Mediaboss Marketing

The Economist last week released its annual global democracy index. Not surprisingly, Israel scored high.

The highbrow magazine ranked Israel very high for pluralism and political culture. It ranked Israel a bit lower for civil liberties mainly because of the Chief Rabbinates ultra-rigid control over Jewish marriage, divorce and conversion.

Indeed, Israel is more globalized, open and democratic than at any time in the states history. Over the past decade, Israels democracy scores have risen from 7.28 to 7.85 on a scale of 1 to 10, according to the Economist.

For comparison purposes, note that Belgium this year rated a score of 7.77, France 7.92, the US 7.98, Britain 8.36, and Canada 9.15. Greece was downgraded to the status of a flawed democracy at 7.23. Turkey is no longer rated a democracy, but a hybrid regime.

And yet, there is a steady drumbeat of warning about dangers to Israeli democracy being propagated these days.

You read it on the front pages of the left-leaning Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz newspapers. You get it from progressive academics in Israeli political science and sociology departments, and you are confronted with it by politicians seeking to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The discourse goes like this: Israeli democracy is under attack by dark forces of ultra-nationalism, racism, fascism and religious radicalism. An ugly wave of hatred is washing across Israel, with fundamentalists leading a surging tide of extremism.

The purported evidence for this is kids who gathered this week to prevent Amona from being destroyed, and hooligans who threatened army leaders and judges after Sgt. Elor Azarias January 4 manslaughter conviction.

Adding to the list of alleged dangers to democracy is a series of nationalist legislative initiatives in the Knesset.

These range from cultural and educational issues (such as spending more shekels on arts communities in the periphery, high school curriculum changes in civics and Jewish-Zionist heritage studies, and keeping the Breaking the Silence organization out of the school system); to constitutional matters (the nation-state bill, and reform of the judicial appointments process); to political initiatives (crackdown on illegal Beduin and Arab building, tougher prosecution of terrorist family members); and so on.

But none of the above actually proves the charges of fascism or undermining of Israeli democracy. Not at all.

The noisy demonstrations and bullying of a few hundred radicals prove nothing, except that there fringe elements in our society that need to be kept in check on the extreme Left and Right. This holds equally true for radicals who threaten to upend Israel on behalf of the terrorist-abetting Arab MK Basel Ghattas, and for those who threaten military judges on behalf of the terrorist-slaying soldier Elor Azaria.

All zealots must be marginalized.

(But note: The right-wingers in Amona dont come close to falling into this category. They were mainly passive protesters, expressing outrage at flawed policy in legitimate fashion.)

IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT how we approach the public policy debate.

It is wrong to portray Israeli society as bisected by two enemy narratives: that of a moral, liberal, democratic, universalist Israeli Left, versus an immoral, illiberal, isolationist, nationalist Israeli Right. This is a false dichotomy, and its an untrue picture of Israeli society.

Like Britain, France, Germany and the US these days, there is a real and worthy debate in Israel over important public policy matters, and there is a continuum of respectable views that defy simplistic categorization as democratic or anti-democratic.

Its important to acknowledge this, and to abjure accusations that every controversial policy innovation is motivated by hatred, moral insensitivity or authoritarianism.

Taking up one side of the debate, I will argue that neither hawkish Israeli foreign policies, nor conservative Israeli socioeconomic and cultural policies, automatically make this country less free, enlightened, noble, creative or exciting.

Lets say, for example, that the NGO funding transparency is passed by the Knesset, or that the judicial appointments process is altered to deny Supreme Court judges a veto over selection of their successors.

Is that the end of democratic Israel? Of course not!

Lets say that the Knesset breaks up the Labor Partys kibbutz-controlled food cartels, or that it passes a law mandating compensation for absentee Palestinian landlords for land on which Israelis have been living for 40 years (instead of expelling such Israelis from their homes).

Is that the end of democratic Israel? Of course not!

When the High Court of Justice ruled in favor of Netanyahu government policies on natural gas exploitation and on deportation of illegal African migrant workers (while circumscribing some aspects of the attendant legislation) policies that were strenuously opposed by the Left was that the end of Israeli democracy?

