Air Date 6/11/2024
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.
Democracies don't break all of a sudden in a moment of crisis; they fail slowly over time, and only by knowing the warning signs and responding effectively to the threat before it's too late can the worst be averted. And the US is not alone in facing threats to democracy, so today we look both inwardly and outwardly at the practice of democracy.
Sources providing our Top Takes today include TLDR News Global, Tufts University, Vox, Velshi, Democracy Docket, The Marxist Project, the Democracy Paradox, Why is This Happening? with Chris Hayes, The Chauncey DeVega Show, and Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good. Then in the additional Deeper Dive half of the show, there'll be more on the dissection of democracy, international democracy, the cult of Trump, and democracy in action.
Why and Where is Democracy in Decline? - TLDR News Global - Air Date 2-21-24
JACK KELLY - HOST, TLDR NEWS GLOBAL: How [00:01:00] do you measure democracy? Well, as a concept it goes beyond just elections, and there are a range of possible indices we could use. For the purpose of this video though, we're going to use the EIU's index, which includes electoral processes and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. Globally though, all factors apart from political participation have declined since 2008, and declined further during the pandemic when civil liberties were curtailed.
So with that in mind, is democracy at risk? Unsurprisingly, wartorn countries and authoritarian regimes are at the bottom of the EIU's democracy list, and most of this regression occurred among the non-democracies, suggesting that the authoritarian regimes are becoming more entrenched and hybrid regimes are struggling to democratize. For instance, Taliban-run Afghanistan came last for a third [00:02:00] consecutive year. The biggest decliners though were Gabon and Niger, which both experienced coups in 2023. In fact, the average score for subSaharan Africa dropped to its lowest since the index began in 2006.
But region-wide data shows that every region in the world, apart from Western Europe, faced a democratic decline, with Latin America experiencing the greatest decline for the eighth consecutive year.
Moving away from the EIU data though for a moment, how have democratic elections fared in 2024 so far?
Now we made a video on a number of major elections, so if you want to check those out then you can, but so far a worrying number of elections have been interfered with or even suspended, and constitutional limits have been defied. So we're not even two months into the year and it's not looking great for democracy.
So, why could democracy be in decline? Well, [00:03:00] the integrity of democratic practices and institutions, summed up by the EIU's metrics, are, as we see it, threatened by the increase in three main factors: technology, lawfare, and apathy to authoritarianism.
So, our first reason is the uncurtailed growth of technology, which has enabled the spread of disinformation and media manipulation to influence elections at an unprecedented rate by both foreign actors and domestic groups. For instance, there's the fast growth of AI technology and deepfakes which have been used in attempts to interfere with elections. They're also getting increasingly hard to debunk, as media regulations and laws fail to keep up with technology's fast growth.
On top of this, AI can also enable online censorship. For example, according to Freedom House, in at least 21 countries there have been legal frameworks set up to require or encourage [00:04:00] online platforms to use machine learning to take down disfavored sociopolitical or religious speech.
Aside from AI, short form videos have distorted political campaigning around the world. The newly-elected Indonesian president, accused of human rights abuses during his time in the military under the dictatorship of his former father-in-law, rebranded himself during his campaign as a dancing cuddly grandpa in TikToks, some viewed over 20 million times. And then finally, group messaging platforms like WhatsApp have moved political discussions into opaque private messaging groups, where the degree of fast-spreading misinformation is difficult to ascertain.
In fact, Freedom House has published that at least 47 governments have deployed commentators to manipulate online discussions in their favor, double the number from a decade ago.
But it's not guaranteed that democratic institutions will always be outwitted by developing tech. [00:05:00] Taiwan, for example, was able to push back against disinformation campaigns from China in its January election, with information campaigns from fact-checking groups and the election commission.
But it's not even just technology. Our second reason behind the democratic decline is the use of lawfare, a very broad term which essentially means the use of law as a weapon when used illegally or fraudulently. And courts have been used to tilt the electoral playing fields by hobbling opposition candidates and parties.
Interestingly enough, the increased use of lawfare in the past years could paradoxically be seen as a sign of progress. In the past, authoritarians stuffed ballot boxes or fixed the counts. However, better monitoring of elections have made this harder to do, leaving lawfare as their favored method instead. In the past couple of months, in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Senegal, Venezuela and Russia, opposition leaders and parties have been disbarred by courts for [00:06:00] very dubious reasons.
But the third potential reason for this backsliding is that as the world is increasingly defined by great power competition, the various powers and axes are seeking to shore up their own positions. For the Western world, supposedly the defender and promoter of democracy, this can mean working to uphold democracy in certain countries. But in other cases, it means democracy is taking a back seat in favor of stability and security. The West, for example, has courted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite increasing violence used against minorities and democratic backsliding. Well, because, well, India is an important bulwark against China.
Meanwhile, European countries, seeking alternative supplies for fossil fuels since Russia invaded Ukraine, have turned to nondemocracies like Qatar and Azerbaijan. Similarly, seeking to address cross Mediterranean migration, the EU sought out a deal with [00:07:00] Tunisia's president, who has overseen the erosion of democratic progress since the country's 2011 revolution.
Ultimately then, this year could be critical for democracy, and so far, developments are concerning. But what about the 50-odd elections that are still to come? Some of these will be charades, such as in Belarus and Russia, but even those expected to be free and fair will face challenges from home and abroad.
Of course, the United States will be a key country to watch. Donald Trump's attempt to subvert the 2020 election, coupled with his multitude of legal difficulties, present a significant challenge to the country's institutions. and mean that this year's election has the potential of deeply destabilizing the country, with its ripples felt around the world.
But the next months aren't all doom and gloom. In the graph we mentioned at the start of this video, all democratic metrics have declined except political participation, which has massively increased since 2008. [00:08:00] So while democracy around the world might be on shaky ground and facing a difficult year, the silver lining is that even amidst this, it seems that more people across the world are determined and able to engage in political participation.
Is Democracy Under Threat? - Tufts University - Air Date 10-12-22
MOON DUCHIN: I do think that we're in for a period of challenges to democracy on several frontiers. We have challenges in the form of public trust. We have challenges in the form of courts that have shifted quite a bit. And we're in for a period where we get to see just how resilient our democracy is.
DANYA CUNNINGHAM: I'm concerned about a country that actually experienced a coup attempt. In so many ways, I think people feel that their government is not addressing the key crises that are impacting their lives. At a civic level, people don't trust each other. [00:09:00] There is a sense of the other as a threat.
BRIAN SCHAFFNER: Democracy is at risk right now, largely, I think, because we are so polarized as a country. I mean, not just polarized in a political way, but also polarized in a social way, so that essentially our political allegiances, whether we're Democrats or Republicans, overlap so much with who we are as people in terms of our identities now much more so than they did in the past. And so it just makes everything seem much more dire and important every time there's an election.
KEI KAWASHIMA-GINSBERG: It's become a spectator sports. You watch active people and politicians play together somewhere far away and it has nothing to do with us. And that's probably how we let us believe that democracy is secure. Democracy doesn't need or help. And it's eroding and it's really, really struggling.
PETER LEVINE: We have terrible voter turnout in the U. S. If you have low turnout, you get certain people voting. On one hand, you get people who are more advantaged, better educated, more privileged, but on the other hand, [00:10:00] you also get people who are much more partisan and often more radical, and you've left out a whole swath of people who are often closer to being in the middle. And so you get a distorted. Politics out of low turnout.
