someone appointed in a process he did not totally control (usually Senate confirmation in Bermans case, he was installed by the judges of the Southern District) with someone chosen solely by Trump for that particular role.

Trumps controlling the executive branch in this way minimizing the oversight of other branches weakens checks on his executive power. In this instance, however, Bermans own chief deputy, Audrey Strauss, stepped into the role.

That said, that Carpenito never actually made it into Bermans former position doesnt mean the move wasnt still problematic in terms of oversight. In indicting one Trump lawyer (Cohen) and investigating another (Giuliani), the Southern District under Bermans leadership was effectively conducting oversight of the president, since Giuliani in particular was basically executing Trumps policy goals with Ukraine (pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden). Bermans firing suggests Trump was unhappy with that oversight and wants to limit it.

Trumps attempts to stop oversight of his policy moves is also part of a pattern. He has essentially refused to comply with any congressional investigations into his administration. And over the past few months, he has fired a number of the inspectors general at federal agencies, the people formally charged with scrutinizing the executive branch. The intelligence community inspector general played a key role in bringing forward the whistleblowers complaints about the Trump administrations dealings with Ukraine, leading to the presidents impeachment. Trump seems to now view all inspectors general as threats to his administration.

The democratic value at play here is oversight of the executive branch. The Senates role in confirming executive branch appointees and the presence of inspectors general are ways in which a president in theory is not able to do whatever he wants with the executive branch. Trump seems unwilling to abide by these constraints. Having his personal lawyer conduct foreign policy puts that person out of the purview of the Senate or inspectors general. Firing the U.S. attorney whose office was investigating the presidents lawyer signals that the presidents lawyer and the sphere of policy he is implementing is off limits.

The Berman firing, like the removals of several inspectors general, was done on a Friday night. This is not the most important of these violations of democratic values. Previous presidents and plenty of other people outside of politics, for that matter dump bad news on Friday nights, hoping it will get less media coverage as journalists take off for the weekend.

That said, these firings are important for the reasons I have laid out above. Trumps seeming desire to obscure them suggests he wants to avoid careful examination of decisions that he no doubt is aware will be controversial.

Media and public scrutiny of presidential decisions is a core democratic value as well, even if other presidents have also neglected to maintain it.

And, again, this is a pattern for Trump. In the past few weeks, he and his aides have sought to get CNN to retract and apologize for a poll showing Trump trailing Biden and to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Boltons book, which is critical of Trump. Presidents often complain about polls and dislike books critical of them but Trumps actions go beyond those more traditional objections.

We recently wrote about how the administrations decision to use chemical agents and rubber bullets on protesters outside the White House violated several democratic values. Key officials involved in that incident now seem to regret it. The firing of Berman may also backfire on Trump. It could embolden more people, including some Republicans, to start criticizing the president for politicizing law enforcement decisions.

Bermans decision to resist his firing and administration officials distancing themselves from the White House protest incident suggest something else that should worry Trump: People in his administration may be reading and believing polls showing him trailing Biden, thinking Trump is likely to lose reelection in November and becoming more unwilling to do questionable things to stay in good standing with a man who may not be president come January.

CORRECTION (June 22, 2020, 8:37 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the events that preceded former President Richard Nixons resignation. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon amid the Watergate scandal, but he resigned before the full House held an impeachment vote. Nixon was not impeached by the full House of Representatives.

CORRECTION (JUNE 23, 2020, 7:05 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rod Rosenstein had served as deputy director of the FBI under President Trump. Rosenstein was the deputy attorney general.

The rest is here:
Trumps Latest Firing May Have Violated Four Core Values Of American Democracy - FiveThirtyEight

We do not want our current shuddering troubles to end as the 1850s endedin disunion and civil war. We need a Never again mentality about that history. But we need to understand the portents of disunion. In the 1850s, in three consecutive general elections, American voters went to the polls in the largest turnouts in our history. As much as 75 or 80 percent of the eligible male voters cast ballots in a still largely rural society. Slavery and its related issues and power drove them to vote, as did a thriving level of hard-nosed partisanship. One lesson of 1850s partisanshipwhich eventually pitted Republicans and Democrats (who then made up the pro-slavery party) against each otheris that it can be leveraged for power, and used to change the world. Our current distaste for partisanship is understandable, but polarization can be a means to power and for good or for evil. If this be partisanship, make the most of it.

