Mediaboss Marketing

There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declaration of Independence to the marchers who are crowding the streets of America.

A view of the crowd at the women's march in Los Angeles on Jan. 21, 2017 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)

This post originally appeared at Counterpunch.

On Saturday, Jan. 21, I joined somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people in downtown Los Angeles as the city made its own unique contribution to the womens marches galvanizing more than a million people across the US and around the world.In LA, as elsewhere, activists fighting for a wide range of causes from reproductive rights to Black Lives Matter, from climate change to workers rights came together in a powerful display of unity.That is why, as organizers met after the march to maintain a unified momentum, I found it somewhat disconcerting to read Oregon Sen. Jeff Markleys statement that, Trump is the cure here; he brings everybody together.Yes, it is true that Trumps persona and actions have had a great deal to do with energizing and mobilizing the protests, and it is certain that he will continue to inspire resistance as he seeks to realize his agenda.

Yet in the long term, Trump can hardly sustain a movement as a cure or unifier. Something much deeper has to be involved, and that something is nothing less than the reclamation of our democracy and the democratic promise of the American experiment.

BY Harry Boyte | December 16, 2015

In saying this, I dont use the term democracy simply to refer to the formal institutions of representative government, nor to such practices as voting, nor even to the norms and unwritten rules that maintain the rule of law and the peaceful transition of power. Important as these elements are, they lack meaning without the presence of a living culture of democracy, a body of understandings and habits that bind us to one another in mutual responsibility and to a commitment to human equality and freedom. This is the vision of democracy powerfully expressed by political scientist Danielle Allen in her recent book, Our Declaration:A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality.This is a vision affirming that we are all not only entitled to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also to equality of access to government as the tool by which we secure those rights.

The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.

There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declarations writers to the marchers who crowded the streets of American cities on Jan. 21.The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.They relied on what Allen called the collective intelligence of ordinary citizens to build their argument for independence.As Allen said, In developing their list of complaints against King George and in coming to understand their situation, the colonists became the free people capable of self-government that, with their declaration, they asserted themselves to be.In other words, they were developing the habits of freedom even before the nation became formally independent.They reinforced this process by drafting constitutions for the future states even before signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

By the same token, the marchers of Jan. 21, 2017 didnt wait for a midterm election to enact a vision of what democracy is and can be.Despite the oligarchic, authoritarian nature of the Trump candidacy and presidency, the marchers moved boldly to reclaim their democratic heritage by reinterpreting it in the light of contemporary circumstances.The marchers I know understood that today the phrase, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness incorporates the unalienable right to decent, affordable health care.They equally understood that this powerful phrase includes the unalienable right to a healthful environment and the right to counter powerful economic interests that elevate short-term profit above the well-being of all.

Take A Look: Bill Moyers Essay: Thomas Jefferson's Betrayal

Moreover, the marchers I know understand that reclaiming democracy necessitates coming to terms with the tragic distortions and exclusions coiled within the DNA of the young American republic. They know that reclaiming democracy means coming to terms with the legacies of slavery, genocide and racism, and that democracy must now mean full inclusion of all people within the American polity.That is why, ultimately, we dont need a Trump as a cure or unifier.Certainly, resistance will and must continue.But it is democracy itself that is the unifier.The issues represented in the marches Black Lives Matter, immigrants rights, Standing Rock, reproductive rights, among others are all deeply connected by the sacredness and dignity of human life, and by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for this generation and all generations to come.

At one point in the LA march, I looked up in the blue, cloudless sky and saw a lone airplane trailing a banner proclaiming, Congratulations President Trump on Your Inaugural.A young woman standing next to me noticed my glance and said, looking up at the plane as well, That looks like one of Trumps tweets.But theres just one of him, and theres all of us. Looking down Hill Street at some of the hundreds of thousands of people that day, and perhaps with King George III in the back of my mind, I knew she was right.

Will the Real Journalists Please Stand Up?

Donald Trumps Mission Creep Just Took a Giant Leap Forward

Here is the original post:
Reclaiming Our Democracy - BillMoyers.com

Before this month, Seattles democracy vouchers were just an idea. Now candidates are knocking on doors to gather them up.

When a Seattle City Council candidate showed up at Carlos Garcias door on a Saturday last month and asked for his democracy vouchers, he was a little surprised.

Garcia recalled voting in 2015 for a ballot measure creating the vouchers, and a package from the city had just come in the mail. But he was fuzzy on the details.