MOON DUCHIN: The kind of insistence of fraud where there's little evidence for fraud. I've been seeing, litigation pop up where people don't like the outcome of an election, so they allege that it had to have been rigged, and it's a pretty closed world view. If you didn't win, it was rigged. And we're seeing that not just from the top, but at a lot of different levels.
PETER LEVINE: In order to really like a democracy, you have to be willing to lose, because a democracy is a system of voting and majority wins. And I'm not sure that Americans have actually ever been that enthusiastic about the idea that they want a political system where they can lose. And when people realize, which they do periodically, that their fellow citizens don't agree with them, quite often they will actually prefer, and say that they would prefer, an authoritarian leader who they [00:11:00] regard us right over majority rule. And so I think that's part of the phenomenon that we see globally.
KEI KAWASHIMA-GINSBERG: When I think about eroding democracy, part of what we're not doing is really being committed to truthfulness of the information that we're getting and sharing. We're just so tired sometimes, and we're not really searching for the right information, and we're just letting it pass by.
BRIAN SCHAFFNER: Politicians sort of understand now that anger is a mobilizing emotion. So if you've ever been on an email list for a politician, you'll probably notice that the emails are centered not around " here are these policy things I want to do", but more around " here's something outrageous the other side has done and you should be angry about this". And if people are mostly getting involved in politics because they're angry, it's going to make it even harder for politicians to compromise. Because if you're essentially making people angry at the other side as a way of getting them motivated to vote, then how are you going to then, once you're in office, turn around and make deals with the other side to make good policy?
DANYA CUNNINGHAM: Democracy is a [00:12:00] frail and precious organism, and so it is a living thing that must constantly be tended to and cared for. It is precious because it is all we have to keep from descending into chaos and lawlessness. We have to be able to have agreement with each other that we will attend to building a peaceful and fair society. And that requires us to have a certain kind of empathy and regard for each other, and that takes work. We can come to understand each other and figure out together what we ought to do in order to preserve each other's well being. And so that is the work of democracy.
The decline of American democracy won't be televised - Vox - Air Date 6-22-17
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: Trump's firing of former FBI director James Comey has gotten a lot of media attention, in [00:13:00] part because it's really easy to explain why it matters. If Trump fired Comey over the Russia investigation, that would be obstruction of justice, which is a crime. But a lot of what worries political scientists about Trump is tougher to explain in a sound bite like that. Because for the most part, it's stuff that's totally legal.
AZIZ HUQ: It turns out that government officials can exploit weaknesses in the law in ways that are destructive to the rule of law as a whole.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: This bearer of bad news is Aziz Huq. He's a law professor at the University of Chicago and he's written a lot about a concept called democratic backsliding. Backsliding is what happens when a democratically elected government starts attacking the institutions that make democracy work. And Huq argues that what makes backsliding so dangerous is that it's really hard to know when it starts.
AZIZ HUQ: In many other countries, the way that we see democratic backsliding happening is through a series of discrete legal changes, each of which is on their own, completely lawful.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: A great example of what backsliding [00:14:00] looks like is Venezuela's Former President Hugo Chavez. Chavez was elected as a democratic populace, but over time he changed.
CNN NEWS CLIP: And while remaining popular Chavez has been anything but democratic.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: He got frustrated with opposition from courts and the media, so he started doing things like firing judges, using anti defamation laws to silence journalists, and even describing unfriendly news organizations as, "enemies of the homeland." what's scary about Chavez's story is that he didn't need a military coup to screw up Venezuela's democracy.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: The man who came to office by democracy is doing everything he can to snuff it out.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: He did it legally, by slowly turning his supporters and political allies against the country's democratic institutions.
AZIZ HUQ: Autocrats and other parts of the world have gone after those institutions very early on in the process of backsliding.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: And that's what worries political scientists about Trump. Trump shows a deep distrust of America's democratic institutions. He lashes out at judges, calls [00:15:00] journalists the enemy of the people, accuses watchdog agencies of conspiring against him. He questions the legitimacy of an election that he won. His White House stonewalls reporters to avoid answering questions. He is suspicious of the mechanisms that limit his authority.
DONALD TRUMP: This is an unprecedented judicial overreach.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: And he encourages his supporters to be too. That is a catastrophic thing to be happening in a democracy. It's how democratic backflighting starts. But the thing is, none of this is illegal. As long as Republicans in Congress go along with it, there's nothing to stop Trump from publicly criticizing basic democratic institutions.
AZIZ HUQ: Our constitution just doesn't do a very good job of protecting us against certain kinds of democratic failure. Whether we're in a moment of democratic backsliding really depends upon the character of our political leaders.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: Which brings us to back to Comey, and why it's so hard to talk about democratic backsliding without sounding paranoid. We live in a media environment that is [00:16:00] really bad at putting things in context. That is designed to bombard us with breaking news and discrete pieces of information. And that makes it hard to identify democratic backsliding when it starts. Because unless it clearly breaks the law, it's really tough to explain why any one Trump tweet or scandal poses a threat to democracy. So when Trump calls a federal judge a "so called" judge, it's just a one off comment.
CNN NEWS CLIP: Does anyone honestly believe President Trump is going to ignore this judge's order because he's a "so called" judge?
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: When Trump calls the press the enemy of the American people, it's all talk.
CNN NEWS CLIP: He sounds like a broken record. It's just kind of like, what else you got Donald Trump?
AZIZ HUQ: I don't think that new media are well designed. to tell this kind of story, because those media are designed to convey information in very small chunks. The real story is not the discrete action at a particular moment in time, but some bigger picture.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: Democratic backsliding is one of those things that you can't really see from up close.
AZIZ HUQ: It is only when you look at changes in the aggregate that [00:17:00] one sees the effect upon democracy as a set of institutions and practices.
CARLOS MAZA - HOST, VOX: That doesn't mean that Comey stuff isn't important. Obstruction of justice is obviously a big deal. But some of the biggest threats to democracy are way less dramatic, way more normal looking. And if you're waiting for the CNN chyron announcing that it's time to panic, you're gonna be waiting for a long time.
How Republicans are fueling Russia and China’s global effort to undermine democracy - Velshi - Air Date 5-11-24
ALI VELSHI - HOST, VELSHI: In this remarkable article, you conclude that Russia and China are doing this, this influence peddling, with the goal of electing Donald Trump. Talk to me about why you think those countries stand to benefit from that.
ANNE APPLEBAUM: So, first it's important to step back a little bit and understand what it is that they're doing. These are countries, and it's Russia, China, but also others, Venezuela, Iran, other autocracies, want to stay in power, and their most important opponents are people who use the language of human rights, of freedom, [00:18:00] of liberty, of democracy. They need to undermine those groups, they need to put them out of business, they need to convince their people that these ideas have no meaning and no purpose.
One of the inspiration for People who fight for democracy in countries like Russia and China has always been the United States. And of course, the United States doesn't always live up to that, those ideals itself, but it stood for those ideals in the world. And Donald Trump is a leader who does not stand for those ideas. In fact, he mocks them.
He himself is transactional. He has indicated he would do deals with whoever is most powerful and putting him in charge of the United States, especially after January 6th, which was also understood around the world as an assault on American democracy, an assault on our Capitol, would undermine the idea of democracy that so many people aspire to in so many different places. It's not that complicated a story, but it takes place on [00:19:00] a big scale, and I think it's important to understand the whole context.
ALI VELSHI - HOST, VELSHI: I want to get even farther into that context, because obviously we've discussed the fact that if Russia and Ukraine is not concluded by election and inauguration time, it probably won't be, that is an advantage to Vladimir Putin.