Or lets imagine that Elor Azaria receives a light sentence for his manslaughter conviction. Would that be fascist and undemocratic?

My point is that opposition to public policy should be debated on its merits without semi-automatic screeching about intolerance, repression, dictatorship, thought police and the crushing of democratic norms.

Over the top attacks make the political opposition sound just as crude and intolerant as the caricature of the government they are communicating.

Of course, no one should pooh-pooh civic challenges that do stand before Israeli society. The Israel Democracy Institutes 2016 Democracy Index found a significant drop in public trust of state institutions and politicians, and an increasing willingness to marginalize minorities, such as Israeli Arabs, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and settlers.

But we must beware a doomsday discourse about depredations in Israels democratic moorings. Israel is far more hale and hearty than some of its detractors would have you believe.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

See the rest here:
Know comment: Israeli democracy is not at risk - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Wall Street Journal

Merkel Presses Erdogan on Freedom, Democracy Wall Street Journal German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to respect fundamental freedoms while stressing the benefits of cooperation between the two countries, whose alliance has become increasingly strained. Ms. Merkel made ... Merkel urges Turkey to protect democracy and free press in tense meetingMiddle East Eye Angela Merkel urges Erdogan to uphold democracy in referendumScotsman all 127 news articles »

Continued here:
Merkel Presses Erdogan on Freedom, Democracy - Wall Street Journal

Michael Fallon said Russia was responsible for creating what we might now see as the post-truth age. Photograph: Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters

Nato must begin to compete on the cyber-battlefield to counter Russian hacking, which is weaponising misinformation to create a post-truth age, the defence secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, has said.

In his hardest-hitting comments yet about Russia, Fallon said that in the past two years it had targeted the US, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Montenegro, which becomes a full Nato member this year. He blamed Russia for helping create the fake information age.

Today we see a country that, in weaponising misinformation, has created what we might now see as the post-truth age. Part of that is the use of cyber-weaponry to disrupt critical infrastructure and disable democratic machinery, he said.

His rhetoric contrasts with that of Donald Trump, who appears to be moving towards rapprochement with Moscow and has described Nato as obsolete.

In a speech on Thursday night at St Andrews University, Fallon said there had been a step-change by Moscow last year that brought a rise in cyber-attacks. Russia is clearly testing Nato and the west. It is seeking to expand its sphere of influence, destabilise countries, and weaken the alliance. It is undermining national security for many allies and the international rules-based system. Therefore, it is in our interest and Europes to keep Nato strong and to deter and dissuade Russia from this course.

He added: President Trump has spoken about the need for engagement with Russia. Hes right. Great nations like the US and Russia will talk. Indeed, they must talk to preserve the rules-based information system underpinning our security and prosperity. The UK too needs to engage with Russia, including military to military. Yet President Trump is a realist. He knows engagement is an equation of risk versus reward, with the outcome decided by a nations deeds, not its words.

There were areas where the west did cooperate with Russia, Fallon conceded. But he went on: Above all, we must not accept as any kind of new normal Russias propaganda, whether overt or covert, its easy disregard for hard facts and numbers, or its blatant distortions and evasions.

Fallon said Russia, having opted to become a strategic competitor to the west, could not expect business as usual. Part of our response is for Nato and the west to do more to tackle the false reality promoted through Soviet-style misinformation. Whatever else we do on deterrence and dialogue, we must counter Putins Pravda with faster truth We need to call out messengers such as RT [the Russia Today television channel].

Although Fallon portrayed the Kremlin as the aggressor in terms of hacking, Americas National Security Agency and Britains GCHQ hack targets in Russia on a regular basis.

Fallon insisted Trump was 100% backing Nato, as Theresa May said after meeting the US president in Washington, and that his grievance was over the failure of most Nato members to contribute more towards defence costs.

In a speech a fortnight ago, the chairman of the Commons defence committee, the Conservative MP Julian Lewis, was less sanguine than Fallon and described Trumps comments that the US might abandon Nato as radical and reckless.

Fallon also accused the Russian government of routinely lying. There is a special Russian word for this. Not maskirovka, the old deception perpetrated by its intelligence agencies, but vranyo, where the listener knows the speaker is lying and the speaker knows the listener knows he is lying but keeps lying anyway.

