Mediaboss Marketing

American democracy has always been a work in progress. What Abraham Lincoln called the unfinished work of ensuring government of the people, by the people, for the people has suffered its share of setbacks. For decades, Americans trust in government has been declining, signaling that not all was well. Yet until recently, democracy seemed secure in the United States.

No longer. President Donald Trump has unleashed a barrage of attacks on the underpinnings of democratic governance, threatening checks and balances, civil liberties, civil rights, and long-established norms. During last years presidential campaign, Trump discarded the notion of facts as necessary anchors of political discourse and challenged the legitimacy of his political opponent, threatening to lock her up if he won. Since his inauguration, he has castigated sections of the mainstream media as fake news and called them the enemy of the American people, attacked the judiciary, and claimedwithout evidencethat electoral fraud cost him victory in the popular vote. These displays of illiberalism suggest that the American project of self-governance, which Americans have long taken for granted, may be in a more precarious condition than most assumed.

How did the United States come to this point? And how can it revitalize its democracy? Two new books offer useful guidance. Democracy for Realists, by the political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, helps explain the roots of the current crisis. And Democracy, by the historian David Moss, reveals how Americans have overcome political divisions in the past.

The authors of both books make clear that political conflicts in the United States are nothing new. Today, Americans face serious threats to their countrys democracy, but they can draw on a long tradition of conflict resolution. They should relearn how to use the institutions and toolsleadership, negotiation, and compromisethat have sustained American democracy in the past.

FALLING APART

In Democracy for Realists, Achen and Bartels explain that deep-seated social identities and group affiliations motivate political action far more than

See the original post:
Democracy on the Brink - Foreign Affairs (subscription)

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United Statesa man who has praised dictators, encouraged violence among supporters, threatened to jail his rival, and labeled the mainstream media as the enemyhas raised fears that the United States may be heading toward authoritarianism. While predictions of a descent into fascism are overblown, the Trump presidency could push the United States into a mild form of what we call competitive authoritarianisma system in which meaningful democratic institutions exist yet the government abuses state power to disadvantage its opponents.

But the challenges facing American democracy have been emerging for decades, long before Trump arrived on the scene. Since the 1980s, deepening polarization and the radicalization of the Republican Party have weakened the institutional foundations that have long safeguarded U.S. democracymaking a Trump presidency considerably more dangerous today than it would have been in previous decades.

There is little reason to expect Americans commitment to democracy to serve as a safeguard against democratic erosion.

Paradoxically, the polarizing dynamics that now threaten democracy are rooted in the United States belated democratization. It was only in the early 1970sonce the civil rights movement and the federal government managed to stamp out authoritarianism in southern statesthat the country truly became democratic. Yet this process also helped divide Congress, realigning voters along racial lines and pushing the Republican Party further to the right. The resulting polarization both facilitated Trumps rise and left democratic institutions more vulnerable to his autocratic behavior.

The safeguards of democracy may not come from the quarters one might expect. American societys purported commitment to democracy is no guarantee against backsliding; nor are constitutional checks and balances, the bureaucracy, or the free press. Ultimately, it may be Trumps ability to mobilize public supportlimited if his administration performs poorly, but far greater in the event of a war or a major terrorist attackthat will determine American democracys fate.

WHAT BACKSLIDING

Go here to read the rest:
Is America Still Safe for Democracy? - Foreign Affairs (subscription)

The Hindu

Challenges to party democracy The Hindu In the 21st century, among countries where there is electoral democracy, the dominant form is representative democracy. Daniele Caramani's paper, published in the American Political Science Review, titled 'Will vs. Reason, the populist and technocratic ...

Excerpt from:
Challenges to party democracy - The Hindu

Richard Nixon waves goodbye from the steps of his helicopter as he leaves the White House following a farewell address to his staff on Aug. 9, 1974.

There are striking parallels between Watergate and Russias intrusion in our election. In 1972, President Nixons reelection campaign broke into the DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel and wiretapped its phones, hoping to facilitate Nixons victory. In 2016, Russia hacked e-mails from the DNC and the Clinton campaign to help elect President Trump. Now, as then, at issue is whether a president and those closest to him colluded to attack our institutions.

For many, Watergate evokes nostalgia, proof our system works. But in the trenches it was brutal. So I asked William Cohen to assess the current inquiry in light of his central role in Nixons impeachment.