But more importantly, we have the most election a year in recent history. More people are going to the polls around the world, and many of those countries are countries in which voters are giving up some of their rights. India, it's happening right now. What's the larger goal? If this isn't just about Russia/Ukraine, if this isn't just about China and Taiwan or China and relationships, how does this work in terms of undermining the concepts of democracy in America? You just elect enough people to Congress who just don't believe democracy is that important a thing?
ANNE APPLEBAUM: It's even broader than that. It's convincing Americans that they shouldn't care about rights. It's convincing Americans that they shouldn't care about America's role in the world. Convincing Americans to withdraw from the world, not to stand for any kind of ideals as we have done for the last several [00:20:00] decades.
There's a larger game as well, which is the autocratic narrative. Which is now shared by so many countries and also by some Americans is pretty clear. It's that autocracy is secure and stable and safe. Democracy is divisive, degenerate, and declining. And those in the United States who also say these things and who argue these things are also arguing in essence for a change of our politics, for deeper change, they're hoping that if and when Donald Trump has a second term in office that he will continue undermining rights. That he'll, for example, replace our independent civil service with loyalists. That he will change the way the United States is run. It's a convenient narrative for them, and it's a convenient narrative for autocracies in other places.
ALI VELSHI - HOST, VELSHI: We have seen how this propaganda is causing havoc at the Capitol. You wrote that Republicans are both active participants and passive recipients of the propaganda. This reminds me of the conversations we used to have about disinformation and misinformation.
Some people put it out and [00:21:00] others willingly receive it and spread it. Talk to me about how the difference is there and what you do about it. Can you convince some of these Republicans in Congress? Be careful you're getting fed a lot of bad information here.
ANNE APPLEBAUM: The best spokesman for that are other Republicans, and we've seen them starting to speak out in the last few days.
One of the difficulties, though, now, and this is maybe another important point for people to understand, is that there are independent groups, there are researchers, there are academics, there are a lot of scholars and people who study this system and who seek to understand how it works. And one of the things that this Republican Congress has done over the last few months is tried to undermine them, create conspiracy theories around them.
Blacken their names, prevent them from having influence, convince social media companies not to pay any attention to them. There, there's a there's a project almost not only to put out authoritarian propaganda, but also to undermine the people who seek to expose it and explain it.
And so one of the first steps we need to take is to, [00:22:00] is for the government, the media, and everybody who understands what's at stake. To make sure we have those people's back, to put pressure on social media companies, to listen to them again to continue to take down foreign propaganda, which they had been doing in 2020 and to continue, and to continue to search out this problem to define it and to explain it.
How Republican Attorneys General are Undermining Voting Rights - Democracy Docket - Air Date 6-3-24
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Twenty-three of the country's 27 Republican Attorneys Generals are currently in court arguing that only the Justice Department, not voters, can file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Mark, explain to us why this argument is so dangerous.
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: You know, Paige, we talk a lot about how the Voting Rights Act was gutted in Shelby County versus Holder. What Shelby County did was it took away one of the big tools of the Voting Rights Act. But other tools in the Voting Rights Act remained. And so that's why you continue to see the litigation that's going forward around redistricting in states like Alabama and [00:23:00] Louisiana and in Georgia, where groups and voters have brought cases saying that the maps that were passed in those states violate the rights of black voters to not having their votes diluted in the creation of unfair maps. In plain English, in Alabama and Louisiana, the Republican legislatures drew maps with one black opportunity district, and black voters were able to bring lawsuits to say, hey, that's not fair to our community. You have drawn maps that prevent us from exercising political power. And in both of those states, the federal courts have agreed and have said that there needed to be a second black opportunity district.
Well, how are Republicans trying to gut this part of the Voting Rights Act and some others by saying that private litigants can't even bring cases? They're saying that the only people who can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and some other key provisions of federal law is the Department of Justice.
That's crazy. That has never been the [00:24:00] case. There has been the right of a private right of action, the ability of ordinary citizens who have been injured by these state laws, harmed by these illegal maps, to bring cases. And the overwhelming majority of Voting Rights Act cases that have been brought and have successfully vindicated the rights of minority voters to fair election laws, to fair maps, the overwhelming majority of those have been brought by private litigants, by organizations like the NAACP, by civil rights groups, by voting rights groups. It's what a lot of the work my law firm does is when we talk about representing black voters in cases and winning relief, we're talking about bringing private litigation.
Well, the Republican attorneys general are now latched onto a fringe argument where they want to gut the Voting Rights Act by basically taking away the ability of these private litigants to bring these cases.
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Has this argument been successful anywhere in [00:25:00] court so far? And if so, what has been the impact?
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: So they've had success one place, okay? Only one place so far, in a case out of Arkansas that went up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the court that covers the state of Arkansas as well as some other states. And that circuit has said that they agree with this fringe argument, that they agree that there is no pride of a right of action. But that's the only place they've had success so far.
Now they're pushing it elsewhere, but so far they have not had success. They've lost this argument in the Fifth Circuit, which is critical because it's a very conservative circuit, but it also is a circuit that covers Texas. It's a circuit that covers Louisiana. It's a circuit that has a lot of Voting Rights Act cases within it, but they're pressing this argument all over the country. They're pressing this argument, for example, in the 11th Circuit. Now, anyone who thinks Brad Rassenberger is a hero, you gotta read my article in Democracy Docket how he's just another Republican vote suppressor. He is [00:26:00] advocating this theory in a case out of Georgia to try to say that there is no private right of action.
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: So if Republican officials are arguing that only the DOJ can file these lawsuits, has the Justice Department gotten involved? Have they said anything about these cases and these arguments?
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Yeah, look, DOJ knows that they need the help. This is not a negative on DOJ, right? DOJ is doing as much work as it can do across a range of issues, and it's got its hands full. But it simply can't cover the territory that private litigants can. So DOJ agrees that there should be a private right of action. Again, that's not because DOJ is not up to the job. But of course, what's interesting, Paige, is that the Republicans don't want private right of actions, but do you think they want to provide more funding to DOJ to bring more claims under the Voting Rights Act? No, of course they don't.
It's like they don't want there to be private funding of election offices, but you don't see the [00:27:00] Republicans trying to appropriate more money for our election officials to do their job. They want to starve democracy of money. They want to starve the Department of Justice of the resources to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and at the same time say that there's no private right of action so that private litigants can't bring these cases either.
Democracy vs. Autocracy: An Unproductive Dichotomy - The Marxist Project - Air Date 11-6-23
M. - HOST, THE MARXIST PROJECT: The dichotomy between democracy and autocracy, between democratic and authoritarian states, is an often used rhetorical instrument by the right, and even the left. It is employed to assess and justify geopolitical strategies, in painting democratic states as righteous, while labeling those operating outside the rule-based international order as authoritarian.
To be sure, there is an undeniable and material difference between autocracy and democracy. A society that condemns its women to servitude and degrades them to the status of commodity is surely less sustainable politically or defensible morally than its progressive counterparts. A country that is ruled by a dynasty rather than by an [00:28:00] elected body is almost always closed off to progress, social justice, and basic liberties.
But what exactly is a democracy? Is it simply the presence of free elections and multiple competing parties? Some authorities on the matter like to say that this is the recipe for democracy, but most of us would probably agree that it is insufficient. After all, parties can be captured by private interests, ballots can be manipulated, or the entire electoral system could be structurally designed to exclude actual popular input.
Another common approach is describing societies as having democratic values and norms, which are then ostensibly translated into formal political and judicial processes. This is certainly a better understanding, as it reflects ingrained attitudes and perspectives of an entire society, rather than vacuously describing the letter of the law.