Ibram X. Kendi: Were still living and dying in the slaveholders republic

In his 1855 autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass wrote that as long as heaven allowed him to do the work of abolitionism, he would do it with my voice, my pen, and my vote. In todays swirling protests, confusion, and strategizing, peopleblack, brown, and whiteare putting their bodies on the line; they are using their voices and, some of them, their pens to make the case against racism and inequality. Some have tipped over into property destruction and violence against authority as they see it. But we cannot forget about the vote; if we do, we may be heading toward disaster.

With that in mind, I make the following modest suggestion. For the week of August 1016, 2020, just before both parties hold their conventions, the enormous rage and energy now exploding in our streets in response to the killing of George Floyd should be harnessed in a massive mobilization effort, in cities and towns across America, to declare that in the November election the United States must shift the course of its history. These immense demonstrations will not only be a powerful statement that Trump and Trumpism must be defeated, but they will provide an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate their coalitions against structural racism, police brutality, unequal health care, and many other issues. And they would build toward a March on Washington on August 28 (the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington). Call it Save Our Democracy week.

How would this actually work? Those who have organized other recent mass gatheringsBlack Lives Matter activists, the leaders of the Womens March of 2017, the students who started the March for Our Lives against gun violence in 2018could draw on that experience to build a new movement. Protest and activism can be combined to forge the beginning of a national renewal.

Here is the original post:
One Week to Save Democracy - The Atlantic

Covid-19 has merely accelerated the great geopolitical reality of the 21st century: the rise of Xis China and the decline of Trumps America Reuters/Kevin Lamarque & Shutterstock; Xie Huanchi/Xinhua News Agency/PA Images

The announcement that democracy had been suspended in the United Kingdom was the seventh item on the BBC News at Ten on 13th March. The year-long postponement of around 120 local elections, including the mayoralties of London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, was mentioned in passing, with no voices raised in opposition. The last time elections had been postponed for longer than a month was during the Second World War.

Two weeks later, the prime ministers declaration that all citizens must stay at home, with the warning that police forces would fine those refusing to comply, was made in advance of any vote by MPs. The Coronavirus Act, rammed through parliament two days later, included a swathe of new powers for the state over the citizen.

If you wanted to protest these decisions the most you could do was write a letter or sign a petition. For the first two months of lockdown, we were barred from meeting anyone outside our own householdthe right to hold a demonstration was effectively suspended.

That such decisions could take place in a liberal democracy would have been unimaginable just a few short months ago. That those decisions had the overwhelming support of the population make this moment stranger still. Our entire way of life was changed, by fiat, and we accepted it.

It happened in other democracies tooindeed in almost every democracy around the world, and almost every member of the European Union. And as the lockdowns are eased, they are being replaced by mass surveillance. In return for the freedom to step outside their homes, citizens are allowing their governments to know where they are, who they have met and the state of their healthphone data, credit card payments, CCTV have all been used to track law-abiding citizens.

Politicians have discussed the idea of immunity passports, dividing populations into those who are free and those who are not. One of the tech companies consulted by the UK government has suggested the use of facial biometrics. The idea of governments tracking us through our movements, our phones, even our facesproposals once seen as the preserve of paranoid dictatorshipshave become acceptable; or, at the very least, the lesser of two evils.

In fragile democracies, Covid-19 has provided an excuse for an authoritarian turn. In Kenya, hundreds have been rounded up and placed in quarantine for such breaches as not wearing masks. In Malaysia, authorities have sought out and detained undocumented migrants on the pretext of fighting the virus. In Turkey, the government has detained hundreds of people for provocative and abusive social media postsor, as you or I would put it, criticising the governments response.

If we compare the United States only to China, then authoritarianism may well being to look tempting

Perhaps most shockingly, in Hungarya member of the European UnionPrime Minister Viktor Orbn introduced new legislation with no sunset clause that allows him to rule by decree, effectively turning the country into a dictatorship, unless he personally chooses to relinquish those powers.

The steps that democratic governments across the world have taken to protect us from Covid-19 have deprived us of our liberty, increased the power of the police, and reduced the power of our elected parliaments. To save lives in our liberal democracies we have becomeand in some respects could well remainilliberal and undemocratic.

At the same time, Chinathe antithesis of a liberal democracyis proclaiming victory, arguing that its swifter, tougher measures have not only shown how to successfully combat Covid-19 but also demonstrated the merits of a more effective model for governing.

This is a global crisis, met by more than 200 different national responses. Since the end of the Second World War, liberal democracies have proclaimed that their form of governance is superior to anything else. Covid-19 is a bracing test of whether we were right.

