An assignment, expanded.
I wanted to put this in to my assignment, but thought it too long,. I also was not sure on how it would be received. Too bad in a university setting that that is a concern. No matter, you all get the benefit. For the record, I want to be clear that I don't know that my professor would receive it badly, but it was awful long. Any way, here goes.
All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. But in truth, I suspect the authors of How Democracies Die (Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt) laid a lot of the whole demagoguery thing at the feet of Trump. Because of the aftermath of the election, I wonder if they could have imagined that everything that they pointed to about Trump, could easily be said about the Democrats.. In fact, let me take a moment and go point by point before I begin the response. These are the Four Indicators of Authoritarian Behavior.
1. Rejection of, or weak commitment to, the rules of the game: Yes, Trump did not commit to accept the results of the election. And even two days before the Democrats were concerned that Trump might win the popular vote and Hillary win the Electoral College. The opposite happened, and we are now in the second year of denial about the election. First it was "abolish the Electoral College", and then it was "Comey!". Now we are into a Russian collusion investigation and so far, according to Democrats, not a single shred of evidence. So, we call that one a draw. Except that Trump just wouldn't SAY he would accept the results, and Democrats still HAVEN'T accepted them.
2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponenents:Trump had clever nicknames for everyone opposing him. From Sleepy Jeb! to Lyin' Ted, the GOP primary wasn't immune. So when he went to Crooked Hillary, no surprise right? Yet, long before this, those conservative voters, Republican and Democrat, that put Trump into office were called "bitter clingers" (Obama), "Deplorables" (Clinton) and the latest, demonstrating a slow learning curve "Dregs of Society" (Biden). That doesn't even go into the "Racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and so on, names that not just Trump, but anyone who was a member of the GOP heard constantly in the press, at town meetings, all over this nation. If that wasn't bad enough, then let's not forget "Hitler", the end all of name calling. This one is a draw. but I would say that calling someone Hitler is worse than Crooked Hillary.
3. Toleration or encouragement of violence: Trump shoots his mouth off all the time. He implicitly encouraged violence, meaning to rough up people, who, mostly, as it turned out, were paid plants by various elements of the Democrat party who were there to try to stir that up. It doesn't excuse that, but compare his words to the actions of Democrats. A Bernie supporter sprays gunfire on a group of Republican Congressmen practicing at a ball field. A GOP Senator is mowing his grass when he sustained life threatening injuries from a neighbor who was politically opposed to him. Cabinet Secretaries needing Secret Service protection to simply do their jobs. Violence at the Inauguration. Democrat members of Congress calling for violence against Republicans, and being proud of that. Technically a draw, but the level of violence called for and demonstrated are not.
4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties, including the press: Yes, Trump campaigned against Muslim immigration. What was his action? He banned travel from several nations that are either state sponsors of terrorism (Iran), or mostly failed states, or states that the US is unable to vet leaving (Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia). The countries with the largest Muslim populations are no where near the list. (Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) Yes Trump has bellowed about limiting free speech, and freedom of the press. Yet, more whistle blowers were prosecuted under President Obama than ever before. The press was also under fire, including taking a reporter's computer (Sheryl Atkinson), or secretly listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator so that the FBI could get a wire tap (James Rosen). That doesn't include that not only did President Obama slam FOX news constantly, but at one point actively disallowed them access as a news organization. May I add, denial of due process? No draw here. Rhetoric vs Action.
Okay, now on to the assignment.
In How Democracies Die, the authors made an interesting argument about the parties, and they pointed out that the Founders were right, in that too much democracy can become the two wolves and a sheep scenario, which I have alluded to previously. That was the Republican primary. Complicit in that was the media, which as the text stated gave away nearly 2 billion worth equivalent of TV time to Trump the candidate, partially for ratings, but mostly because they thought he couldn't beat Hillary. So, Trump won, as was explained. What was NOT explained in the text was how those "gatekeepers" functioned in the Democrat primary. Those gatekeepers, or superdelegates, were decisive in what, surprisingly, turned out to be a rough road to Hillary winning the nomination. Senator Sanders (I-VT) with not much money went neck and neck with Secretary Clinton energizing crowds and voters. It was the superdelegates that put her over the top. I wonder if this had an effect on voter turnout for the Democrats? The media, as it turns out, were complicit in that fix being in for Sec. Clinton as well, with acknowledged passing of debate questions to Clinton (Donna Brazile at CNN). So yes, we see the results of having and not having gatekeepers.
