Mediaboss Marketing

The current investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections aim to shine daylight on crucial issues for our democracy. Oddly, some in Congress have called for curtailing key aspects of their own investigations until Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation has concluded, threatening a long-standing congressional responsibility to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people.

Just last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob GoodlatteBob GoodlatteJudiciary Committee Republicans want a second special counsel: report Mnuchin: Trump administration examining online sales tax issue Republicans battle within party over online sales tax bill MORE, said that "Until Mr. Muellers investigation is complete, it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues he is investigating. In June, Congressman Trey GowdyTrey GowdyThese 5 House Republicans are ripping their Senate colleagues over healthcare House Intelligence Republican: Claims Gowdy acted as second lawyer for Kushner 'horses---t' GOP lawmaker wants former Obama aide to testify MORE, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Majority Leader John CornynJohn CornynNew GOP immigration bill would drastically increase border surveillance: report The growing Chinese threat to advanced technology industries GOP senators ask Trump to hold off on Venezuelan oil sanctions MORE, the second-ranking Senate Republican,expressed similar views.

But we disagree.

Congress, on the other hand, has the Constitutional mandate to investigate broader issues than that of a law enforcement probe. When properly conducted, congressional oversight is essential to keeping the executive branch accountable, and to ensuring that our democracys system of checks and balances works.

So far, both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have correctly resisted calls to curtail their investigations in Russian election meddling while the independent Special Counsel proceeds. These two committees are undertaking a largely bipartisan examination they are holding hearings, demanding documents, and interviewing witnesses as part of a rigorous investigation.

As part of this investigation, Congress needs to provide the public with the facts, and then grapple with the underlying issues. Unlike a special prosecutor, Congress can explore not only whether the law was broken but also whether possible ethical violations require new laws. For example, Congressional investigators can ask how to strengthen the Foreign Agent Registration Act. They could also determine steps to increase protections for the integrity of elections.

Many past Congressional investigations led to reforms that would not have been enacted had the inquiries been limited to criminal law enforcement. For example, the Watergate Committees work led to the passage of landmark government reforms such as improved campaign finance laws, a strengthened Freedom of Information Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and the Inspectors General Act. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee conducted its investigation into the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal in parallel with numerous criminal prosecutions, resulting not only in nearly 20 people pleading guilty or being convicted, but also in the passage of a number of lobbying disclosure and ethics rules and the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Are there too many cooks in the kitchen? That is a manageable problem as well. Experts at a July 11 hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, including those with Iran-Contra and Watergate experience, described the legal and procedural approaches to ensure that different investigations do not step on each others toes. Communication between Mueller and Congress is essential.

Similarly, the different House and Senate players should coordinate among themselves, as they have successfully many times in the past. For example, when the Iran-Contra investigations launched in 1987, the House and Senate came together and established a special joint committee to examine allegations that senior officials in the Reagan administration secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran in violation of an arms embargo.

This bipartisan, bicameral examination engaged many members from key congressional committee, with differing points of view and expertise. Ultimately, the investigative work of Congress resulted in important reforms, including government oversight over covert action.

Clearly, concerns about Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, which bear on the integrity of our democratic institutions, demand congressional attention. Criminal investigations examine the past. History tells us that Congress can and must examine a broader set of issues to craft solutions that look to the future.

Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a watchdog organization that champions good government reforms, and has testified before Congress on its oversight role. Faiza Patel is the co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. Both organizations have recently released reports on the topic.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Continue reading here:
Congressional investigations not just special counsels strengthen our democracy - The Hill (blog)

Brazils democracy is at risk if the armed forces are not properly funded to fight organized crime, according to the countrys Defense Minister, Raul Jungmann.

"The armed forces are at their limit, they need room to breathe," Jungmann saidin an interview with Bloomberg in his office in Brasilia. "We need special measures for defense. Its the price the nation ought to pay for its sovereignty."