We should not be surprised, wrote the political scientist Ivan Krastev in March, if, the day after the crisis, China looks like a winner and the United States looks like a loser. The rise of China and the decline of the US has been the great geopolitical reality of the early 21st century. The two nations response to Covid-19 has dramatically accelerated the shift in the balance of power and esteem.

Chinas lockdown appears to have worked. The death toll is astonishingly low: under 5,000 for a nation of 1.4bn compared to a toll, so far, of over 100,000 out of a population a quarter of the size. In other words, the virus has been almost one hundred times more deadly in the US.

The Chinese economy is now back open for business to a far greater extent than western economies, after initial measures that were much more draconian. For weeks, residents in the most affected parts of the country were not allowed out of their homes. In some cities, party officials were posted outside apartment blocks to ensure compliance. As the lockdown was lifted it was replaced with bio-surveillance; smartphones became informantsif you broke the rules, your phone would report you.

Coronavirus apparently beaten, China began its victory lap. Its success, Chinese diplomats claimed, showed that its model of governance worked. As western democracies anguished over which precious rights to withdraw, Beijings international propaganda outfits were loudly trumpeting the advantages of authoritarianism. The world is now entering a global test of governance in which China is now a leader, proclaimed the Global Times, an English language newspaper controlled by the Chinese government. Many western governments ill-equipped to handle coronavirus, read another headline.

Beijing proudly presented itself as the saviour of other nations. Thanks to its global manufacturing might, the life-saving goods of this crisisthe masks, gowns, gloves and medicineare all stamped made in China. But it hasnt waited for other countries to buy them. Stepping into the leadership vacuum left by the US, the Peoples Republic has sent planes carrying equipment and health officials across the worldmore than 100 nations have taken delivery of masks, gowns, ventilators or other equipment.

Dear Chinese friends, sisters and brothers, welcome to Serbia! exclaimed the Serbian President Alexander Vucic, when a shipment arrived in Belgrade. Thank you very much to my brother, President Xi Jinping! Long live China! Italy received masks and goggles, Spain millions of tests, even the UK received a shipment, boxes labelled with a thoughtfully tailored slogan keep calm and fight coronavirus, our own wartime heritage invoked to remind us who our new allies are in the battle against the virus.

Testing kits, face masks and goggles were sent to 10 Pacific island states, while officials from all 10 took part in teleconferences with Chinese counterparts advising them on how to deal with the pandemic. While most international organisations have floundered, the alternative networks Beijing has gradually nurtured over the last 15 years have swung into actionthe 17+1 with central and eastern European nations; the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation; and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, which gives Beijing influence over central Asia.

The contrast with the US is stark. Since the election of Donald Trump, the slow eclipse of American leadership in the world has given way to a rapid downward spiral. His lies, breathtaking in their range, ferociousness and sheer volume; his brazen support for the far-right at home and abroad; his vicious attacks on anyone who dares to oppose him, however timidlyall this is counter to the whole spirit of liberal democracy, driving it apart from established allies and greatly sapping Americas fabled soft power.

In the first two months of the crisis, Trump tried to ignore Covid-19, dismissing it as flu, suggested it would disappear like a miracle, that the weather would sort it, or that he had simply heard its going to be just fine. Once he realised a deadly virus wouldnt back down in the face of a volley of tweets, he changed tack and claimed it was a war and only he could defeat it.

At his daily press briefings he acted like a petty tyrant, abusing reporters who have the temerity to ask him questions he doesnt like (you should say thank you very much for good judgment, he told one from CBS News). As reliably mendacious as he is capricious, he has brazenly covered up his administrations shortcomings: the lack of testing and PPE for medics and carers.

He has undermined the lockdown by railing against it, refused to wear the masks his own administration recommended, and touted miracle curesat one point suggesting it would be interesting to check whether injecting bleach could treat the virus; at another, broadcasting to the world that he had personally been taking an entirely unproven drug.

Petty tyrant: Donald Trumps daily press briefings on coronavirus have been given over to ambushing reporters and undermining lockdown orders Kevin Dietsch/Pool/EPA-efe/Shutterstock

In past crises the world has turned to the US for helpor the US has imposed it without anyone asking. Not this time. Trump has vowed to defund the World Health Organisation (WHO), failed to join allies in the global quest for a vaccine, and has requisitioned US-made medical equipment that was bound for other nations.

The US, the nation with more resources than any other on earth, should have been the most prepared for a pandemicindeed, it was the most prepared before Trump took office. But today, it has the worlds highest death toll.