There is no certainty among senior officials at the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere around Europe that Trump is indeed 100% behind Nato. They are waiting for a visit by the new US defence secretary, James Mattis, in a fortnight to the Nato headquarters and the Munich security council in the hope of clarification.

Previous US presidents and defence secretaries have repeatedly called on Nato members to raise defence spending to at least 2% of GDP but, unlike Trump, they have always combined it with assurances that Nato forms the bedrock of US and west European defence policy.

Fallon said that 19 of Natos 28 members did not even spend 1.5% on defence. Only five members meet the 2% rule, including Britain, albeit through creative accounting. So President Trump is right to challenge Nato to raise its game, Fallon said. That means not five but all members meeting the 2% commitment. It means supporting reform to make Nato more agile, resilient and better configured to operate in the contemporary environment including against hybrid and cyber-attacks.

As Fallon was preparing to deliver his speech, which praised the imposition of US and European sanctions on Russia, the US Treasury announced it was adjusting sanctions imposed last year by President Obama on the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB.

A report by the Commons public accounts committee today says a skills shortage is undermining confidence in the governments ability to protect Britain from high-level cyber-attacks. Ministers have taken too long to consolidate the alphabet soup of agencies tasked with protecting the country, the public accounts committee said. The role of the Cabinet Office, responsible for coordinating information protection across the government, remained unclear.

Meg Hillier, the committee chair, said the government approach to handling personal data breaches has been chaotic and does not inspire confidence in its ability to take swift, coordinated and effective action in the face of higher-threat attacks.

The threat of cybercrime is ever growing, yet evidence shows Britain ranks below Brazil, South Africa and China in keeping phones and laptops secure. In this context it should concern us all that the government is struggling to ensure its security profession has the skills it needs.

Read more:
Nato must defend western democracy against Russian hacking, say Fallon - The Guardian

Let me stipulate some important things at the outset.

First, Judge Neil Gorsuch, from every indication, is a fine man, a fine judge, and would be a fine colleague for the eight Justices now on the Court. Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, a man of terrific judgment, tweeted last night that Neil Gorsuch is immensely qualified for the Supreme Court -- an outstanding lawyer, and judge, and person. Gorsuch is, on the question of qualification, nearly as good an appointment as was Judge Merrick Garland. So stipulated.

Americas Long History of Excluding Immigrants for Being Poor

Let me stipulate something else: the Gorsuch nomination breaks the emerging Trump pattern of appointments in a welcome way. Most of Trumps important appointments have gone to scary haters like Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions, or to flagrant incompetents like Ben Carsons, Betsy Devos, and Rick Perry. A nomination that fit that pattern would have begun at the level of William Pryor and possibly moved down to the level of Peter Thiel or even to some wretched shyster who has spent his career screwing drywall contractors out of monies owed them by the Trump Organization. In this one area, thus far, grownups seem to be in charge.

Third, I disagree with his judicial philosophy. On issues like reproductive rights and choice, the proper role of religion in law, the environment, his presence on the bench would help propel this country in a retreat from freedom and liberty we cannot afford to make. Any progressive (no matter how mild his or her inclination) has ample evidence to, and should, oppose this nomination on the merits. The groups issuing anguished criticisms of his nomination have every reason to worry that his vote may move the Court to violate treasured constitutional values. (In particular, Gorsuchs views on the individuals bodily autonomyin reproductive choice and contraception and in end-of-life issuesare alarming and need to be aired thoroughly during a confirmation.)

Fourth, the vacancy that Gorsuch is being appointed to fill was procured by constitutional malfeasance of the worst kind. Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassleyand all those senators who enabled them by silencedishonored their constitutional oaths in a serious way. Worse yet, they persuaded the gullible that Article II 2 cl. 3, setting out the duty to offer advice and consent, means nothing more than nonny nonny boo boo. This was shameful, and has done lasting damage to the Constitution that will take decades to repairif repair is possible. Democratic Senators want revenge, and they have every reason to want it. So stipulated.

Finally, let me say this: each of the above considerations is of huge importance. But one issue stands above them all: the fate of democracy.