I dont even really know how the program works, said Garcia, 46, standing on the front porch of his Beacon Hill home with the council candidate, Jon Grant.

Youre asking for my vouchers, and Im like, Do I have one? Do I have four? Do I tear it off like a coupon and hand it to you? Is that how it works? Garcia said.

His confusion was understandable. Seattle is the first city in the country to finance campaigns with taxpayer-funded vouchers, and the program is launching this year.

Voters authorized the program when they passed Initiative 122, authorizing a 10-year, $30 million property-tax levy to pay for the vouchers.

Last month, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission mailed each of the citys registered voters four $25 vouchers to distribute to candidates in 2017.

There are races this year for the councils two citywide seats and for city attorney. Theres also a race for mayor, but the vouchers wont be allowed in that contest this time around.

Voters can return their vouchers to the commission directly (by mail, email, fax or in person) or to candidates (by mail or in person) for relaying to the commission. Doing nothing with the vouchers is OK, too.

To become eligible to collect the vouchers, candidates must pledge to take part in debates, agree to lower campaign-contribution limits and agree to campaign-spending caps.

To qualify to actually receive the funds that the vouchers represent, candidates must gather a baseline number of small donations.

Incumbent City Attorney Pete Holmes last week became the first candidate to qualify.

The commission will be releasing the funds to qualified candidates at least twice a month.

Proponents say the program will get more people involved in local politics and help less-known candidates compete against candidates backed by wealthy donors.

Thats what Grant is counting on. The housing activist, who lost in 2015 when he challenged incumbent Councilmember Tim Burgess, is running again for Position 8.

Burgess isnt seeking re-election this time around, but Grant considers himself an underdog still. He says he wont take any campaign contributions from corporations.

Were funding our campaign on small donations and democracy vouchers, the candidate told Garcia. Thats why were going door to door to ask for your support.

Grant is eligible to collect the vouchers but not yet qualified to receive the donations they represent.

Other Position 8 candidates collecting vouchers include Sheley Secrest, Teresa Mosqueda, Ryan Asbert, Mac McGregor and Roger Kluck.

Persuading voters to part with their vouchers so far ahead of time is challenging. The primary election isnt until August and the general election isnt until November.

Most voters are recovering from last years election rather than thinking about 2017. But Grant wants to snag as many vouchers as possible before too many are replaced and tossed away.

The commission is working on a replacement-voucher form, but it isnt ready yet.

Youre asking people to make a decision to support someone way before they normally have to make that decision, Grant said.

But these vouchers arent votes. Theyre a means to support grass-roots candidates. We need to get started early so we can build up the resources to go up against corporate-backed candidates.

Garcia didnt give Grant any vouchers, nor did his husband, James Harris.

The Pioneer Square business owner thanked the candidate for going door to door. But he expressed skepticism about the vouchers program, calling it provincial.

Im hoping it will work, get more people involved, Harris said. Well see how it plays out. But right now, it just seems hokey.

Grant is seeing some success, however. In his first week, he collected about $8,000 in vouchers, he says.

Kashina Groves, 32, and her husband, Apu Mishra, 40, assigned all eight of their vouchers to Grant. Theyd seen a reminder from him on Facebook.

So I didnt just dump them in the recycling, Groves said.

One of Grants strategies is to ask for at least one voucher, if not all four. Thats what worked with Rupert Berk in the same neighborhood where Grant visited Garcia.

The candidate is targeting areas he won in 2015, such as Beacon Hill.

Berk, 47, reacted positively when Grant described his views on affordable housing but initially balked when the candidate asked for his vouchers.

Im probably going to do more research, he said.

So Grant tried again: I know you want to do your research, but were just trying to get off the ground. Would you support us with just one just $25 at no cost to you?

Berk thought for a few beats. Then he relented, shrugging his shoulders.

Sure, he replied.

See more here:
Seattle candidates already on hunt for 'democracy vouchers' - The Seattle Times

Not long ago, Brazil was "ontop of theworld," as one 2010 headline described it.

With a steadily growing economy and expanding social programs thatlifted millions out of poverty, the South American nation was seen by many as an emerging global power and a shining example of good governance and inclusivity. Lula da Silva, Brazil's president from 2003 to 2010, was widely credited for his countrys remarkable success; President Obamacalled him"the most popular politician on Earth."