If we view the United States of America as our beacon of hope, then democracy is indeed in trouble. And if we compare it only to China, then authoritarianism may well begin to look tempting. But look beyond the two superpowers and a different picture emerges: democracies have, overall, dealt with coronavirus far more effectively than dictatorships.

Instead of allowing China to luxuriate in its comparison with a malfunctioning US, judge it instead against its democratic neighbours: Taiwan, seven deaths in a population of 24m; South Korea, 272 deaths in a population of 51m; Japan, 894 deaths in a population of 126m. In this light, Chinas record is average,at best.

Indeed, Chinas autocratic nature helped to unleash the spread of the virus in the first place. The outbreak was covered up by local officials; whistleblowers, such as the 34-year-old doctor Li Wenliang who eventually lost his life to the virus, were gagged or ignored. The government lied to the WHO and only admitted Covid-19s existence when they were confronted with the evidence. Critics of Beijings response have been disappeared. Had China had a free press and a transparent government, the outbreak might have been contained before it took hold.

And for all the PR effort that has been put into its global role, it doesnt withstand much scrutiny. Much of that kit donated to others has proved defective, and by encouraging rumours about America bringing the virus to Wuhan, Beijing has dabbled in the same sort of dishonest power play as Trump. In recent weeks, China has been using its English-language propaganda networks and social media not just to promote its own message, but also to spread disinformation and sow discord in the west.

Step back and review the diverse list of countries that have endured this crisis well, and it is in fact dominated by democracies. Aside from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, there has been much to admire in the responses of New Zealand and Australia; of Germany, Denmark, Norway and Austria. It is not all about prosperity, either. After a dark decade economically, Greece has risen to the hour, and so too, in important ways, have Senegal, Ghana and the Indian state of Kerala.

These democracies have different cultures and characteristics, but they all used the ballot box to pick competent leaders who listened to their experts. All enjoy a spirit of transparency and, perhaps most importantly when combatting a virus, a public that trusts its institutions.

When government is truly of the people then it has, in the words of the first and most celebrated student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, a singular power, with no need to corral others into sharing its beliefs, instead being able to rely on making them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.

We are, in other words, inclined to believe what the government says to the extent we can identify with our government. (Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings take note). And when such a government asks us to lend it emergency power over us, it makes sense for us to acquiesce to the extent that we are confident that they will give that power back.

These are very deep advantages of the democratic over the authoritarian system. Coronavirus may have accelerated the rise of China and the decline of the US, but across the broader canvass, there is still powerful reason to hope that democracy can out.

Nonetheless, this is a moment of peril. Past global crisessuch as the Depression of the 1930s, and the great inflation of the 1970shave produced grave bouts of democratic self-doubt. In a system founded on the right of the people to criticise and change the way they are governed, periodic collapses in confidence are not so much a bug as an occasionally-dangerous feature. The big question for liberal democracies over the coming months and years is whether they can keep faith in themselves, and remain true to their principles. Everything is still to play forbut nothing is secure.

One of the more unnerving aspects of the British lockdown has been the way in which we have all been conscripted into policing it. From social media complaints about joggers failing to respect the two-metre rule, to shaming pictures of individuals sitting down in the park, some of us have enthusiastically dobbed in our neighbours. A YouGov poll in April for Crest, a crime and justice think tank, suggested that 51 per cent of Britons would be comfortable reporting on others.

Some police forces rushed to tap this attitude, setting up online forms encouraging us to report our neighbours for any alleged infringement we spot. Stood in my local park in northeast London this spring, as my son ran around chasing monsters, I glanced around to see if anyone was watching us. Should I do star jumps just in case?

The guidance issued by the government was vague and different police forces and councils interpreted it in different ways. In Derbyshire, the police have used drones to accuse people of breaking the rules by visiting a national park (they werent); in Northamptonshire, the Chief Constable, Nick Adderley said that while his police force would not start to marshal supermarkets and check the items in baskets and trolleys to see whether its a legitimate, necessary item, if people didnt follow the rules, we will start to do that. (He cant.)

A healthy democracy can, in the end, only be sustained in the vigilance of its people. But even before Covid-19 there had been signs of a dangerous complacency setting in. In the midst of the Brexit impasse last year, a Hansard Society poll revealed that 54 per cent of Britons believed that Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules.

Coronavirus, and our response to it, has now confirmed how comfortable we are with acceptable authoritarianism. The lockdown was wildly popularmore than 90 per cent approval in the early weeks, according to a YouGov poll. The Crest survey also showed majority support for deploying facial recognition technology to identify those breaching the rules, as well as for the use of drones to photograph people taking unnecessary journeys. Almost 40 per cent favoured the police naming and shaming offenders on social media.