Advertisement

Cohen became a three-term senator from Maine, then secretary of defense. But in 1973 he was 32, a freshman GOP congressman. While he laughingly casts himself as a rookie in hardball politics, his rookie mistake was having principles.

A lawyer, Cohen revered the rule of law. To his peers astonishment, he requested a spot on the Judiciary Committee, a political briar patch bristling with thorny issues like abortion and prayer in school. This proved a fateful choice the House Judiciary Committee is where impeachment begins.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

As Cohen settled into office, dogged investigative reporting surfaced increasing evidence of a White House cover-up forcing Nixon to allow Attorney General Richardson to appoint a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to conduct an independent investigation. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee uncovered the existence of White House tapes that might demonstrate Nixons complicity in the Watergate burglary and wiretaps.

Why is Trump rejecting a bipartisan proposal for a congressional investigation into Russian election-related hacking?

Cox subpoenaed the tapes. In the notorious Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon, to Cohens astonishment, ordered Richardson, whom Cohen knew and admired, to fire Cox. After Richardson and his deputy resigned in protest, Cox was removed.

Democrats argued that Nixon had no right to replace him. But Cohen perceived that a political stalemate could stymie the investigation. Eschewing party loyalty, he argued in The Washington Post that the inquiry would continue only were Leon Jaworski, Nixons new appointee, allowed to succeed Cox. Reversing its prior position, the Post adopted Cohens argument, and Jaworski took office.

Advertisement

Lawyer-like, Cohen began absorbing the evidence against Nixon. In closed hearings, several committee Democrats started yielding time for Cohen to interrogate witnesses, further antagonizing Republicans. Pressure mounted. Nixon visited his district to rally support; at a meeting with GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, including Cohen, Nixon admonished: I may be a sonofabitch, but Im your sonofabitch. Still, when Nixon provided redacted transcripts instead of producing the tapes, Cohen inquired, How in the world did we go from the Federalist papers to edited transcripts?

In themselves, the transcripts indicated illegal maneuvering by Nixon. Jaworski sought to enforce Coxs subpoena, and the House authorized the Judiciary Committee to investigate the grounds for impeachment.

The committees Democratic chair, Peter Rodino, resolved to demand the tapes. Committee Republicans opposed him; two Democrats wanted to pursue impeachment forthwith. Once again Cohen broke ranks, providing Rodino with a one-vote majority.

His recompense was death threats some explicit, one involving a bomb. Constituents sent thousands of hostile letters. A fatalist by nature, Cohen wrote off his political future. Then the Supreme Court compelled Nixon to produce the tapes.

Cohen began comparing them with the transcripts a damning exercise. A small bipartisan group of committee members formed, centered on moderate Republicans like Cohen, struggling to draft articles of impeachment on which they could agree. His bipartisan colleagues asked Cohen to publicly defend two key articles, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, by laying out the specifics against Nixon.

Throughout this difficult work, the group kept faith with each other. After a televised debate which riveted millions of Americans, the committee including six of 17 Republicans voted out three articles.

A bitter impeachment loomed. Then another tape emerged, confirming Nixons involvement in the cover-up. Nixon resigned; the country escaped further trauma and Cohens career survived.

So how, 43 years later, does this experience illuminate the inquiry into possible collusion between Russia and Trumps campaign?

Watergate featured two strokes of luck the tapes themselves, and Nixons decision not to destroy them. But Cohen cites deeper and more sobering differences.

In his view, Russias intrusion in our election is more of an existential threat to our democracy than Nixon was. The power to impeach Nixon existed within our system; we cannot keep a foreign power from distorting our democracy. Thus it is all the more imperative to know whether they colluded with our president.

But while the stakes are greater, our will is not.

Rodino strove to run a scrupulous and bipartisan investigation, free from leaks that would undermine its credibility. By contrast, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, became embroiled in a web of leaks and lies orchestrated by Trumps White House.

During Watergate, Cohen was joined by moderate Republicans who placed country over partisan politics. Todays politics are viciously polarized, moderate Republicans virtually extinct.

Then, as now, the presidents supporters cast any inquiry as an effort to reverse an election. Striking today is the indifference of most Republican officeholders and voters to Russias attack on our election in particular, the House Republicans and their leaders. Protected by partisan cover, Trumps Justice Department is unlikely to appoint an independent special prosecutor free from political influence.