However, we are ultimately displacing the central concern. If democracies are characterized by societies with [00:29:00] democratic values, then what exactly are democratic values? Much has been written about supposedly democratic countries and their shared values. In the field of political science, the so called democratic peace theory is one of a few consistent postulates that is treated virtually as a law.
The theory goes that democracies do not fight wars with each other because their governments are more accountable, the public is generally wary of conflict, and the societies share a common set of values. Democratic peace theory has found considerable statistical support through decades of study. Such observations about democracies extend into broader social discourse, where it is said that citizens of democratic nations abhor all forms of oppression and injustice. Conversely, the same people will often claim citizens living in autocratic societies have a predisposition to authoritarian methods. The Russians, for instance, are supposedly a people that prefer a ruler with an iron fist. One can imagine that such [00:30:00] characterizations quickly reduce themselves to banal colonialist dogma about the superiority of Western democracies, and the countries that strive to emulate them, over the regressive autocracies of the East.
Though it may be obvious to most of you watching this video, these sentiments are desperately under problematized in the Western mythos. How true is it that the American society has been fundamentally freedom loving and democratically inclined? Certainly, the U. S. has a rich history of popular movements for emancipation, enfranchisement, and liberation, but parallel to this history is one of slavery, genocide, segregation, white supremacy, and imperialism. To this day, the national psyche of the country elevates the ultra rich above the ordinary, and posits that those who have almost nothing deserve their lot in life. Is a society that necessitates unemployment for economic efficiency, and punishes the homeless for merely existing in public, truly freedom loving?[00:31:00]
While the majority of Americans struggle to make ends meet, socialized services and collective bargaining continue to be villainized by some of the loudest voices in the political arena. This is to say nothing about the January 6th coup attempt and the nearly half of the country that seems eager to embrace fascist slogans.
In her book, White Trash: The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Eisenberg details how the founders of the United States were often staunchly opposed to any semblance of democratic governance. The early governors of the colonies styled a society so rigid in its class makeup that one might best describe it as a hierarchy of castes.
Puritan settlers punished individuals for wearing clothing above their station, and enforced rigid social roles at birth. The colonies regularly depended on slave and coerced labor, often legislating class boundaries in a way that made them insurmountable. John Locke envisioned a new nobility and serf class in the [00:32:00] colonies.
Thomas Jefferson promoted social engineering and eugenics. Benjamin Franklin sought to curb class division by way of endless territorial expansion. The most important figures of early American history had their differences, but they were all united under the common banner of contempt for the poor. None of the above demonstrates an unwavering commitment to democratic values.
To be clear, the point here is not to condemn the American people in a broad sense. Much of the progress that has been made took the sacrifice and tireless effort of activists, revolutionaries, organizers, and the public itself, which has tended to overwhelmingly support pro social policies. Rather, the idea is to challenge the notion that there is something special about the American, or even the Western, psyche.
The myth of the West's democratic roots is just that, a myth, that has been carefully repeated over the centuries. A society that offers the public practically no control over the workplace or the economy, and limited control [00:33:00] over the political structures, is not only far from being a democracy, but is quite far from being democratic.
By contrast, it is similarly misguided to describe a national mythos as ahistorically authoritarian. How can we describe the Russian people as fundamentally authoritarian when the October Revolution was one of the most explosive and transformative revolutions in human history? How can the Chinese people be predisposed to hierarchical politics if not even a lifetime ago they fought a cataclysmic civil war to destroy all vestiges of feudal oppression?
Such dramatic historical events beg the question: from where do the people draw a profound desire for emancipation if their national culture is undemocratic? There are a number of obvious responses to these thoughts. For one, there are no monolithic national cultures. There is no uniform affinity for freedom over order. These characterizations are sloppy historical work that omit important caveats and counterpoints. There [00:34:00] are democratic and authoritarian tendencies in all societies. Democracies can be unexpectedly authoritarian, and despotic regimes can contain within them surprising horizontalism.
Rather than ahistorical national cultures, there are evolving institutions and norms that are overdetermined by complex material processes. Only the ebb and flow of the constituent elements of these complex systems can explain how a democratic society could give birth to an authoritarian one, and vice versa.
The persistent characterization of a democratic and authoritarian camp serves ideological interests. Oftentimes, democracy is a thinly veiled substitute for Western liberal polity, complete with the racist colonial tropes about civilizational sophistication in the face of Eastern despotism. Insisting that the West is democratic also works as a legitimizing mantra. Democracies mean accountability and popular rule, implying [00:35:00] that the people have chosen the status quo. Conversely, any authoritarian regime cannot be popularly legitimate, by definition. This works as an added layer of political justification for the democratic bloc. Embargoes, interventions, and invasions are a lot more palatable if you can convince the public that the government in question has no popular support.
The result is a tale as old as time, or at least as old as imperialism. The civilized camp is morally superior and bears the burden of civilizing their non compliant counterparts. Of course, the banner of democracy is happily dropped if the autocrat in question happens to favor the interests of foreign capital. The U. S. had no problem supporting the Marcos regime in the Philippines, but could not abide by Assad in Syria. Pinochet was a fine ally, but Gaddafi had to be removed.
Ultimately, where it is used, this civilizational categorization becomes a favorite of policymakers, both for its value in justifying the domestic [00:36:00] circumstances and for its utility as a foreign policy instrument. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by this primitive sleight of hand.
The sooner we can acknowledge that most of the supposed democracies in the world are barely democratic, the sooner we can work towards higher standards. Democracy should mean truly popular control over both politics and economics. It should require a deeply embedded commitment to public welfare and management of a collective future. Until we have done away with exploitation, discrimination, imperialism, and oppression of all forms, we should think twice about calling ourselves democratic.
When Democracy Breaks: Final Thoughts with Archon Fung, David Moss and Arne Westad Part 1 - Democracy Paradox - Air Date 6-4-24
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: I’d like to ask each one of you if there was a case that really surprised you or caught you off guard in terms of how democracy broke? Because I’m sure that you guys were familiar with most of the cases. Some of them are very famous, like Germany. But was there one that really stood out to you that made you think [00:37:00] differently about democratic erosion and democratic breakdown?
ARCHON FUNG: The chapter that I found quite surprising was the chapter on Turkey. There you have the institutions of democracy defended by a secular elite in the military. The country is overwhelmingly Islamic, so you have this tension between what we think of as neutral, liberal, democratic institutions defended by a vanguard that ends up tipping because there’s a large majority able to be mobilized by a leader on popular, ethnonationalist, religious nationalist grounds. So, what does democracy mean in that context? Is it the vanguardist, liberal, secular elite that is championing the forms of liberal democracy that we’re accustomed to, or is it a less varnished, [00:38:00] more populist will of the people? We struggle with that tension throughout many chapters in the book.
DAVID MOSS: I thought also this idea that the rhetorical vilification of the political opposition, what an impact that had, and how consequential it was, up there with other types of democratic erosion. The ongoing demonization and vilification of opponents seemed to have had a really large impact. I was struck by what a large impact it made.
ARNE WESTAD: I think for me in many ways, Justin, the most surprising one was the one on Weimar Germany. Not because I don’t know the background for the collapse of Weimar Germany; most historians think they know something about that. But because of the way in which it was set up and structured. So, it’s Weitz who was the one who wrote that chapter and underlined the ongoing, almost continuous attacks at democratic institutions and maybe especially on the institutions that were set to handle the kind of [00:39:00] difficulties that most people in Weimar Germany knew that the new republic was going to face, and how over time, those attacks, both on the left and the right, ended up eroding most of the belief that had existed in the early years with regard to those institutions. It then took an acute crisis, the economic and financial crisis of the late 1920s, to overturn the whole system. But the preparation for all of that had happened beforehand through the attack on the institutions of the Republic.