The idea that government ministers are merely vassals for the decisions of experts is corrosive to the spirit of democracy

While the changes feel sudden, everything that has been done to all of us in the past few weeks has been done to many of the vulnerable in society for far longerand in some cases forever. (The idea that police officers might stretch the limit of their powers is no surprise to any person of colour, or anyone from Liverpool, or from Orgreave, or from Northern Ireland).

But a good starting point for acceptable authoritarianism in 21st-century Britain would be the Labour governments abolition, in 2000, of cash payments for asylum seekers. They were replaced with vouchers for essential items, with supermarket cashiers roped in to decide which items in the basket passed that testrazors and socks, for instance, were often disallowed.

Not long after, the department for work and pensions began actively encouraging snooping, by urging people to inform on neighbours they suspected of working while claiming the dolea stance since formalised into an anonymous benefit cheats hotline. New Labour also used bosses and landlords to check in on migrants, an approach David Camerons government then ramped up with the hostile environment policy, which effectively enlisted NHS staff, employers and anyone renting out a flat as border guards, forced by law to demand that (real or merely suspected) immigrants show them their papers.

One of the reasons why the UK government initially enjoyed such astonishing support, even from people who didnt vote for it, was because it took care to avoid overt party politics, and present itself as simply following the science. In a way, this made for a refreshing break from the expert-bashing populism of the Brexit argument.

But the suggestion that ministers are merely vassals for presenting the decisions of experts is misleading, and corrosive to the whole spirit of democracy. For the reality is that there are always competing arguments, including about interpretation of the technical evidence, and more especially about the policies that follow from it. The Sunday Times has now revealed that some of the governments scientific advisers believed lockdown should have begun weeks earlier. That initial delay contributed to one of the highest death tolls in the world.

Interestingly, what held Britain back, to such ruinous effect, was less doubt over the science than the governments doubt over its own standingthere were fears that an order to stay at home would not be adhered to. And in the months ahead, the inescapably political nature of policy will become clearer if the science is invoked to justify taking us down a controversial path. We are moving from a period where we all gave up our liberty for the greater good, to one where only certain segments of the population will be askedperhaps toldto do so.

Longer arm of the law: police disrupt a park gathering during lockdown Guy Bell/Shutterstock

What if, for example, the science suggests that the best way to re-open the country is to cocoon the vulnerable, as David Halpern, the director of Whitehalls Behavioural Insights Team has already suggested? Are the vulnerable all of the over-70s, and those with what weve come to refer to as underlying conditions?

Or do the vulnerable include people of colour who appear to be disproportionately at risk? Would a government be following the science if it quarantined different races? In China, many of those who have been quarantined have been placed in government hotels. Would we do the same? And, at that point, is hotel really the most accurate word?

Since 9/11 there has been an ongoing battle between security and civil liberties. There are inherently tricky balances to strike and our record is mixed. We have accepted an astonishing rise in CCTV cameras, yet pushed back against other schemes such as ID cards. The Freedom of Information Act has increased transparency without endangering effective government, and the Human Rights Act (and the law of privacy that has developed under its auspices) has bolstered individuals protection without unduly compromising free speech.

Such calibrated responses to the contours and complexities of real life are a vindication of open democratic processes: these reforms were dreamed up and argued for in civil society, vigorously debated in parliament, and are today openly applied in independent tribunals.

It is when liberal democracies lose their nerve, and attempt to operate in the dark, that things get out of kilter. As the Edward Snowden revelations demonstrated, the moment theoretically democratic governments believe themselves to be operating in secret, they can lapse into near-blanket surveillance.

All those battles about liberty and security are about to be refought. Are we willing to allow the government to track our movements, know who we meet, what we buy, know whether were ill? In return for the liberty to leave our homes, the answer is probably yes.

There is a phrase popularised by Martin Luther King and wheeled out by Barack Obama on big occasions: the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Its a nice line, but its not true. Without wishing to take a metaphorical flourish too literally, the arc only bends towards justice if enough pressure is put upon it.

A resurgence of authoritarianism in liberal democracies wont just have an impact inside those countries own bordersit could have profound consequences on the rest of the world too. The international right to asylum, which has already taken a battering over the past five years, could disappear. However well it has been doing with the virus, Greece has shamefully suspended the asylum application process for anyone arriving on their shores, never mind that this is illegal under both EU and international law.