Photographer: Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Images

The army has taken part in operations carried out by the Rio de Janeiro states security forces against organized crime. At the beginning of this month, a joint task force of around 5,000 military personnel and police officers targeted factions involved in drug-trafficking and cargo theft. Some communities there are beyond the control of the state, Jungmann said, and criminal organizations stop their residents from voting freely.

The violent nature of organized crime favors the spread of radical ideas, like the death penalty, as well as populists claims that try to fool people into quick-fix solutions, he said. The comments were an apparent reference to federal deputy Jair Bolsonaro, an army reservist who intends to run for the presidency in 2018 on a hard-line law and order platform.

"It would be good to get some results from these operations by 2018 because the lack of security destroys conviviality," Jungmann said. "It has a regressive effect on society, both at the civilizational and humanitarian level."

From 2011 to 2015 Brazil registered more violent deaths than Syria, according to the Brazilian Forum on Public Security. Close to 60,000 Brazilians were murdered in 2015 alone, the last year for which figures were available.

"When crime reaches a certain level, like in Mexico, this becomes a problem for democracy itself as constitutional rights and guarantees start becoming violated," Jungmann said.

The power of organized crime in Brazil, on top of the countrys dire fiscal crisis that has crippled basic state functions and delayed salaries for public sector workers, including police, has spawned fears of a deterioration in security ahead of the 2018 elections.

In last years municipal elections in the north-eastern state of Maranhao gangs attempted to block voting.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Jungmann said that he is waiting for the economic team to free up resources after the government slashed the defense investment budget in 2017, as part of across-the-board cuts in public spending. The ministry had drawn up an investment budget of 15 billion reais ($4.7 billion) before the government froze 9.6 billion. Jungmann is due to meet the Finance Minister, Henrique Meirelles, shortly to plead his case for extra funding.

Yet the idea of increased armed forcesspending to contain crime when several police forces are under-funded, rubs many people the wrong way in a country where the military ruled until just over three decades ago.

President Michel Temer in May triggered an uproar and had to issue a statement justifying his actions when he sent soldiers and marines to patrol the streets of Brasilia during anti-government protests that ended up torching a ministry building.

Policing alone is not the enough to stop the public security crisis, says Jungmann, who was elected as a federal deputy and previously held the agricultural development portfolio.

"Rio de Janeiro is in a fiscal crisis, unable to pay even salaries and overtime compensation for security forces, and without improvements in infrastructure or health care, the situation tends toward unrest and despair," he said.

Jungmann praised the federal governments recent decision to nearly double the amount of families in Rio de Janeiro eligible for the benefits program, Bolsa Familia. The defense minister said it will help to protect poor families who are most vulnerable to the crisis.

There is no long term solution to Brazils violence unless the country addresses the underlying conditions that allow crime to flourish, he added.

Read more:
Brazil Democracy at Risk Without Defense Boost, Minister Says - Bloomberg

Both men use the phrase born and bred to define their relationship to the smallish Southern college town, nestled in the hills in the politically contested state of Virginia.

The white man, Ed Knight, was wearing a Confederate flag bandana around his head.

You, with that stupid Confederate flag, talking about history, the black man, George Steppe, said. You dont know nothing about no history. Only thing you know is hate.

This is our history and it should not be destroyed, Knight said of the statue of Robert E. Lee in the park, where an alt-right Unite the Right rally had been scheduled.

Knight supported the rally that brought hundreds of armed racists and fascists to his home city on August 12. It also brought hundreds of anti-fascists, some of them armed with sticks and shields as well, pledging to defend the city from right-wing terror. Now, after hours of bloody battle during which they remained largely passive, riot police were breaking things up, pushing Steppe back, inching forward behind their shields. Knight walked alongside with a sign reading, Make C-Ville Great Again.

The chaos started the night before, as the Nazis and other racists gathered for the twenty-first-century version of a Klan rallya Klanclave of khaki and tiki torches. At one point, a group of the white supremacists surrounded a group of counterprotesters, throwing punches and torches.

Within minutes of arriving in town on Saturday morning, we saw the first of many fights.