This nomination comes at a moment of unprecedented danger for the United States. After less than a month in office, President Trump has pushed executive authority far beyond its already broad boundaries. He shows little sign of slowing down. The Trump administration may be on the verge of taking our republic to what for lack of a better term we will call full banana.

That means that the fight against dictatorship should be our main focus now. No cause that progressives valuenot reproductive rights, not voting rights, not the environment, not public health and health carewill survive if the cabal in the White House achieves the power they covet. Even though the endgame is almost certainly going to be confirmation of Gorsuch, the Democratic and progressive effort against the nomination needs to use the battleas drawn-out as possibleto focus the national mind on the danger of crypto-fascism. That fight isnt advanced if the effort is framed as vengeance for Garland. If it is used to lay down clear markers for acceptable behavior by the administration, it may be an important chapter in the fight.

So heres an initial suggestion of some areas Senators should prepare to question Gorsuch onaggressively.

What are the limits of executive power in the context of immigration and the treatment of non-citizens? How long can immigrants be detained without bail hearings? What is the role of courts in supervising the conditions of detention of those who are allegedly undocumented or removable? When can lawful permanent residents and visa holders be excluded from return to the United States? What is the role of racial or religious classification in immigration policy? Do the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to immigrants in the United States? Does the Equal Protection Clause cover classifications by religion?

Under what circumstances can the executiveor the executive and Congress togethersuspend the writ of habeas corpus? When can citizens be detained without trial? Without counsel?

What are the requirements of free speech and free press in time of crisis? What protection can the law allow against bullying by powerful politicians to silence voices of dissent?

What are the dimensions of the right to vote? How far can legislative efforts to regulate voting go before they become vote suppression? What role does voting play in keeping the country free?

What are the dimensions of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment? What about naturalized citizenship? Could the President, or President and Congress, under the Constitution as it is, pass a statuteor even create an administrative mechanism--to strip citizenship from disfavored individuals or groups?

What are the limits of the governments ability to use electronic surveillance on citizens? On other residents of this country? What role should the courts play in confining this to its lawful bounds? How far can Congress go in authorizing warrantless surveillance?

Is torture ever permitted under the Constitution? Can the executive instruct national-security personnel to ignore legislative limits like the Torture Victim Prevention Act?

When may officials of the governmenteven high officials who make policybe held accountable in court to citizens whose rights are injured by those policies? What protection in the courts should be afforded to citizens abroad? How extensive should the constitutional remedy be for violations of constitutional rights by federal agents, whether of Homeland Security, Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the Defense Department?

When if ever may the executive, with or without Congress, respond to emergencies by suspending the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and of statutes, or by claiming the power to insulate its decisions from judicial review?

Lastly, Judge, no fooling around: What is democracy to you? Do citizens have a right to dignity, to sexual and other autonomy, to racial and sexual equalitynot formal equality but real equality worthy of the name?

This list is far from exhaustive. But this class of questionsbasically, Judge Gorsuch, can and will you stand up to your benefactor Trump by voting to keep American a free country?is central.

I am no political strategist, and so I cant say what course of action will most benefit the Democratic Party. Should Democrats filibuster this nomination? Should they filibuster for a while, or try to use the filibuster to kill the nomination?

I dont know. But I do think this. Gorsuch should not be allowed to go on the Court until he has answered the kind of questions above. The standard dodgeI am sorry, Senator, but that issue may come before mecannot be allowed to cut it in 2017.

This will not be politicizing the Court. The politicizationthe demonstration that the Court is now simply an arm of the majority party, with qualification and merit wholly subordinated to the partisan imperativewas completed by McConnell and Grassley in 2016. Trump pushed the politicization further by suggesting that the Court vacancy was created by the assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, by publishing his judicial list before the voting precisely to make the names campaign issues, and by proclaiming an anti-choice litmus test for any nominees. Remember his boast that Maureen Scalia, the justices widow, had a Trump sign on her lawn?

Politicization is where the Garland fight should come home to roost. You made this bed of nails, Republicans. Now lie in it.

If Senate Republicans can refuse to consider a nominee for political reasons, Democrats can refuse to confirm a nominee if he doesnt answer these fair questions.