We could easily move into a period where public safety trumps every other value, and freedom of expression, of speech, of religion can all be eroded without a murmur of international opprobrium. On the human rights front, there will surely be more Syrias, and we wont even pretend to care. We risk looking on as democracy is dismantled in previously liberal societies. Because if the UK can suspend elections, anyone can. And if an EU leader like Orbn can rule by decree, what is to stop anyone else?

The absence of principled or effective cross-border alliances redoubles democracys frailty. Coronavirus may be a global crisis, but it has been met by national responses. The EU has been weak, the UN absent, the WHO attacked and too often ignored. If liberal democracies are to survive while being worthy of the name, they will need to stand together for their threatened values. They will have to be clear about what is acceptable and what is notand that means making some bold decisions.

It is time to let America go. It has rarely lived up to the idea that it is the shining city upon a hillAmericas belief in democracy has often only applied within its own borders, as anyone living in Indonesia, Chile or DR Congo, to name just a few, can attest.

But the Trump presidency has taken this to a new level. When Trump announced the withdrawal of US funding for the WHO, the remaining parts of the liberal western alliance should have immediately promised to make up the shortfall. When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo prevented the G7 from issuing a joint communiqu by insisting it refer to coronavirus as the Wuhan virus, it should have released a statement from the G6 and explained publicly why the US was wrong. For too long, western allies have appeased such bullying and, in doing so, failed to stand up for their supposed values. Trump is not your friend; an America led by him is not your ally.

Nor is it too soon to speculate as to how long America can call itself a democracy. Presidential elections are due to take place in November. Can more than 100m people go to the polls if Covid-19 is still rampant? Trumps denouncement of the most practical fallback, postal voting, as substantially fraudulent was so hysterical as to earn a fact-check warning from Twitter; it looked very much like laying down a marker for undermining the electoral process later this year if he doesnt like the way its heading.

It is no longer impossible to imagine him attempting to suspend those electionsa potential first time in US history. Not the Second World War, not even the Civil War could stop Americans voting in November. Should it come to that, liberal democracies cannot stay silent.

By character and inclination, the current president of the US is a fascist. At the moment, Trump remains a fascist operating in a democratic system, but he has spent four years eroding its boundaries. As his despotic response to the riots provoked by the killing of a black man by a white police officer demonstrates, he will destroy any lawful or cultural restraint on his whims whenever he can get away with it.

Nor is it too soon to speculate how long America can call itself a democracy

Europe needs to stand firm too against aspiring autocrats in its own neighbourhood. If the Hungarian government doesnt share your values, they shouldnt be in your club. And yet far from suspending Hungarys EU membership, when 14 nations, led by Germany and France, issued a statement condemning Orbns new laws they failed to mention the country by name. If Budapest turns to China and Russia, so be it. Liberal democracy means something or it doesnt.

The diplomacy of democracy cannot be channelled through groupings like the G20, when it is currently led by the brutal autocracy of Saudi Arabia. If the world needs new multilateral organisations, build them. Create a league of democracies, with a set of standards that each member has to continually meet.

Just as coronavirus might usefully draw a line under the delusions of American exceptionalism, it should also finally banish its ageing British cousin. Our liberalism is not intrinsically less vulnerable than other countries because we supposedly havent been invaded in a thousand years. And our democracy is not more secure simply because weve never lived under a modern dictatorship.

Indeed, our history may leave us more complacent. In the face of the highest Covid-19 death rate on the planet, our prime minister has claimed that other countries have been looking at our apparent success. Instead of deluding ourselves about how were seen, we should have the humility to learn from those who really are succeeding.

What can we learn from South Korea, a relatively young democracy that the west has tended to ignore? What can we learn from Iceland, a European neighbour that we rarely consider? And even if we are stubbornly bent on Anglo-Saxon inspiration, why not learn from New Zealand as opposed to the US?

There are those who would argue that liberal democracy was always an unlikely amalgam. Before the First World War, individual rights and mass people power were often seen as opposed. It was, say these pessimists, only the heat of that conflict that bound them together, and then the need to see off first the Nazis and then Soviet Communism which slowly hypnotised us into believing that they were a natural fit, as opposed to a marriage forged by specific and passing historical contingencies. For liberal democracys critics, Covid-19 may put an ageing accident out of its misery.

This is too gloomy: the right to vote and other civil rights have marched forward in lockstep, and societies that enjoy both have generally beenand remainbetter run and better able to weather most storms. The combination of representative democracy, free and fair elections, democratic oversight of institutions, a free press and human rights for all isstillthe best form of governance humanity has devised.