White supremacists with helmetssome German World War II-erawhite polos, sticks, an assortment of flags, and homemade shields marked with the insignia of the racist group Vanguard America chanted at a smaller crowd of counterprotesters.

You cant run, you cant hide, you get helicopter rides, they said, a reference to far-right governments in Argentina and Chile in the seventies and eighties that threw leftists from helicopters to disappear them.

The racists began to march forward and the anti-racists tried to block them. After a swirl of violence and swinging sticks, three of the counterprotesters were left with bloody facesthe racists seemed to target womens faces with their sticksand the racists, who also took some heavy blows, ran away as the cops finally rolled in and began setting up a barricade.

Over the next several hours, this same pattern continued to play out: another fight broke out every few minutes as a new faction of the right marched in its crazed Tom Sawyer armor toward the park.

The park was filled with every variety of racist you can imagine, from the Nazi biker to the fashy computer programmer. They were almost exclusively white and male. The anti-fascist activists who packed the streets were predominantly white, but there were far more women and people of color opposing the Nazis. Otherwise the two opposing armies seemed to be of roughly equal size. The fights were swift, chaotic, and brutal.

The two sides launched bottles and tear gas canisters back and forth as state troopers stood and watched, slack-jawed. At one point, as a few bottles whizzed by him in quick succession, a trooper perked up enough to pull out his phone and record some of the mayhem.

When the police declared the assembly illegal before it even began and told everyone to leave, it forced these groups together. Right-wing militia types wielding assault rifles and wearing MAGA patches on paramilitary uniforms roamed through the crowd. Guys with pistols seemed to keep their hands on them, ready to draw at any moment. It felt like something horrible would happen.

Then, as the various groups became separated, it seemed like the rumble had largely ended.

Im glad no serious gunshots rang out. I was threatened with a gun, though. Police wasnt around when a guy pulled up his gun up on me, though, Steppe said, around twelve-thirty p.m.

Steppe and Knight both seemed to think that it was the end of the day.

The racists, who had not been able to hold their rally, were trying to regroup at another park a little farther from downtown. Eventually, as a state of emergency was declared, they decided to leavesome of them even suggested hiding in the woods.

Antifa burned right-wing flags in a park and then marched through the city; two groups converged on Water Street at around 1:35 p.m. It felt triumphant. They had driven the racists out of townor at least those from out of town.

About five minutes later, as they marched through the streets, it sounded like a bomb exploded as a muscle car, which police say was driven by alt-right member James Alex Fields Jr., sped down the street and plowed through the march and into other cars. Fields then threw the weaponized car into reverse, fleeing from the scene of terror.

Bodies were strewn through the road. Street medics, marked by red tape, delivered first aid while waiting on ambulances to arrive. Activists held Antifa banners to block camera views of the injured.

The alt-righters were nowhere to be found. Trump meandered through a speech in New Jersey in which which he condemned violence on "many sides."

He did not use the words white supremacy or terrorism. He did not say the name of Heather Heyer, the woman who was killed in the terror attack. He did not offer support to the nineteen others who were hospitalized or prayers for those who were still in critical condition.

Fields, who was photographed earlier in the day with the same Vanguard America shield we saw when we first arrived in town, was arrested and charged with murder.

I am writing this later the same night as the attack, and I wont to pretend to know what it means for our country. The racism is not new. The argument Steppe and Knight were having in their hometown could have happened any time in the last fifty years. But the way the battle over white supremacy was being waged around them was new, and Charlottesville was not ready for it. None of us are.

When that gray car slammed into those people, it shattered a part of America, or at least the illusion of it. I dont know what that means yet, because it shattered something in me, too.

Additional reporting by Brandon Soderberg.

Continue reading here:
Democracy in Crisis: Charlottesville and the Shattering of America - The Independent Weekly

On June 18, NPR published an online-only review of Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, a newly published nonfiction book by Duke University historian Nancy MacLean. NPR's reviewer praised the book for revealing a "clear and present danger" to the future of the country (the review is prominently excerpted on the book's Amazon page); reviewers at other publications did, as well.