Finally, there is Americas burgeoning indifference to an objective search for facts. As Cohen puts it, There are no accepted truths any longer. It will be a long time, he fears, until we restore our common values with respect to truth and honesty.

Like William Cohen during Watergate, we can but try.

Read more here:
Echoes of Watergate in Russia's attack on US democracy - The Boston Globe

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Vice President Mike Pence has made an unannounced visit to the Demilitarized Zone separating South and North Korea. Speaking at the border, Pence warned that the era of strategic patience with North Korea is over and that all options are on the table.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Just in the past two weeks, the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan. North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.

AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Pences visit comes at a time when tension between the United States and North Korea is quickly ratcheting up. Last week, NBC News reported the Trump administration is prepared to launch a preemptive attack on North Korea if it proceeds towards a nuclear weapons test. Hours before Pence arrived in South Korea, North Korea attempted to test launch a new ballistic missile, but the test failed as the missile blew up almost immediately.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Its unclear if the U.S. had any role in the missiles failure. According to The New York Times, the U.S. has a covert program to sabotage North Koreas missile program using cyber and electronic strikes. During his trip to North Korea, Pence also announced the U.S. would move ahead with deploying the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, despite opposition by China. This comes as China is urging the United States and North Korea to de-escalate the conflict.

LU KANG: [translated] We have reiterated many times that the situation on the peninsula is highly sensitive, complex and risky. We have always insisted that parties concerned should exercise restraint and refrain from mutual provocation and stimulating moves, and should dedicate themselves to efforts that will help reduce the current tension on the peninsula, so as to create the necessary conditions for them to come back to the table and resolve the Korean Peninsula issue in a peaceful way.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about North Korea, were joined by two guests. In Chicago, Bruce Cumings, professor of history at University of Chicago. His recent piece for The Nation headlined "This Is Whats Really Behind North Koreas Nuclear Provocations." Hes the author of several books on Korea, including Koreas Place in the Sun: A Modern History and North Korea: Another Country. And joining us by Democracy Now! video stream, Christine Hong, associate professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, executive board member of the Korea Policy Institute. Shes spent time in North Korea, including a visit to the country as part of a North American peace delegation.

Professor Hong, lets begin with you. The significance of whats taken place in the last few days, starting with today, the surprise visit of Vice President Pence to the Demilitarized Zone?

CHRISTINE HONG: You know, I think what were witness to is a kind of revisionism, both with Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Tillerson. Theyve made comments that Obamas policy of strategic patience is a thing of the past. And I think that that fundamentally misconstrues what the nature of strategic patience was. You know, as you mentioned in your opening description, Obama waged a campaign of cyberwarfare against North Korea. And so, you know, far from being a kind of kinder, gentler or even softer policy toward North Korea, Obamas policy toward North Korea was, in point of fact, one of warfare.

The other thing that I would mention with regard to this is, even the possibility of military action against North Korea, a military option, if you will, thatsthat wasit would be inconceivable, if the Obama administration hadnt made the militarization of the larger Asia-Pacific region one of its topmost foreign policy objectives. And under the Obama strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. concentrated its naval forces to a tune of 60 percentto 40 percent in the Atlanticin the Pacific region.

And so, you know, right now we have the situation in which the [Trump] administration is stating that all options are on the table. And I would want to remind your listeners and viewers that the United States performs the largest war games in the world with its South Korean ally twice annually. And in the course of performing these military exercises, it actually rehearses a number of things. It rehearses the decapitation of the North Korean leadership, the invasion and occupation of North Korea, and it also performs a nuclear first strike against North Korea with dummy munitions. And so, we have as one of the possibilities a nucleara preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea. That is the nature of the unhinged foreign policy that were seeing on the part of the Trump administration.

I would also say that even though North Korea and Kim Jong-un serves as a convenient foil, a kind of bad guy for U.S. foreign policy within the larger Asia-Pacific region, we have plenty of reason to be frightened of Donald Trumps America-first foreign policy, which doesnt serve Americans, much less anyone else around the world.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Bruce Cumings, professor of history at the University of Chicago, you have raised the issue that the media treats everyevery crisis with Korea separate and apart from the previous crises that have occurred. Could you talk about that?