Can we be clear that the definition in Democracies in Decline (Philip Kotler) of the parties is not as clear cut as the text leads one to believe? And the money in elections also didn't flow in the 2016 election as Kotler thought? For the record, Hillary received twice as much money both for her campaign, the DNC, and the 'so called' dark money or SuperPACs. The deciding factor? The free media that Donald Trump received, thinking that there was no way he could win. When McCain-Feingold passed, what was one of the complaints by conservatives? That with all of the restrictions on paid ads, the media would have an outsized role in candidate communication. Guess they were right, even with the restrictions on spending lifted from Citizens United. By the way, I am all for making transparent the large donations going to superPACs as listed in the Dark Money article last week.
Regarding parties. In the ugliness that is the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Graham (a never Trumper Republican, FYI), in a righteous tirade, told them "When you see Sotomayor and Kagan tell them Lindsay said hello, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done. This is the most unethical sham since I have been in politics". I don't include that to disrupt, only to point out that they were the last two appointed by a Democrat,and that he had voted for them. That was after the Democrats had initiated the use of the filibuster for nominees (yes, that began in 2003 under Bush 43)
The Democrats are lockstep together. I do admire that, but they purged their party back in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act, and the Blue Dog Democrats were out. Nonetheless, they are a party of various interests. Racial groups, sex and gender groups, intellectual elite, and surprisingly enough, the very rich, or the Wall Street types. Surprised? What did Bernie say during the primary? Who was the candidate of Wall Street? Hillary? Who did Wall Street support according to the FEC? Hillary. And yet it is said that the GOP is the party of the rich.
The GOP has its own groups. there are plenty of rich types that support the GOP, but they seem to be of a different nature than those supporting the DNC. You have a few, very few, northeastern Republicans, more progressive than moderate, but compared to the spectrum of the DNC, I guess moderate would be accurate. You have the rural state types, the military types, the evangelicals, and yes, factions of the alt right, white supremacists, racists. You have libertarians, who want to have a voice that matters. That included, FYI, the former governor of New Mexico, who ran as a Republican when he won the governorship of NM. Their spectrum is much more difficult to control, and as evidenced, the one group that both parties share is the establishment of DC. They hate anyone to come in and challenge the swamp, to use President Trump's term.
What is the future? Depends on how the establishment GOP gets along with the rest of the nation GOP. The Democrats, in my view, overstepped in this Kavanaugh debacle, and may have allowed the GOP to keep or expand their majorities. If the GOP sticks to their plan. If not, well, we will see a repeat of 1998-99 with impeachment, and nothing getting done. Something has to give, otherwise we WILL have another Civil War, whether it comes to guns, or a peaceable divide. The way things are going, I wouldn't count on it being peaceable. I hope that another way presents itself.
All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. But in truth, I suspect the authors of How Democracies Die (Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt) laid a lot of the whole demagoguery thing at the feet of Trump. Because of the aftermath of the election, I wonder if they could have imagined that everything that they pointed to about Trump, could easily be said about the Democrats.. In fact, let me take a moment and go point by point before I begin the response. These are the Four Indicators of Authoritarian Behavior.
1. Rejection of, or weak commitment to, the rules of the game: Yes, Trump did not commit to accept the results of the election. And even two days before the Democrats were concerned that Trump might win the popular vote and Hillary win the Electoral College. The opposite happened, and we are now in the second year of denial about the election. First it was "abolish the Electoral College", and then it was "Comey!". Now we are into a Russian collusion investigation and so far, according to Democrats, not a single shred of evidence. So, we call that one a draw. Except that Trump just wouldn't SAY he would accept the results, and Democrats still HAVEN'T accepted them.
2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponenents:Trump had clever nicknames for everyone opposing him. From Sleepy Jeb! to Lyin' Ted, the GOP primary wasn't immune. So when he went to Crooked Hillary, no surprise right? Yet, long before this, those conservative voters, Republican and Democrat, that put Trump into office were called "bitter clingers" (Obama), "Deplorables" (Clinton) and the latest, demonstrating a slow learning curve "Dregs of Society" (Biden). That doesn't even go into the "Racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and so on, names that not just Trump, but anyone who was a member of the GOP heard constantly in the press, at town meetings, all over this nation. If that wasn't bad enough, then let's not forget "Hitler", the end all of name calling. This one is a draw. but I would say that calling someone Hitler is worse than Crooked Hillary.
3. Toleration or encouragement of violence: Trump shoots his mouth off all the time. He implicitly encouraged violence, meaning to rough up people, who, mostly, as it turned out, were paid plants by various elements of the Democrat party who were there to try to stir that up. It doesn't excuse that, but compare his words to the actions of Democrats. A Bernie supporter sprays gunfire on a group of Republican Congressmen practicing at a ball field. A GOP Senator is mowing his grass when he sustained life threatening injuries from a neighbor who was politically opposed to him. Cabinet Secretaries needing Secret Service protection to simply do their jobs. Violence at the Inauguration. Democrat members of Congress calling for violence against Republicans, and being proud of that. Technically a draw, but the level of violence called for and demonstrated are not.