About 10 days after the review was published, critics began raising complaints about MacLean's scholarship, ranging from charges she had misquoted some of those she cited to deeper questions about how she interpreted the history. Jonathan H. Adler has been keeping a running update of the criticisms (and praise) at The Volokh Conspiracy, a Washington Post opinion blog that calls its writers "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don't toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other." While many of the critics of the book are libertarians, criticism has also come from some in the center and on the left.

As the controversy over the book blossomed, a handful of NPR readers wrote to object to NPR's review. They raised three points: How could NPR praise a book whose scholarship had been so challenged? Why was the review assigned to a novelist, Genevieve Valentine, and not a historian? And why hasn't NPR followed up with a news story on the controversy?

First, some context. NPR has made a push in the past year to review or interview the authors of all major nonfiction books that are published, and as close to publication date as possible. It's a huge exercise in coordination that involves NPR's newsmagazines, Here and Now, shows NPR distributes (including Fresh Air and 1A) and the online news operation in the first week of September alone, more than 40 nonfiction books are coming out. Other major news organizations treat book reviews more selectively; The New York Times, for example, has yet to review or even mention Democracy in Chains, while the Washington Post has run more than a dozen mostly opinion pieces about it, but no review.

Thus, NPR's Democracy in Chains review came out just five days after the book was published. As I told two of those who emailed, I can't find fault with Valentine's review; she was asked to give her opinion and the questions about the book were raised after her review came out.

But the choice of reviewer and whether a follow-up is due are interesting questions for the newsroom.

Michael Baddorf of Rochester, N.Y., wrote to my office: "Novelists are not good choices to review works of history, particularly works that make bold claims with controversial political implications."

The books editors turn frequently to Valentine to review a wide range of books, many of them nonfiction. Ellen Silva, the supervising senior editor overseeing NPR's books, arts and culture coverage, said the editors believe a novelist can bring insights into nonfiction books as well as fiction, and called Valentine "a valued critic at NPR books who is a master of the quick turnaround."

Petra Mayer, an NPR books editor who helps coordinate and assign reviews, expanded on the insights a novelist can bring to a nonfiction review: "A novelist can tell you whether a book is well-written, well-structured, well-edited are the characters compelling? Does it tell a coherent story? Does it move the reader? Those are all things that are just as applicable to nonfiction as fiction, and are all things it's important for our readers to know about a book they may spend time or money on. Ultimately, her critical opinion was that she found the book convincing and that's what we want from a critic."

That makes sense to me.

That said, some reviews of nonfiction books are assigned to subject-matter experts, who in theory at least bring a deep understanding of the relevant background. For example, recent reviews of a couple of important nonfiction books Stanton, a biography of President Lincoln's secretary of war, and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake's Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle were assigned to NPR staff members with expertise in their subjects.

In this case, author MacLean is a respected scholar, so the editors should not necessarily have anticipated the controversy that would arise over Democracy in Chains. Moreover, they also asked the editors who oversee the Washington desk to vet the review; those editors raised no questions about the content.

Still, I think Baddorf has a point. As I said earlier, I do not have a philosophical problem with novelists reviewing history books. But given its provocative argument, this book in particular was almost certain to stimulate a good deal of civic debate. An expert in the topic probably would have been better situated to judge MacLean's work.

Assigning a different reviewer still might not have changed the situation NPR now finds itself in, however, since it has not acknowledged the questions raised in the weeks since the book was reviewed with praise. Michael Hartwell, of Leominster, Mass., argued NPR should cover the allegations being made about MacLean's scholarship. I think he has a point, as well.

MacLean has strongly defended her work, on Facebook, and in an email interview with The Chronicle Review, a publication of the respected Chronicle of Higher Education. That publication also has a good piece about the controversy, which, it says, "has played out with unusual intensity."