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, thats right. Its not only that, but each crisis is treated as if it has really no background. The fact is that American nuclear intimidation of North Korea goes back to the Korean War. After the Korean War, in 1958, we installed hundreds of nuclear weapons in the south, the first country to bring nuclear weapons onto the peninsula. And North Korea has, essentially, since the late 1950s, had to find a way to deter the U.S. from using those weapons. For decades, they built underground. They have something like 15,000 underground facilities of a national security nature. But it was inevitable that when threatened with nuclear weaponsand Chris is right: President Obama threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons many times by sending B-2 bombers over the south, dropping dummy bombs on islands and so on. It was just inevitable that North Korea would seek a deterrent.

And what is, to me, so insane about thisparticularly this last weekend, when somebody purposely leaked to NBC that the U.S. was considering a preemptive strike, but whats so terrible about it is that you essentially get a standoff, with North Korea having nuclear weapons, the U.S. having nuclear weapons, but North Korea not being able to use them anywhere without being turned into a charcoal briquette. That was General Colin Powells reference to what would happen if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon in anger. So, somehow, I think the Trump administration quite purposely ratcheted up the tension. A week ago it was talk of assassinating Kim Jong-un; this weekend, talk of a preventive strike. I dont think Vice President Pence is right that what President Trump has done shows strength and resolve. Its one of the easiest things to fling 59 cruise missiles into Syria. Apparently, the military has wanted to test this MOAB, "Mother of All Bombs," for some time, and it went ahead and did it. Its not clear what the outcome of either strike is. And it seems that Mr. Trump, who ran on an anti-interventionist platform, is actually enjoying the toys that the military can provide to him, and perhaps using them in Korea, which would be a complete disaster.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Bruce Cumings, I wanted to ask you again about the historical record here. A lot of people forget the severe crises that have occurred between the United States and North Korea over the years. Back in 1968, for example, Korea seized the Pueblo, which was a surveillance ship right off its shores, and held more than 80 U.S. sailors prisoner for a year, before the United States apologized as part of a settlement. And a year later, in 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. surveillance aircraft, where more than 30, I think, U.S. Air Force members were killed in thatin that incident. So theres been a historical brinksmanship situation between the United States and North Korea, especially with the U.S. constantly, as Christine Hong said, displaying aggressive military actions and surveillance over North Korea.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, thats right. I actually was in Seoul when thatwhen the Pueblo was seized in January of 1968. I was in the Peace Corps at that time. That created an enormous crisis. Lyndon Johnson wanted to hit North Korea in retaliation, but was informed that our bombers in South Korean bases, our bases in South Korea, only had nuclear weapons.

But I think the crisis that most clearly resembles the one over the weekend, or the one were in the middle of now, is in June 1994, when Bill Clinton nearly launched a preemptive strike at the Yongbyon plutonium facility. You may remember that former President Jimmy Carter flew to Pyongyang, had a discussion with Kim Il-sung, and out of that came an 8-year freeze on all of North Koreas plutonium.

So, an easy way to solve this problem would be to revive direct talks with North Korea, normalize relations with North Korea, assure them that we dont plan to attack them, and, just through those means, bring down the really terrible tension that existed over the weekend.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, during his trip to South Korea, Vice President Pence announced the U.S. would move ahead with deploying the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, despite opposition by China.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: We will continue to deploy the THAAD missile defense system as a defensive measure, called for by the alliance and for the alliance. We will continue to evolve a comprehensive set of capabilities to ensure the security of South Korea. And as our secretary of defense made clear here in South Korea not long ago, we will defeat any attack, and we will meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective response.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you could talk about this, Professor Cumings, as well as the failed missile launch this weekend of North Korea, what its about, and their parade, where they had these two hugeits not clear what was in them. Was it intercontinental ballistic missiles, or meant toyou to believe that? Talk about each of these.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, the THAAD installation is completely political. The THAAD antimissile system does nothing to stop North Korean ICBMs. Its for short- and medium-range missiles. Furthermore, its not clear that it works. Anyway, South Korea has been under threat from North Koreas short- and medium-range missiles for decades. Its political in the sense that they shoehorned it in there before the May 9th election, when a progressive named Moon Jae-in may well become president and return to a policy of engagement with North Korea. And there will be a lot of estrangement between Seoul and Washington and the Trump administration if that election comes out as most people predict.