But over the last few years, Brazil's economic and political panorama has dramatically shifted. Recent news headlines include "Brazil in Free Fall" and "The Darkest Hour."

In early 2014, Brazil's economy began to tank. The causes included the Latin American and global economic slowdown, but also neoliberal economic policies favored by Brazil's powerful financial community, including budget and credit tightening at the wrong time andexorbitantly high interest rates.

Meanwhile, revelations surfaced regarding a vast bribery scheme commonly known as "Lava Jato" (car wash) involving state energy company Petrobras and numerous senior figures from Brazils major political parties. This perfect storm of economic and political setbacks contributed to a rapid decline in the popularity of da Silva's successor, Dilma Rousseff, and created a golden opportunity for right-wing sectors to unseat Rousseff and her left-leaning Workers' Party.

But rather than attempting to retake the presidency through elections, sectors of the right conspired to remove Rousseff by triggeringlegally unjustifiedimpeachment proceedings against her.

The former president is regularly vilified in Brazil's conservative media, which dominates the nation's airwaves and press. The telegenic federal Judge Sergio Moro, elevated to near-superhero status by much of Brazils major media, has been leading abiased and politicized investigationtargeting da Silva, and has repeatedly violated the former president's due process rights.

The Obama administration has failed to speak out against these assaults on Brazil's democracy, but U.S. congressional members have taken notice since Rousseff's impeachment trial began in May 2016, and have been forcefully appealing for the respect of rule of law and human rights in Brazil.

In July 2016, 43 Democratic members of the House of Representatives senta letterto then-Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryCongress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Take it from Italy's past, don't tinker with US electoral systems Trumps dangerous move to politicize the National Security Council MORE expressing "strong concern" regarding Rousseff's impeachment and noting that its main promoters faced corruption charges, including Romero Juc, a key political ally of current President Michel Temer caught on tapeplottingRousseff's removal. The objective, Juc said, was to prevent corruption investigations from moving forward.

Temer, Rousseff's replacement, promptly appointed an all-white, all-male Cabinet that embarked on far-reaching reforms, including drastic cuts to social programs.

In early August, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersEllison tops Perez in DNC race fundraising Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Biden endorses Perez for DNC chair MORE (I-Vt.) issueda statementarguing that: "The United States cannot sit silently while the democratic institutions of one of our most important allies are undermined."

Kerry ignored these appeals. OnAug. 5, as the impeachment trial was still underway, he held a friendly joint press conference with Temer's foreign minister and made no mention of the unconstitutional efforts to remove Rousseff. The signal to Brazilians was unmistakable: Washington supported what many considered an illegal coup d'etat.

Though Brazil has largely disappeared from the news in the U.S., the dire political and social situation there is still of great concern to a number of members of Congress.

On Jan. 18, 12 members of the House, including four of the five top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent aletter to Brazil's ambassadorin Washington, denouncing the repression of peaceful protests in Brazil and the criminalization of the Landless Workers' Movement and other groups opposed to the Temer government. The letter also denounces the ongoing judicial persecution of da Silva:

"Since the beginning of [2016], Lula has been targeted by a judge Sergio Moro whose biased and unwarranted actions have severely jeopardized Lulas due process rights. For instance, Moro ordered the arbitrary arrest of the former president simply to serve a subpoena, although there was no indication that the former president was unwilling to provide testimony.Media outlets were on site as the arrest occurred, suggesting that the primary purpose of the detention was to create the perception that Lula was implicated in criminal activity despite the lack of charges against him at the time."

The letter describes Moro's open participation "in political events opposing Lula" and his endorsement of a sensational book lionizing him and presenting da Silva as guilty of alleged criminal charges. It notes that Moro leaked phone intercepts to the media,a violation of Brazilian law.

The letter, led by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth and other organizations, goes on to say:

"Even following testimony against Lula obtained through plea bargains, there is not yet any credible evidence implicating Lula in criminal activity. We are concerned that the true goal behind the proceedings is to severely tarnish Lulas image and disable him politically by any means, as occurred with former President Rousseff."

Despite these attacks, the Workers' Party announced on Jan. 17 that da Silva would be its candidate for president in Brazil's 2018 elections. Two days later, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki died in a plane crash seen by many assuspiciousgiven that Zavascki had been analyzing testimony implicating many powerful Brazilian politicians in corruption.