As MacLean says in the interview, "The modus operandi of today's right wing goes well beyond normal book reviewing and customary academic debate." Some of the nastier commentary about her book certainly falls into that category; that commentary is not necessarily NPR-newsworthy (although I'm sure it's unpleasant for MacLean). But the debate over the scholarship is. NPR should consider assigning another piece delving into the criticisms, or, at least, append a note to the original review acknowledging the scholarship questions that were raised after the review appeared.

Silva told me the editors indeed plan to add an editor's note to the piece.

Go here to see the original:
Readers Rankled By 'Democracy In Chains' Review - NPR

Earlier this year the Town Meetings of Ashfield, Shelburne and Wendell petitioned the Massachusetts Legislature for permission to lower their voting ages to 16, the first time that voters in Western Massachusetts have done so.

As the students and residents of Ashfield and Shelburne who presented the voting age petitions at our Town Meetings, we could not be prouder. Lowering the local voting age will help spur renewed attention to civic education in our schools, instill a habit of voting in our youth, and invigorate engagement with our local governments and communities. In this era of lackluster voter turnout, rising partisanship, and deteriorating civic education, efforts like this are especially important. That is why we are creating Vote16 Hilltowns, an organization that we hope will help other towns and cities in Western Massachusetts lower their local voting age.

When we first mention the idea of 16- and 17-year-olds voting, many people have questions and concerns. These, broadly, boil down to two issues: do 16-year-olds have the capacity to vote, and why should we want them to?

Both have clear answers. In the first case, researchers have found 16-year-olds to be just as capable of voting as 18-year-olds. Though parts of the brain are still developing at 16, Rutgers University researchers found that voting engages the brains cold cognition abilities, or the ability to think in low-pressure, deliberative situations. The researchers found that this capability, as well as overall civic knowledge, was similar between American 16- and 18-year-olds. Additional evidence from other countries, including Scotland, Austria and Germany, and U.S. cities that currently allow 16-year-olds to vote, demonstrates that 16-year-olds are as capable as 18-year-olds, and retain voting independence from their parents.

As for those who doubt that 16- and 17-year-olds want to vote, in their first election in Takoma Park, Maryland, with no contested races on the ballot, 40 percent voted; a better turnout than the 2014 U.S. midterm elections.

But the capacity to vote is not the only claim 16-year-olds have to municipal voting rights. At 16, they can also claim an undeniable interest in the issues of local government. At 16, they can drive on our local roads, work in our local businesses, and go to our local schools and many pay income taxes. Yet despite these interests, they have no voice in any level of government.

Though its teens to whom we hope to give a voice in our local politics, its our democracy that will reap the benefits. Most importantly, by giving teens the right to vote, we can create lifelong voters, which is essential to our democracys long-term health. Research shows that voting in your first few elections is critical to establishing a lifelong habit of voting. Having teens cast their first votes before voting is complicated by their transition into college or the workforce can help form an enduring habit of voting.

Given that the 2014 midterms had the lowest turnout of any federal election since World War II, increasing the number of voters is crucial to maintaining a representative democracy. Lowering the voting age will not only help create more voters, it will also create more informed and engaged citizens. By engaging teens early, we hope to revitalize civics education and expose them to complex community issues and differing perspectives, giving them the tools and knowledge they need to make their voices heard. And this doesnt begin to cover the benefits we hope to see in our communities, including a boost in volunteers for our local governments and community organizations.

Lowering the local voting age in our towns will not completely fix our electoral system; larger structural reform is undoubtedly needed. But we do think it is an important step in the right direction, and one that our communities in Western Massachusetts can model for those across the Commonwealth and country. Our hope is that many in Western MA feel as we do, and are ready to advocate in their communities as we did. We hope that you will join Vote16 Hilltowns, and that together we can work to strengthen our democracy for the next generation.

Aaron Nelson and Max Carr are co-founders of Vote16 Hilltowns, which can be reached at vote16hilltowns@gmail.com. More information is available at vote16hilltowns.org.

Original post:
Columnists Aaron Nelson and Max Carr: Strengthening democracy for the next generation - GazetteNET