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: One of the things that I got out of the book was the way to think about democratic breakdown over the course of history, like the way that democracy is not something that is exclusively a phenomenon of the postwar era, but as something that has existed dating all the way back to ancient Greece, and some scholars have even made arguments that it existed in various forms even before that.
So your book really [00:40:00] brings in the ideas of thinking about democratic breakdown at different points in history. So, what I’d like to know from you is how has democratic breakdown really changed over time? Because I think of democracy as having changed a lot over time as well. Democracy in Athens is very different than democracy today. So, has democratic breakdown also changed over time?
ARNE WESTAD: Obviously, it has changed over time and each of these cases are individual cases in a way that is connected to the historical situation around the time in which you face a democratic breakdown. But I think our view is that you can still learn a lot from the discussion that contrasts the different kinds of cases, even though they are set at very different moments in time.
I do think there are some things that they have in common. The one that I mentioned earlier on about the attack on the institutions – if you don’t want to call it democracy, at least there’s some [00:41:00] institutions that preserve some degree of pluralism, both within society and within the state – that’s something that you see, albeit at different degrees and in different ways, in most of these cases.
Another aspect that struck me in all the cases, I don’t think every single one, was how rapid rises in social inequality contributed to some of the tensions that brought about the collapse of democracy. Not in a very simple way, not in a very straightforward way. Those who believe that there are necessarily distinct social causes in an immediate sense for all of these events are probably wrong. It helped to destroy the common approach to the value of these institutions and the value of participatory democracy itself. On that, I think, there is very little doubt.
A lot of people, a lot of different settings, were asking, what does this system actually do for me? What is the value for me, both in ethical, moral, political, but also in economic and financial [00:42:00] terms for me to come out and actually defend that system? If you are in a situation where you feel that your situation compared to others in social and economic terms is getting consistently worse, then your willingness to, not necessarily act against the system, but help protect the system, that willingness is much reduced.
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: Do you think that there are more similarities in terms of democratic breakdown throughout history than there are differences? I mean, I know that each one of these cases is unique in its own right. But as we’re making comparisons between them, should we be more focused on how similar they are or how different each one of them are, particularly as democracy evolves over time?
DAVID MOSS: I think it’s hard to put a quantitative ranking on difference versus similarity, because they’re different places in different times, but also different countries. They’re really quite dramatically different in so many ways. And yet there are some commonalities. You asked [00:43:00] about change over time, maybe some of the most striking changes, I think, is just in the 21st century, which is we’ve seen a different kind of breakdown, what’s often called illiberal democracy. So more of a reliance on majoritarianism, but not the liberal protections of minority rights and the right to dissent. And so often in the past, there’s been a distinction between fast and slow breakdown. Fast like Weimar, Germany, so you see a rapid seizure of power and collapse of democracy. Whereas in Venezuela in the early 21st century, you see a slow breakdown. It’s hard to say what day, what month, even what year democracy broke down because there was a majority-picked president. But then the president chipped away at liberal protections, chipped away at minority rights, chipped away at the rights of the opposition, chipped away at all the constraints on presidential power, such that democracy as we know it disappears. What day and what year, what month it disappears is hard to say.
I think that a slower, more gradual [00:44:00] breakdown, the illiberal democracy, that’s characteristic of the 21st century so far, and quite a difference from the 20th century and before.
Protecting Voting Rights with Eric Holder - Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes Podcast - Air Date 2-20-24
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: This independence of the Justice Department is such an important point right now because it ends up being an enormously important constitutional protection. And as we conceive of what might be a second Trump term, possibly, where he has basically said, he’s going to use it to prosecute his enemies.
Now, Jeff Sessions, I think, was a terrible attorney general in most ways, but on this question of independence was decent. He was not completely a supplicant to Trump. He didn’t just do what was ordered. And he had some sense, I think, deep within his person and how he conducted himself, of this notion of independence. That it was important that he be independent. He appointed a special counsel. He did a bunch of other things. William Barr, much less so, right? William Barr much more of a sort of lackey.
The question becomes like, imagine a second term with a vacancy appointment, right? So, a temporary AG, not confirmed by Senate. And Donald Trump says, I want you to [00:45:00] open criminal investigations into Joe Biden and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Chuck Schumer and --
ERIC HOLDER: And Eric Holder.
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: And Eric Holder. So, what is protecting us from that eventuality, other than the norm-abiding of an attorney general who recognizes that’s totally unacceptable?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, you got at least one protection and that’s the career folks who work at the Justice Department. But I caution everybody: what Donald Trump says he is going to do, which not to politicize the Justice Department but to weaponize the Justice Department, is something that could come to pass. And he’s had a term to learn how to weaponize the Justice Department.
And so it won’t be just, who is the attorney general? It will also be, who is the deputy attorney general? Who is the head of the criminal division in the Justice Department? Who are the various U.S. attorneys who populate the U.S. attorney’s offices around the country? Who will these U.S. attorneys hire? Because you could have a whole bunch of career people say, you know, that’s crazy. We’re not going to do that kind of stuff. But [00:46:00] new employees hired by these new U.S. attorneys could in fact go to courts, impanel grand juries, and start up investigations of the very people who you just talked about.
Now you may ultimately get to a place where even though these are bogus investigations that they have done, that you can’t win in court, you will generate cases that undoubtedly will be reported on, that will have a negative impact on the reputations of the people who come under investigation and will have, I suspect, some kind of cowing impact on people who are the enemies or perceived to be enemies by the president in terms of the way in which they express that opposition.
You know, if you’re a congressman and you’re against what Trump’s going to try to do with NATO and you want to raise your hand and you know that if you do that, well, the Justice Department is going to just start picking through your life to see if there’s a way in which they can just gin up an investigation. Forget about a prosecution or a victory in a criminal case, just an investigation.
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Yes.
ERIC HOLDER: And what’s the impact of that going to be on your reelection efforts [00:47:00] and just your reputation, you know, more generally? So, this is something I think we got to take, you know, be very, very mindful of, but it is really kind of the norm. It is the norms that have to hold and I think that he will just try to blow through.
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Yeah, I mean at one level, right, there’s a constitutional protection for due process, which this kind of thing would be a violation of. And there’s the protections of a grand jury and, you know, for actual prosecution. But your point, which I think is the really scary one, right, is that you can make a lot of pain for a person through just investigation. And he seems very focused on that. I mean he basically is threatening to do it. Every time he says, look, if I don’t get immunity, then every ex-president will be subject to this. I read as him saying, we’re going to do this to Joe Biden, if I get into office. I mean I think it’s plain as day that’s the promise. But it’s more than just a criminal division. I mean one of the forgotten stories of the Trump administration --
ERIC HOLDER: Yes.
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: -- is that the Trump Department of Justice stepped in to block a merger that Time Warner wanted to do with AT&T, I believe. And they blocked it. It was sort of surprising because the sort of progressive anti-monopoly [00:48:00] folks wanted them to block it, and that was not the people running the Trump Justice Department. And later it was revealed, I don’t think it’s quite smoking gun, but I think we have sufficient evidence, that it was because he was mad at CNN, which is owned by Time Warner for their coverage and its First Amendment protected speech.
