Mediaboss Marketing

When the democrats get massacred in 2024, I hope Kamala Harris refusesto certify the results. Thats the way its done righteously, yes?

Well do it the South American Way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/world/americas/jan-6-hearing-constitution-democracy.html++++++++In Constitutional Crises, Democracies Arent Always Democratic

When political leaders face a constitutional crisis, like that of Jan. 6,the process of collectively deciding how to respond can be messy, arbitrary,and sometimes change the nature of the system itself.

By Max FisherJune 18, 2022

If you look for international parallels to the moment last year whenVice President Mike Pence refused to bow to pressure from President Donald J. Trumpto help overturn their election defeat, something quickly becomes clear.

Such crises, with democracys fate left to a handful of officials, rarelyresolve purely on legal or constitutional principles, even if those might laterbe cited as justification.

Rather, their outcome is usually determined by whichever political elites happento form a quick critical mass in favor of one result. And those officials are leftto follow whatever motivation principle, partisan antipathy, self-interest happensto move them.

Taken together, the history of modern constitutional crises underscores some hardtruths about democracy. Supposedly bedrock norms, like free elections or rule of law,though portrayed as irreversibly cemented into the national foundation, are in truthonly as solid as the commitment of those in power. And while a crisis can be anopportunity for leaders to reinforce democratic norms, it can also be an opportunityto revise or outright revoke them. . .

Americans may see more in common with Peru. There, President Alberto Fujimoriin 1992 dissolved the opposition-held Congress, which had been moving to impeach him.Lawmakers across the spectrum quickly voted to replace Mr. Fujimori with hisown vice president, who had opposed the presidential power grab.

Both sides claimed to be defending democracy from the other. Both appealed to Perusmilitary, which had traditionally played a role of ultimate arbiter, almost akinto that of a supreme court. The public, deeply polarized, split. The military wasalso split.

At the critical moment, enough political and military elites signaled support forMr. Fujimori that he prevailed. They came together informally, each reacting to eventsindividually, and many appealing to different ends, such as Mr. Fujimoris economic agenda,notions of stability, or a chance for their party to prevail under the new order.

Peru fell into quasi-authoritarianism, with political rights curtailed and electionsstill held but under terms that favored Mr. Fujimori, until he was removed from officein 2000. . .

Modern Latin America has repeatedly faced such crises. This is due less to any sharedcultural traits, many scholars argue, than to a history of Cold War meddling thatweakened democratic norms. It also stems from American-style presidential systems,and deep social polarization that paves the way for extreme political combat.

Presidential democracies, by dividing power among competing branches, create moreopportunities for rival offices to clash, even to the point of usurping one anotherspowers. Such systems also blur questions of who is in charge, forcing their branchesto resolve disputes informally, on the fly and at times by force. . .

While other systems can fall into major crisis, it is often because, as in apresidential democracy, competing power centers clash to the point of trying tooverrun one another.

Still, some scholars argue that Americans hoping to understand their countrys trajectoryshould look not to Europe but to Latin America. . .

The phrase political elites can conjure images of cigar-chomping power-brokers,meeting in secret to pull societys strings. In reality, scholars use the term todescribe lawmakers, judges, bureaucrats, police and military officers, local officials,business chiefs and cultural figures, most of whom will never coordinate directly,much less agree on what is best for the country.

Still, it is those elites who collectively uphold democracy day-to-day. Much aspaper money only has value because we all treat it as valuable, elections and lawsonly have power because elites wake up every morning and treat them as paramount.It is a kind of compact, in which the powerful voluntarily bind themselves to asystem that also constrains them.

A well-functioning, orderly democracy does not require us to actively think aboutwhat sustains it, Tom Pepinsky, a Cornell University political scientist, told meshortly after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Its an equilibrium; everybody isincentivized to participate as if it will continue.

But in a major constitutional crisis, when the norms and rules meant to guidedemocracy come under doubt, or fall by the wayside entirely, those elites suddenlyface the question of how or whether to keep up their democratic compact.

They will not always agree on what course is best for democracy, or for the country,or for themselves. Sometimes, the shock of seeing democracys vulnerability willlead them to redouble their commitment to it, and sometimes to jettison that systemin part or whole.

The result is often a scramble of elites pressuring one another directly, as manysenior Republicans and White House aides did throughout Jan. 6, or through publicstatements aimed at the thousands of officials operating the machinery of government.

Scholars call this a coordination game, with all those actors trying to understandand influence how the others will respond until a minimally viable consensus emerges.It can resemble less a well-defined plot than a herd of startled animals, which iswhy the outcome can be hard to predict.

Before Jan. 6, there had been little reason to wonder over lawmakers commitment todemocracy. It had not been a question of whether or not they supported democracyin a real internal sense that had never been the stakes, Dr. Pepinsky said.

Now, a crisis had forced them to decide whether to overturn the election, demonstratingthat not all of those lawmakers, if given that choice, would vote to uphold democracy.Ive been floored by how much of this really does depend on 535 people, Dr. Pepinskysaid, referring to the number of lawmakers in Congress.++++

Wonder what theyll be teaching in high-school civics classes in 2030.

Read the rest here:
The Texas GOP party platform the madness continues - Freethought Blogs