There are no more rules: the Republicans shredded them.

Judge Gorsuch, you seem like a great guy, bless your heart, love you to death, we purely do.

Have a seat now and tell us how you feel about authoritarian government. Then well see about a vote.

Read more from the original source:
The Most Important Questions for Trump's Justice Are About Democracy - The Atlantic

As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy

Welcome to the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll for February 2017. As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy. In Greece, where democracy was conceived, its literal translation was rule of the commoners but it may have been defined most succinctly by Abraham Lincoln as, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans have had a ringside seat for the last six years as a divided Congress and executive branch have largely talked past each other. This may be due to change as one party now has majorities in both houses of Congress as well as the White House for the first time since President Obamas first two years in office. As the Congress begins to collaborate on doing the peoples business they might refer to these words by Martin Luther King, Jr., Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be? We look forward to your answers to this and many other questions. And now the results...

If they had to explain to someone from another country how democracy works in the United States, nearly four out of 10 Americans said they would describe their overall tone as being hopeful. Twenty-eight percent said their tone would reflect pride, 12 percent said embarrassment, 10 percent selected sarcasm and six percent chose disgust. Americans are almost always a hopeful and optimistic people and despite the rancor between our two major parties, two thirds of us still talk about our democracy with either hope or pride.

This one was surprisingly close. Forty-five percent of Americans said it would have been more surprising to our founding fathers that Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and 42 percent said the election of Donald Trump in 2016 would have made them flip their wigs.

From the list provided, three out of 10 Americans think that seeing a complete history of a candidates tax returns would give them the most insight into whether or not to vote for someone for president followed by their emails 23 percent, websites theyve visited 13 percent, their medical records eight percent and one out of five said none of the above. These are mostly modern inventions and do not pertain to a majority of past presidents. For future presidents it is a cautionary tale of things to come. Considering what happened during our most recent election, it should come as no surprise that Republicans were more interested in emails (29 percent) and Democrats were more focused on tax returns (50 percent).

According to Americans, the greatest threats to democracy in the United States are money in politics 29 percent, uninformed voters 23 percent, people who dont vote 15 percent, poorly prepared candidates for office 10 percent, the size of the federal government nine percent, and the two-party system eight percent. Despite the systemic and financial challenges noted, the surest way to preserve, protect and defend our democracy is through education. In his farewell interview on 60 Minutes, President Obama lamented the existence of fractious divisions between Americans and pointed at cable shows from both sides of the aisle as having slanted points of view that only support and affirm what their followers want to hear. Nobody said it better than Thomas Jefferson when he declared that the foundation of Democracy rests on an educated citizenry.

If they had to choose between the two options, two out of three Americans said it is more important for the United States to have freedom and democracy and one out of four said having security and prosperity was more important. Security and prosperity are very important to Americans, especially in times of turmoil and uncertainty, but Americans have never wavered in their devotion to our countrys bedrock values when it comes to freedom and democracy. JFK summed it up this way, the cost of freedom has always been high, but Americans have always paid it.

More than half of Americans find the rights enumerated in the First Amendment to be the most important to them personally including freedom of speech 31 percent, freedom of religion 20 percent and freedom of assembly three percent. Eighteen percent took a shot at the right to bear arms, 17 percent cast a ballot for the right to vote and nine percent said all of the above. Nothing is more important to Americans than their hard earned and cherished rights especially those found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is another right expressly granted in the First Amendment that is very important to many including everyone at 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair...the freedom of the press.

If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be?

This months featured question sparked a lot of interesting ideas and opinions. If Americans could make one change in the way American democracy works, many people said they would like to see term limits implemented and the Electoral College abolished in favor of the popular vote. Many others wanted to stop or curtail the corrosive effects of money in politics with emphasis on limiting lobbying and striking down the Citizens United decision. Many would like to shorten the election cycle and set time limits for campaigning. Finally, some would like to make voters take an IQ test before they vote while others said they would like to see Americans be required to vote.

This poll was conducted by telephone from November 30-December 4, 2016 among a random sample of 1,011 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.Read more about this poll.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll: Democracy - CBS News