That’s really wildly dangerous stuff. And we’ve seen in places like Turkey and Hungary and other places, that is a very common means by which authoritarian sort of presidentialist dictatorships influence democratic landscapes. And I’m curious to hear what your thoughts are on that.
ERIC HOLDER: Yes, people, in a way that I just described, focus a great deal on what the authority of the Justice Department is when it comes to its criminal authorities. You know, the ability to investigate and to indict people, indict corporations, so that’s one thing. But the Justice Department is composed of a whole range of other divisions that can be used improperly to advance the agenda of a corrupt president or to go after, again, the perceived [00:49:00] enemies of a president.
There’s an antitrust division, there is a civil division, there’s an environmental, natural resources division. There are a whole range of divisions within the Justice Department, that if used inappropriately, can have an impact on almost every component of our lives, whether it’s in commerce, whether it has to do, as we talked about before, with the criminal law, when it comes to the media.
I mean there are a whole range of things. I mean if General Motors decides that it wants to, you know, continue making electric cars and emphasizing that, and this is something that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump thinks that he doesn’t want to have occur.
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Yes, he said that.
ERIC HOLDER: Just go through the menu of, you know, what’s at the Justice Department, which division should we sic on --
CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Right.
ERIC HOLDER: -- General Motors to go after them and come up with a way in which we make that conversion to EVs difficult, if not impossible.
Rich Logis Escaped the Trump - MAGA Cult -- Heed His Warnings About Its Power and Extreme Danger to America - The Chauncey DeVega Show - Air Date 8-29-23
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA - HOST, THE CHAUNCEY DEVEGA SHOW: Did you ever think that you would see a political moment like this? Because I saw coming years ago—a black working class person, someone who's a [00:50:00] student of politics. These things are cyclical. We never purged white supremacy, which is America's native form, Jim and Jane Crow, fascism from this country.
But just thinking about what we were watching, growing up in the 80s. So, how do we go from Larry Bird in that moment to this? How do you make sense of it?
RICH LOGIS: I have to be entirely candid and transparent, Chauncey, with you. No, I didn't see this moment. One of the problems with being so anti two party system as I was, which led me to support Trump, is that it creates a lot of ignorance, and ignorance is very powerful.
Once one is in that traumatic world, and there's all the mythologies, and there's the hyper partisanship, I didn't have any interest in real history. I had an interest in "the Democrats are existential threat to America. Hillary Clinton was an existential threat. I believe that." When someone believes that—and there was no logical reason that I had to conclude that, Chauncey—which looking back on it, how did you come to that conclusion?
The answer is it wasn't really logical. It really was not. I'm not deflecting responsibility. I'm fully responsible for how I thought and how I voted. [00:51:00] But if one believes that Hillary Clinton was an existential threat, as I did, someone will support anyone or anything. So all of the factors that brought us here today, I have, in my life, proactively, and in a prorated, retrospective way, gone back and looked at what I consider to be more objective real history.
Looking at that real history, to your point on this, it begins to explain so well why this has happened. In the modern era, what I've come to realize, not that it started, but in the modern era, the election of President Obama accelerated a lot of the right wing traumatic mythologies. And then you had the Tea Party. And then you had Trump. And then you had COVID, and you had the 2020 election, you had the insurrection— and that's all in the span of 13 years?
I mean, that's a traumatic 13 years. We've not caught our breath from it, and we still haven't. And while I want to remain optimistic about the outcome that I think will happen next year democratically, I'm not naive about this fact. I know that the combination of the MAGA [00:52:00] voters, primary voters, combined with the fact that most Americans are apolitical—which apoliticism is a bubble unto itself—our politics are unpredictable. I know there is no guarantee here. So when we look at everything that's happened—and, to your credit, you saw it happening, and I suspect because you saw it happening at a time when maybe a lot of people weren't, you weren't really listened to.
So while I can't change the past, I am working really as feverishly as I can to make amends for the future. Because I consider what I did—my decisions—to have contributed to the problems. Yes, I'm one person. Yes, I'm one vote. But I don't look at it that way. I look at it, I need to take responsibility.
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA - HOST, THE CHAUNCEY DEVEGA SHOW: Now you said something very important there. You mentioned Fox News. I was talking to Tim Wise about this, and I've talked to other folks in this years long journey, this disaster. I've been asked to go on Fox News, all the big shows. So as a matter of principle, I will not go. Because Bernie is gone, and we saw what they did with that footage. Cornel West repeatedly goes on those shows, I don't know if he's doing it now. Point being, I can [00:53:00] understand the to-and-fro with some of this audience, but you're dealing with a fully propagandized public.
RICH LOGIS: It would be difficult for some of the Fox viewers to hear what I say and part of that reason it would be difficult for them to hear it is that part of leadership is telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
Now, I fully concur with this point about just how traumatized the Fox audience is.
If I were going to go on Fox, one of the points I would raise is to tell the audience that you've not heard from just a regular everyday person who was very deep in that rabbit hole. Why I left—I would get on a show, whomever the host is, and I would say, I want you to be honest with yourself and ask yourself some questions.
Number one, is it possible that some of my beliefs, my outcomes, my conclusions, my opinions, is it possible some of them are mistaken? Not saying they are, but is it possible that they're incomplete? That they are too black and white? That they lack [00:54:00] nuance? And the only reason, Chauncey, I'd go on, it's not to change a bunch of minds, but because I have a suspicion that those who'd be watching have never had anyone actually address them that way, which is firm, but I think fair and humanizing.
None of them, I believe, have been asked that question by someone and, not just that, being asked that question by a person like myself. I suspect that for some of them hearing that it would get them to pause just a little bit. Now maybe they pause for a moment and say "Well, yeah, that's a good point. Maybe. Ah! But you know what? The other side is just—they're an existential threat. So, yeah, I don't like this one side, but the other side is worse."
Chances are most would say that. But even if I got to one person, just one, I would consider it a resounding success. Because I know they will not have heard the way that I would frame it to them.
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA - HOST, THE CHAUNCEY DEVEGA SHOW: Help me! Help folks not of the MAGA world, not of—it is a cult, it meets the criteria of a cult.
How do you reason with those who are unreasonable? How do you talk to people, accepting your premise, who have been [00:55:00] fully propagandized, who are in a cult and want to be in it?
RICH LOGIS: To use some figurative language, although I suppose for some it might be literal, to the members of a cult, it's the outside world who are the crazies.
In the MAGA world, the trauma of that world is, you know, for as much as the Republican Party talks about identity politics. The community that MAGA provides, and it does provide a community, there is a kind of identity politics within that community, because there's a unity against common targeted enemy.
Democratic Party, Democrat, RINOs, the "Republicans In Name Only", the Romney type Republicans in the country—we used to look at those types of Republicans just as dangerous as a Democrat. That's how we used to look at them. When we were in that world—and I look back on it and I think about how much trauma I put myself under—for me to go to those right now, who have that cult mindset it's again back to the topic of affliction.
I mentioned earlier, bring [00:56:00] the news to the afflicted book of Isaiah. The book of Romans says, "Be patient in affliction," and that reconciliation to try to do that—it's going to require a lot of incremental work because unfortunately for some of those who are in the MAGA world, they are never going to leave it. I don't think as a country, and I'm concluding myself in this, I don't think we quite grasp the harm that has not only been caused, but we're going to see the residual effects of it for years to come.