4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties, including the press: Yes, Trump campaigned against Muslim immigration. What was his action? He banned travel from several nations that are either state sponsors of terrorism (Iran), or mostly failed states, or states that the US is unable to vet leaving (Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia). The countries with the largest Muslim populations are no where near the list. (Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) Yes Trump has bellowed about limiting free speech, and freedom of the press. Yet, more whistle blowers were prosecuted under President Obama than ever before. The press was also under fire, including taking a reporter's computer (Sheryl Atkinson), or secretly listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator so that the FBI could get a wire tap (James Rosen). That doesn't include that not only did President Obama slam FOX news constantly, but at one point actively disallowed them access as a news organization. May I add, denial of due process? No draw here. Rhetoric vs Action.
Okay, now on to the assignment.
In How Democracies Die, the authors made an interesting argument about the parties, and they pointed out that the Founders were right, in that too much democracy can become the two wolves and a sheep scenario, which I have alluded to previously. That was the Republican primary. Complicit in that was the media, which as the text stated gave away nearly 2 billion worth equivalent of TV time to Trump the candidate, partially for ratings, but mostly because they thought he couldn't beat Hillary. So, Trump won, as was explained. What was NOT explained in the text was how those "gatekeepers" functioned in the Democrat primary. Those gatekeepers, or superdelegates, were decisive in what, surprisingly, turned out to be a rough road to Hillary winning the nomination. Senator Sanders (I-VT) with not much money went neck and neck with Secretary Clinton energizing crowds and voters. It was the superdelegates that put her over the top. I wonder if this had an effect on voter turnout for the Democrats? The media, as it turns out, were complicit in that fix being in for Sec. Clinton as well, with acknowledged passing of debate questions to Clinton (Donna Brazile at CNN). So yes, we see the results of having and not having gatekeepers.
Can we be clear that the definition in Democracies in Decline (Philip Kotler) of the parties is not as clear cut as the text leads one to believe? And the money in elections also didn't flow in the 2016 election as Kotler thought? For the record, Hillary received twice as much money both for her campaign, the DNC, and the 'so called' dark money or SuperPACs. The deciding factor? The free media that Donald Trump received, thinking that there was no way he could win. When McCain-Feingold passed, what was one of the complaints by conservatives? That with all of the restrictions on paid ads, the media would have an outsized role in candidate communication. Guess they were right, even with the restrictions on spending lifted from Citizens United. By the way, I am all for making transparent the large donations going to superPACs as listed in the Dark Money article last week.
Regarding parties. In the ugliness that is the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Graham (a never Trumper Republican, FYI), in a righteous tirade, told them "When you see Sotomayor and Kagan tell them Lindsay said hello, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done. This is the most unethical sham since I have been in politics". I don't include that to disrupt, only to point out that they were the last two appointed by a Democrat,and that he had voted for them. That was after the Democrats had initiated the use of the filibuster for nominees (yes, that began in 2003 under Bush 43)
The Democrats are lockstep together. I do admire that, but they purged their party back in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act, and the Blue Dog Democrats were out. Nonetheless, they are a party of various interests. Racial groups, sex and gender groups, intellectual elite, and surprisingly enough, the very rich, or the Wall Street types. Surprised? What did Bernie say during the primary? Who was the candidate of Wall Street? Hillary? Who did Wall Street support according to the FEC? Hillary. And yet it is said that the GOP is the party of the rich.
The GOP has its own groups. there are plenty of rich types that support the GOP, but they seem to be of a different nature than those supporting the DNC. You have a few, very few, northeastern Republicans, more progressive than moderate, but compared to the spectrum of the DNC, I guess moderate would be accurate. You have the rural state types, the military types, the evangelicals, and yes, factions of the alt right, white supremacists, racists. You have libertarians, who want to have a voice that matters. That included, FYI, the former governor of New Mexico, who ran as a Republican when he won the governorship of NM. Their spectrum is much more difficult to control, and as evidenced, the one group that both parties share is the establishment of DC. They hate anyone to come in and challenge the swamp, to use President Trump's term.
What is the future? Depends on how the establishment GOP gets along with the rest of the nation GOP. The Democrats, in my view, overstepped in this Kavanaugh debacle, and may have allowed the GOP to keep or expand their majorities. If the GOP sticks to their plan. If not, well, we will see a repeat of 1998-99 with impeachment, and nothing getting done. Something has to give, otherwise we WILL have another Civil War, whether it comes to guns, or a peaceable divide. The way things are going, I wouldn't count on it being peaceable. I hope that another way presents itself.
Comments
Post a Comment