Just as liberal democracy has evolved since the end of the Second World War, it can now rise again to new challenges. Our approach to dealing with the pandemic must be open, must be democratic. We have been asked to trust experts; governments should, in turn, also trust their citizens.

It will be messy, there will be mistakes. But there really is no other way. If liberal democracy is to be saved, it has to be liberal and it has to be democratic.

Read more:
Coronavirus, the rise of "acceptable authoritarianism" and the battle for democracy - Prospect Magazine

Football and school violence in focus in Hungary

Besides the centenary of the Trianon peace agreement which Hungary recalls as one of the greatest tragedies in its history (link to our story) football was, surprisingly, in the spotlight this week, after Prime Minister Viktor Orban found the time to visit his favourite football academy in Felcst, located right across from his house. There, Orban participated at the launch of a book called Football and Science, which will hopefully provide a scientific base for the resurrection of Hungarian football, Orbans best loved pastime. Sport and football in particular were deemed of strategic importance in 2010 when Orban started his second tenure. Yet, despite billions of forints poured into the sector, Hungarian football teams and the national selection still score poor results.

For a nation like us, football always provides an opportunity for consolation and recompense; it should be treated not just as a sport, but also as part of culture and history, Orban said in his speech. Hungary was the first country in Europe to reopen its stadiums for spectators last week. But local football fans have little cause to celebrate with the Hungarian national team in lowly 52nd place in the FIFA list, far down from 17th place in 2016, thanks to embarrassing defeats against Andorra and Wales.

Hungarys government has meanwhile proposed a new draft law to address security in local schools. The draft envisages that even pupils as young as 12 can be taken away in handcuffs if they behave aggressively and insult teachers. It also proposes the deployment of school guards to some 500 schools to protect teachers from aggressive students. Lszl Horvth, an MP from the ruling Fidesz party, argued in parliament that the root of this aggressive behaviour was in the family. Therefore, the government has proposed that families of aggressive children should be deprived of their child allowances for a year as a punishment.

School violence is a real problem in Hungary. According to a 2018 report by UNICEF, 52 per cent of Hungarian pupils reported being involved in some form of aggressive action in schools, either as perpetrators or victims. Teachers are not spared, mostly of verbal abuse, from students. The country was shocked last December when a 15-year-old pupil attacked his math teacher with a knife, inflicting life-threatening injuries.

But some experts say countering one form of aggression with another is not a good plan. Nra Ritk, the founder of Igazgyngy Alaptvny, a foundation that offers education and integration practices for underprivileged children, said deploying guards in schools might curb displays of aggression inside the actual buildings but would do nothing to prevent aggressive behaviour outside the gates. It was dealing with the symptoms, not the root causes, she stressed. Experts say the law will also further stigmatize students from low-income families, suffering from deprivation, mostly from a Roma background. Instead of training teachers and students in conflict resolution techniques, it could push students from problematic background towards more criminality and away from integration argued Tams Totyik, the vice-president of the teachers union, in the weekly Hvg.

Go here to see the original:
Democracy Digest: Elections, Economy and School Violence amid COVID19 - Balkan Insight

I mean, you know, on the one hand, stuff that a lot of people have been saying about Trump, some of which I've been saying about Trump for some time. But from his former secretary defense, the adult in the room, Mad Dog Mattis, four-star general respected by everyone, lends a veneer, a sheen of both credibility and respectability to the Trump cabinet in the early years. Of course, then he leaves, but does not say anything negative about the president and refuses to go on the media tour that so many other former cabinet officials have done and was under massive pressure for doing so. So many people calling on him, "why are you not making any statements?" Now, of course, the GOP not making any statements either, but still, Mattis is someone who was seen to be above the fray and particularly well respected in the middle of a national security crisis with so many protesters on the streets, a fair amount of violence, the police brutality and the country so incredibly divided.

The timing, I think, especially after President Bush made his statement, something that President Bush really did not want to do and I thought, a very effective statement, a very unifying statement. I think the amount of personal pressure that Mattis would have been under in the last 24-48 hours would have been extraordinary and so he decided finally he needed to say something. I will tell you, I personally don't think this is going to have much of an effect on Trump's reelection possibilities. I don't see Mattis as someone who is going to become a leading voice on CNN or MSNBC. I think it will make news over the course of this weekend and by next week it'll be gone. But I do think it's important for people to understand that the national security complex in the United States, including those people that report to the commander-in-chief, are not automatons and they will not simply do his bidding.