And I just accept that. I'm not going to live in denial of it. But over the course of the next—we'll call it in the short term next year or two—there is going to have to be a moment where the MAGA voters are spoken to and addressed in such a way that they are not used to being spoken to. And that way of being spoken to is—again to not dehumanize them—but we have to somehow with whomever might be persuadable, we have to create doubt about their beliefs, about their support, [00:57:00] about their adherence to MAGA.
I don't think I've got the sole answer for it. I don't think there is a singular good answer to this. It's going to require some, in addition to the patience, it's going to require some collaborations with people we may not politically agree with and may not normally collaborate with. But if we feel like it's in the interest of the country and our democracy and our institutions, we're going to find a way to do it.
"The President of Forgetting" - Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good - Air Date 3-13-24
SPENCER CRITCHLEY - HOST, DASTARDLY CLEVERNESS: Most of us in the U. S. have been spared the necessity of knowing history, and instead, we've been able to live as if the world was created at our birth. But people in Central and Eastern Europe have already been trammeled by the history that has just now caught up with us.
They've been trying to warn us about it for decades. Back in 1979, The Czech writer Milan Kundera warned what it's like to live under what he called "a president of forgetting." In his case, the Soviet controlled Gustav Huzak. [00:58:00] Huzak knew that in order for Czechs to believe in totalitarianism as their future, they had to forget their history.
This is from Kundera's The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. If Franz Kafka is the prophet of a world without memory, Gustav Huzak is its builder. You begin to liquidate a people by taking away its memory. You destroy its books, its culture, its history. And then others write other books for it. Give another culture to it.
Invent another history for it. Then the people slowly begins to forget what it is, and what it was. The world at large forgets it still faster. Our president of forgetting is every bit as hostile to history as Huzak was. He invents an alternative Great America—one that no one who believes in the founding vision of America can ever call great.
And in one [00:59:00] of history's notorious rhymes, our president of forgetting is also obedient to a Russian dictator. The distinction between them, without much of a difference, is that Huzak answered to a communist Russian dictator, while Donald Trump is ever so eager to please a fascist Russian dictator.
And yet Trump commands the loyalty of tens of millions of Americans, who are descended from a generation willing to die free, rather than live under fascism. The Polish writer Czesław Miłosz watched friends, highly educated, apparently free thinking friends, Embrace authoritarian rule, under both Nazi and communist occupation.
In The Captive Mind, Milosz describes how it happened, one convenient step after another. One compromise leads to a second, and a third, until at last, though everything one says may be perfectly logical, it no longer has [01:00:00] anything in common with the flesh and blood of living people. Because forgetting is easy, and remembering can be very hard, People will cooperate in their oppression, and even assist in the oppression of their neighbors.
Václav Havel watched it happen, as an author, poet, playwright, and resister, before he became the first president of a free Czechoslovakia. In his essay, The Power of the Powerless, he describes how a post totalitarian system succeeds by simply training people to accept pervasive dishonesty. How many of us do that every day?
Havel writes, "Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did. Or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life [01:01:00] with it, and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system."
To keep freedom alive, Havel tells us, we must continue to live truthfully. Even when that isn't allowed, we can find small parts of our lives where it's possible and try to make them bigger. We can and must remember what freedom is like and remind each other, day by day.
As Kundera wrote, also in the book of Laughter and Forgetting, the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against oblivions.
Notes from the Editor on those who defend authoritarians against criticism during D-Day commemoration
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with TLDR News Global analyzing how democracies decline. Tufts University looked at the factors that put democracy under threat. Vox, back in 2017, that looked at how it was legal actions by Trump that were often the most concerning regarding democracy.
Ali Velshi on MSNBC, spoke with Anne Applebaum about [01:02:00] Russia and China's efforts to undermine democracy. Democracy Docket discussed the threat of racial gerrymandering. The Marxist Project laid out why the space between democracies and autocracies is often greater than we'd like to believe. Democracy Paradox looked through historical examples of failed democracies.
On Why is This Happening? Chris Hayes spoke with Eric Holder about Trump's plan to weaponize the justice department against his political enemies. Chauncey de Vega spoke with a former MAGA cultist who's now speaking out against the lies he once believed. And Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good described the importance of forgetting the past in order to enter a period of autocracy.
And those were just the top takes—there's a lot more in the deeper dive sections—but first, a reminder that this show is supported by members who get access to bonus episodes featuring the production crew here discussing all manner of important and interesting topics while trying to take a lighthearted angle at it at the same [01:03:00] time. To support all of our work and have those bonus episodes delivered seamlessly to the new members only podcast feed that you'll receive sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.com/support. There's a link in the "show notes" through our Patreon page, if you prefer, or from right inside the Apple Podcast App. If regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.
Now, before we continue on to the "deeper dives" half of the show—I know this is a heavy topic, existential questions about the future of democracy and all that.
So I thought I'd share one of the lighter takes on our current threat to democracy. The New York magazine Intelligencer had a short piece on conservatives' angry reaction to Biden's anti Nazi D-Day speech. Now first, it should be admitted that it's obviously true, that Biden was using the speech warning about the dangers of authoritarian tyranny, [01:04:00] as demonstrated in World War II as a modern warning against those same forces now ascendant in the GOP and elsewhere. However, he didn't actually mention anyone or any party by name. So it ended up being a nice sort of rhetorical trap wherein warning about tyranny and defending democracy. Has gotten the right to respond with anger to those ideas.
From the speech, "Now we have to ask ourselves, will we stand against tyranny against evil, against crushing brutality of the iron fist. Will we stand for freedom? Will we defend democracy?"
And then from the article writer, " What part of that do conservatives object to? Trump doesn't claim to be an isolationist, a lover of dictators or an opponent of democracy. They insist he doesn't want to break up NATO and only wants to toughen up the allies. His supporters only take attacks on these things as an attack on [01:05:00] Trump, because they understand he actually loves dictators believes in isolationism and hates democracy."
Pollock, one of the conservative commentators. Hilariously uses as evidence of Biden's scrupulous criticism, the following line: "The D-Day heroes fought to vanquish a hateful ideology in the thirties and forties. Does anyone doubt they wouldn't move heaven and earth to vanquish the hateful ideologies of today?"
And the article continues. Hearing the reference of 'hateful ideologies' Pollock's response is: "Hey, that's us!" Which is of course the classic rebuke, right? "Hey, I resemble that remark."
So. I said I was going for a slightly lighter angle, but it's also important to remind people of this, I'm about to say, you know, whenever possible. From a different New York magazine article, it says , "Trump is an admirer of Putin and reportedly of Hitler, even. Trump [01:06:00] truly supports neither Ukraine nor NATO. As I write this, it still seems insane, unimaginable that these are sentences about a once and possibly future American president, but they are real, if unfortunately, so familiar by now that Trump often benefits from our failure to be shocked all over again. Just two days before Putin's attack on his neighbor Trump called him a 'strategic genius' on the campaign trail. Trump frequently speaks about his great relationships with the world's current crop of autocrats and tyrants praising Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un for their strength while ranting about the weakness of the west. When Trump was president, he told his White House chief of staff, John Kelly—a decorated former Marine general —that he wanted America's officers to be more like Hitler's in their unquestioning loyalty to him. He routinely calls his enemies, 'vermin' and 'human scum,' echoing Hitler's language. And Kelly has said that Trump even told him [01:07:00] that Hitler did some good things."
Going on the article quotes from an unpublished resignation letter written by Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is my deeply held belief that you're ruining the international order and causing significant damage to our country overseas that was fought for so hard by the greatest generation that they instituted in 1945. It's now obvious to me that you don't understand that world order. You don't understand what the war was about. In fact, you subscribed to many of the principles that we fought against."