Zavascki had been widely considered to be the most independent and principled member of the court. He had been identified in the leaked Juc tape as the one justice "closed off" to making a deal to help remove Rousseff. And he had firmly objected to Moro's leaks of tapped phone recordings of da Silva in early 2016, earning him vicious attacks in the right-wing press and protests in front of his home in So Paulo.

With Zavascki gone, it appears unlikely that any higher judge will step in to counter the excesses of Moro and others who use their judicial or political power to arbitrarily target opponents.

Given this alarming situation, it's more important than ever for members of Congress and others in the international community to shine a bright light on the attempted demolition of democracy and basic rights that is taking place in Brazil.

Alexander Main is senior associate for international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

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

Here is the original post:
Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously - The Hill (blog)

The relationship between citizens and government is changing. The first 10 days of Donald Trumps presidency has been a reminder that citizens thirst to have a voice in their democracy spans the nations cultural, partisan, and ideological divides. In his inaugural address, Trump thundered, We are transferring power from Washington, DC, and giving it back to you, the people. The past two weekends have seen millions demonstrate in Womens Marches and large crowds gather at airports and in downtowns to voice their discontent over Trumps draconian executive order regarding immigration and refugee policies.

Beneath the acrimony, everyone seems to agree that citizens need a greater voice in our democracy. But both sides face a common challenge: Neither the marchers nor the president they detest have articulated a coherent set of mechanisms to translate their passionate rhetoric into concrete initiatives, programs, or policies that actually empower citizens.

How do we bring citizens into democracy? Americans were accustomed to a longstanding model: institutions and their leaders as the stalwart of democracy. Not even a week into Trumps presidency, many folks are left wide-eyed with the realization that our civic institutions are not going to work without consistent citizen pressure and activism to protect them. At a time when citizens faith in institutions and democracy is at all-time lows; we each need to be vigilant and actively engaged.

Civic engagement is not just for creating better policies but also for reinvigorating democratic practice this is an underlying condition of our current political dysfunction. There are tools from our democratic arsenal to support this new relationship between Americans and their government. Regardless of how we proceed, this is going to take work, and there isnt a panacea. The new dynamic between the government and citizens is not going to fix itself. It is not going to be fixed by a new policy or a new government official. There is now no choice but to engage in a multigenerational project to reinvigorate American democracy.

First, individual citizens can hold power to account by bringing new and relevant facts into the public light. People can serve as watchdogs, activists for truth, and monitors of governance. Individual people can serve as more credible truth tellers than other parts of society that are viewed as beholden to special interests or lobbying. From photographing police violence to tracking public documents online (e.g., through the Freedom of Information Act) to ensuring that elected officials maintain their campaign promises, individuals can become purveyors of truth and put pressure on institutions and elected officials.

Take, for example, Indias Mumbai Votes, where information crowdsourced by students and activists on elected officials is viewed as credible and reliable information, often in contrast to biased paid news. In an environment of declining institutional trust, there is a vacuum of facts. Individual people empowered with a smartphone or even a microphone can be the purveyors of truth and can leverage that information to hold government accountable.

Second, citizens can revitalize the power of diverse community-based organizations. For a long time, these organizations weaved the vibrant fabric of America civic and communal life. Alexis de Tocquevilles writings about early American life included the potency of civic associations for strengthening democracy. One component of these organizations was the ability for people to come together across different ideologies and beliefs.

Today these organizations are no longer as vital, diverse, or powerful as they once were, and American democracy has suffered as a result. There has been much scholarship on the decline of civic associations in the United States. Now is the moment to reengage with civil society organizations not just passively donate every year. Instead, actively participant in local chapters of a national group or a neighborhood association.

Civic organizations are not a monolith. There are some that are filled with people who share the same preconceived views, while others may have less homogeneous ideology. Given the changing relationship between citizens and government, now is the critical moment to form nontraditional alliances and more deeply engage with people with dissenting viewpoints. The goal is to strengthen critical civil society institutions, not just to feel reaffirmed. Building tolerance for peaceful dissent and disagreement toward shared democratic goods, which transcend any one person, is a critical building block for reinventing the relationship between citizens and the state.

Finally, across our 3,007 counties there are participatory options and new partnerships between government and the people to work collaboratively as co-producers of public goods. For example, Central Falls, Rhode Island, which is Rhode Islands only majority-Hispanic community, was the first city in Rhode Island to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The city government decided to try something new to engage the community around a shared project.