And I think that perhaps the more important piece of news in the last 24 hours was not the Mattis letter, but was actually the letter from the chief, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, who was seen in, you know, fatigues and camos out on Lafayette Square and walking around the White House, quite unusual, but then sent a memo to all of his direct reports saying that their duty is to uphold the Constitution, making it very clear where their loyalties are. And, of course, highly unusual. Why would you need to send out a letter that is, on the one hand, so obvious? What's the reason for it? What's the timing? Well, precisely because there is this open question of the constitutionality of dispersing a peaceful protest on public land with no advance notification. And the head of the Joint Chiefs making very clear that they do not serve the president, they serve the Constitution. That's where their loyalty is. Now, he didn't mention President Trump in that memo, but the point was very clear, which is that the United States is not an authoritarian country, is not in danger of becoming an authoritarian country. And that as divided as the country is and as unequal and unrepresentative as America's institutions are, it is not a dictatorship.

And I think the consistent thing that we can say about Trump's lead not only is, you know, his level of incompetence or his unfitness to rule, but also how constrained he continues to be. This is not about Trump able to wield power no matter what. It's actually Trump continually needing to bolster himself up precisely because he's constrained. He has to go to the bunker. Why does he go to the bunker? Because there's a national security threat against him. He didn't want to go to the bunker. He had to go to bunker. It gets reported. It gets out. So, then he has to say, "oh, I was inspecting the bunker. I didn't need, it wasn't because I was scared." No. Any president of the United States, no matter how brave you were, is going to be in the bunker at that point. That's it. That's the way it works. That's what happens when you are the president of a democracy with rule of law. But Trump can handle it. So, he makes it seem like he's stronger than he actually is.

And I think it's important for those that dislike him to understand that we're not on the path to dictatorship. We're not on the path of implosion. We are an incredibly divisive and increasingly dysfunctional country that doesn't know exactly what we stand for and therefore has a hard time leading internationally as well. Both capability and desire.

I will say that a bigger part of the problem is what I saw from Senator Republican Senator Murkowski, who came out just in the last few hours and said, "I completely support everything Mattis just said. It was overdue and it was true. It was correct." In other words, yes, the president is unfit. Yes, unconstitutional. Yes, he shouldn't serve. And she also said, "and therefore, I am struggling mightily with the question of whether or not to support him in November." Now, I mean, you can imagine that's big news, right? A Republican senator saying, "I'm struggling with whether or not to support Trump," but that's actually not the news. Actually, the news is that with the exception of Mitt Romney, who usually votes with Trump, but voted against him in the impeachment, the sole Republican vote, and who is personally very wealthy, very secure and has a lot of personal history and enmity towards President Trump. Aside from him, there has been no one on the Republican side that has gone out and said, "Trump, that's it, I'm breaking from you." And the reason for that is because they are focused on their jobs and the GOP above everything else.

And by the way, the Democrats do this, too. It's just the Democrats don't happen to have a president who is massively unfit. If they did, I suspect they would behave the same way. But they don't. The Republicans do. And that is a serious problem because it means that despite all the unfitness, President Trump could still win. He still has 42 percent approval ratings right now, which is where he was when the unemployment rate was at record lows, and when the economy was doing really well. And now we've got pandemic and 105,000 to 110,000 Americans dead, and continuing to grow. We've got 25% unemployment. And just today, another couple, well over a million new unemployment receipts, higher than the markets expected persisting. Six to eight percent contraction of the U.S. economy this year. And yet Trump is still at 42%. And among Republicans, he's done exceptionally well. He's easily polling consistently high 80s, low 90s with Republican voters in the United States. And that is what drives Senator Murkowski and many others to say, "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, but..." And the but is the driver of action. Important to recognize that. Some insight into just how divided America presently is.

I hope everyone's doing well. Please avoid people. If you can't avoid people, socially distance, wear your masks. My goodness, I completely understand. I'm deeply sympathetic and supportive of all of the protesters that have been out there over the last few days. But please, please, please, not mass gatherings where you can't socially distance. You're putting yourself in danger. And I worry about that. I really hope we don't have a secondary outbreak that leads us to have to shut things down again. So many more people will suffer as a consequence of that. And we know who's going to suffer the worst, it will be the people that can least afford it, including a lot of the people out there that are protesting. So, that's a little bit of inequality and injustice in the world order as we see it right now.

More Show less

Here is the original post:
Dennis Kwok on the end of democracy in Hong Kong - GZERO Media