The missile launch on Sunday morning apparently was a failure, but it hasnt been reported what kind of a missile it was. David Sanger of The New York Times has been writing several articles, very interesting ones, about the U.S. using cyberwarfare against North Korea. And it might be that they succeeded in sabotaging that launch. But, of course, by doing that, youre playing with fire, because the North Koreans are capable of their own cyberwarfare. In 2014, they took down 70 percent of Sonys computers in response to a film about killing Kim Jong-un.

And as for the parade, I mean, its just the same thing they do every AprilApril 15th. We pay taxes. They honor the founder of the country, Kim Il-sung. And they parade both the latest military hardware, and they like to fool foreign experts by bringing these big tubes out, where they may or may not have an ICBM inside. So that was just classic North Korean showmanship.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Christine Hong, Id like to ask you about the role of China. President Trump is now alluding to the fact that China is supposedly cooperating with the United States in trying to bring, according to the president, North Korea under control. Your sense of what are the options and what is the policy of China right now?

CHRISTINE HONG: Well, I think that we should all be mystified that successive U.S. administrations in the post-Cold War period have attempted to outsource their North Korea policy to China, as though the United States and China maintain the same strategic interests within the larger Asia-Pacific region. You know, Bruce wrote a piece, which you mentioned in the opening, in The Nation, and he pointed out that North Korea recently timed one of its missile tests to coincide with Trumps dinner with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and that this missile was figuratively aimed at Mar-a-Lago. More recently, Donald Trump also responded in kind. So its not simply his tweets that we have to attend to. Its these like dumb shows that hes putting on during dinner. He was having a mealmany people reported thisof dry-aged steak and chocolate cake with Xi Jinping. And, you know, over this beautiful piece of chocolate cake, as he described it, he let Xi Jinping know that he had struck Syria with approximately 60 Tomahawk missiles. And, you know, I can only imagine that this must have been indigestion-inducing, indeed. And, you know, the message seems to be pretty straightforward. The message is, you know, "China, you either rein in North Korea, or the United States will take unilateral action."

But I think that theres a deeper subtext to this, as well. And it goes to the question of THAAD. You know, there isnttheres no way that China and the United States are going to see eye to eye on the controversial deployment of THAAD, which China understands as encroaching upon its sovereignty and enabling the United States to peer, in terms of surveillance, into its territory. Even a CIA official, a former CIA official, Bruce Klingner, whos a Heritage Foundation North Korea watcher, he basically stated that China regards THAAD as a dagger thats aimed at the heart of China. And so, you know, basically, what you have is the United States attempting to get China to rein in North Korea, but the fact of the matter is, is if you even look back to the previous administration, the Obama administration, every single weapon sales, every single acceleration of the THAAD missile defense system into the Asia-Pacific, every single amplified and ratcheted-up war game with various different regional allies was justified in the name of a dangerous and unpredictable nuclear North Korea. But China understood full well what was happening, which was the encirclement of China. So North Korea has served as a very convenient ideological ruse for the U.S. military-industrial complex, when the real target is China.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Bruce Cumings, we just have 30 seconds. The national security adviser, McMaster, General McMaster, said the problem is coming to a head. And then you have Pence talking about the bombings of Afghanistan and Syria, clearly suggesting this was a message for North Korea. But you say that direct talks could happen. How could they happen?

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, China is trying to get the U.S. and North Korea back to the table. They sponsored six-party talks for a number of years during the Bush administration. I think thats probably their preferred venue. But the fact is, you know, four countries there dont really count. The two that count are North Korea and the U.S. talking to each other. And as I said earlier, direct talks have shown North Korea willing to completely freeze their nuclear program. So, its certainly worth a try. Its a lot better than rattling sabers and making empty threats. Were not going to attack North Korea, because it might set off the second Korean War, which would be just catastrophic for the region.

AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Cumings, we want to thank you for being with us, professor of history at University of Chicago. Well link to your piece in The Nation, "This Is Whats Really Behind North Koreas Nuclear Provocations." And we want to thank Christine Hong for joining us, associate professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, executive board member of Korea Policy Institute.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we look at Arkansas and the number of people who are set to be executed because a execution cocktail is set to expire. Stay with us.

See the rest here:
Advocates Urge Trump to De-escalate with North Korea, Not Ratchet Up Threats & Military Aggression - Democracy Now!