It partnered with Citizinvestor, a crowdfunding and civic engagement site that is similar to Kickstarter for governments, to launch a civic crowdfunding campaign, one of the first in the United States. Local residents were active participants in every part of the process: identifying the area for fundraising; pledging their own dollars; and collaborating. Examples like this are occurring across the country where citizens are empowered not merely in a consultative or advisory role, but are given a real role in public decision-making.

Another process gaining momentum across the country is participatory budgeting, a World Bank best practice in democratic reform to give residents a portion of public money to decide how to allocate. Last year, community residents allocated more than $60 million across the United States through discretionary funds of local officials, since the process started in 2009 with $1 million in discretionary funds in a Chicago ward. Perhaps we can learn from instructive international examples in Brazil or in Paris, where 100 million per year is allocated through the process.

Strengthening the relationship between citizens and their government requires tireless energy, vigilance, and creativity. By design this requires new experiments. Charlotte, North Carolina, won a Knight Cities Challenge for a project called Crown TownHall, which offers direct one-on-one opportunities for local public city officials to have an in-person conversation with a member of the community. This requires time on behalf of both citizens and their public officials. Deepened relationships can develop even with just a 10-minute conversation.

It is going to take unprecedented work to rebuild the civic fabric and reignite the civic associations that have been the hallmark of America. Many of us feel fired up, angry, or worried about the direction of our country. The way to move forward begins with sustained civic activity, one conversation at a time.

This post is part of Polyarchy, an independent blog produced by the political reform program at New America, a Washington think tank devoted to developing new ideas and new voices. See more Polyarchy posts here.

See the article here:
For democracy to survive, it requires civic engagement - Vox

Opposition to Donald Trumps Cabinet nominations mounted on Capitol Hill and across the country Tuesday, as Senate Democrats boycotted two scheduled committee votes and dozens of people were arrested at a series of protests nationwide. Led by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee stalled the confirmations of treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin and health and human services secretary nominee Tom Price by refusing to attend the committee meeting. Under committee rules, if no Democrats attend the hearing, the committee cant vote. The lawmakers accused Mnuchin and Price of lying to the committees during their nomination hearings. Amid the Democratic boycott, protesters staged a sit-in to block the entrance to the office of Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as a protest against Tom Prices nomination. At least 47 people were arrested. Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee also delayed a vote on the confirmation of Jeff Sessions for attorney general Tuesday by making extended speeches. This is California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "Instead, he has been the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of the Trump agenda and has played a critical role in the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. With this in mind, I must vote no."

Jeff Sessionss confirmation has faced a series of protests over his opposition to the Voting Rights Act and his history of making racist comments. On Monday, about 10 members of the NAACP, including President Cornell William Brooks, were arrested at a sit-in at Sessionss office in Mobile, Alabama. It was the second NAACP sit-in against Sessionss confirmation. On Tuesday, retired Army Colonel Ann Wright disrupted the Senate Judiciary Committee in protest of Sessions.

Ann Wright: "No to racism! No to the ban on refugees! Wait! Oh, wait! Oh! Oww! Ill go out, but you dont need to drag me. Ive got a hip replacement. Im 70 years old, and I can make it out on my own. But no to racism! No to hate! No to Jeff Sessions! No to the ban on refugees!"

More protests against Jeff Sessions and Trumps other Cabinet nominations erupted Tuesday. In New York City, thousands of protesters gathered outside the home of Senator Chuck Schumer, calling on him to oppose Trumps Cabinet picks. In a separate protest also in New York City, 11 protesters, including Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, were arrested blocking traffic outside Trump Tower to oppose the nominations. In Chicago, at least seven protesters were arrested after hundreds staged a sit-in at the Federal Building to demand Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth vote against billionaire Betsy DeVos for education secretary, which they did. Nevertheless, DeVos was among three of Trumps Cabinet picks who were approved by Senate committees Tuesday. The Senate education committee voted 12-11 to approve DeVos in a straight party vote, even though The Washington Post reports DeVos appears to have plagiarized parts of her written answers submitted to the Senate committee. Also on Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 16-7 to approve former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as energy secretary and voted 16-6 to approve Montana Congressmember Ryan Zinke to head the Interior Department. DeVos, Perry and Zinke will now all face full Senate votes on their confirmation. The full Senate also voted Tuesday to confirm Elaine Chao to become transportation secretary.

Continue reading here:
Lawmakers Push Anti-Protest Laws as Mass Resistance to Trump Sweeps U.S. - Democracy Now!