So when conservative pundits react in anger to Biden using the D-Day commemoration to criticize fascists and authoritarians from both the past and present, it seems to me that the only reasonable solution is for them to not nominate fascist authoritarians, to represent their party.
SECTION A: DISSECTION OF DEMOCRACY
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on four [01:08:00] topics.
Next up Section A: "Dissection of Democracy," Section B: "International Democracy," Section C: "The Cult of Trump," and Section D: "Democracy in Action."
Freedom in the world is measurably declining… what can we do? - Disorder - Air Date 3-9-24
ALEXANDRA HALL HALL - HOST, DISORDER: This is the 18th consecutive year where freedom in the world has declined. So explain in a bit more detail what some of these trends are and then let's get to the whys and what's, what should we do about it.
MIKE ABRAMOWITZ: So The core trend is that global freedom declined for an 18th consecutive year, which really means that every year for the last 18 years, there have been more countries who have experienced declines in political rights and civil liberties.
And those that had improvements. Now, last year was kind of interesting because for the first time in 17 years at the time, there had been a narrowing of the gap. And so we had thought that maybe it might be a turning point, but that was not to be the case. This [01:09:00] year, we had 52 countries that declined and only 21 that improved.
That is really a pretty wide gap. And so it's really was a very bad year for democracy. I think we have to recognize that while. We're in this period of decline, we are still way ahead of where we were either at the end of World War II or even 1973, which was a trough for global democracy. And we've had, after 1973, the first 30 years of the report, a tremendous growth in democracy.
So now I think 88 countries are considered democracies compared to 44, 50 years ago. So ...
ALEXANDRA HALL HALL - HOST, DISORDER: 44, God, that's so few.
MIKE ABRAMOWITZ: Yeah. So even though there's been a. A recession, we're still ahead of where we were. And I think that is something that gives you hope, but you also don't want to take things for granted. I think there's a great line from Ronald Reagan, which I'm going to butcher, but he said often that [01:10:00] freedom had to be fought for every generation.
And it's only a generation from being extinguished. And I read, I think that you really feel that when you are in an organization like Freedom House. And while some people will say to you, well, things are not so bad. Well, yes, but if the current trends continue, they could get a lot worse. So we cannot take this for granted.
I think that the three trends that we highlighted in 2023, number one was there were widespread problems with elections, violence, manipulation. Then you had countries like Cambodia, Guatemala, Poland, Turkey, Zimbabwe, where incumbents tried to control the electoral competition, hinder their political opponents.
Or really prevent them even from taking power. That was something that happened in Guatemala. After Mr. Arevalo, who is the new president there, was fairly elected in an election there. And I think the other two would be armed conflict, often driven by authoritarian aggression, caused death and [01:11:00] destruction and imperiled freedom.
I still think that one of the major challenges to freedom is right there in Ukraine, where the invasion of Ukraine has helped degrade basic rights in both occupied Ukraine and the Ukraine that remains free. and also prompted more intense repression in Russia itself. And I think, you know, another area that we're concerned about is Myanmar, where civilians bore the brunt of a civil conflict that stemmed from the 2021 military coup.
I think the other trend that I think I would just highlight is the rejection of pluralism, which is, you know, we define as a peaceful coexistence of people with different political ideas. religions or ethnic identities. And that is something that is also, we're quite concerned about.
ALEXANDRA HALL HALL - HOST, DISORDER: So this is the year of elections.
There are elections taking place around the world, including in the US and the UK. I now have American citizenship, so I'm even more engaged in American political developments than I was [01:12:00] before. So which are the elections that we should be looking out for this year? And do you see this problem of.
Election rigging, or manipulation, or demonization of political opponents. Is that also happening here as well as in other countries?
MIKE ABRAMOWITZ: Couple points to make about elections. First of all, I think we should pause and reflect upon the fact that the most repressive authoritarian countries in the world, feel they have to have an election, right?
You think about countries like Iran and Russia, just to name two of them. There is nothing that is free and fair about elections in Iran or Russia. They are a joke, a sham, a farce, whatever you wanna call it. But Putin has to go through the exercise of having what he calls an an election because election has acquired a great power that people don't accept the kind of [01:13:00] legitimacy of a government unless it.
Except, you know, unless they have an election. And I think that's a good thing, and I think that's a hopeful sign in the long term for the power of democracy, because the fundamental democracy is about other things than just having an election, but having an election is absolutely critical to a successful democracy.
I think the second point that I would make is that there are just some global trends with elections that are concerning. I mean, just two or three just to point out. One would be the rise of social media and the changes in media have really made the ease of spreading disinformation and propaganda much easier.
And so, The presence of that in many different countries and then elections around the world is a challenge for elections and for the credibility of democracies. I think number two, you see incumbents really trying to tilt the playing field on [01:14:00] behalf of their candidacies to the extent of rewriting the Constitution as it happened in El Salvador so that, you know, Yeah, a clear rule against one term for each president.
And they basically rigged the election. So you Kelly could have another term. And I think that we've seen that around the world. And I think the other thing that's kind of interesting is that even when. Someone wins a free and fair election, entrenched powers go out of the way to try to prevent that person from taking power.
So I think there are a lot of very concerning trends about elections that we highlight in our report this year.
When Democracy Breaks: Final Thoughts with Archon Fung, David Moss and Arne Westad Part 2 - Democracy Paradox - Air Date 6-4-24
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: The idea of democracy breaking still gives the indication that there’s a moment where democracy moves into something that is not democracy. What is the line that would represent the moment when you move from democratic breakdown? I mean, can we actually identify that moment? Does it matter to identify the exact precise [01:15:00] moment when a country moves from democracy to autocracy or at least not democracy?
ARCHON FUNG: Well, I think in the extreme cases, you can tell on either side pretty easily. Then your question is what’s the threshold? I guess many of my colleagues would have a minimal democracy definition where you absolutely know when there is no longer a contest between more than one party in a regular way. A lot of comparative political scientists would sign on to that definition still. I guess for me, it’s a fuzzier threshold in which contestation is just no longer viable within the institutions that exist and then you have to go extra-institutional. My colleague Erica Chenoweth, studies civil resistance. Once that’s the main path of contestation, it’s no longer democratic. So, for me, it has to do with the ability to contest. [01:16:00] Sometimes that’s in elections, but it’s also in many, many other spaces. When that’s just no longer viable. You’re probably not in a democracy anymore.
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: That makes Turkey a really problematic case because this past year you had extremely competitive elections and you had municipal elections where the opposition was not just competitive but they actually won in a number of different municipalities. So, does that mean that we should still think of Turkey as being somewhat democratic or do we think of that as being a case of actual complete breakdown? Is it a country that is suffering extreme forms of democratic erosion or has it crossed that threshold where it’s no longer democratic anymore?
DAVID MOSS: I think that this idea that something being broken is binary isn’t actually quite right, not only with regard to democracy, but really almost anything else. If you think about whether your car is broken, if it doesn’t move at all and [01:17:00] doesn’t start at all, it’s broken. But what about if it only starts 1/10th of the time or what about if it moves, but it only goes about three miles an hour? Or what about if sometimes the brake works and sometimes the brakes don’t work? Different people are going to say that that car is broken depending on some configuration. But we might take a vote or something to decide whether it’s broken. Different people are going to think different things. Certainly, when it doesn’t work at all.
There are binary elements, but I think as with anything, there are elements that are not binary. We can look at a democracy and we can say not every feature is working. But a lot of features are working and broadly do we see a commitment to majoritarianism in decisions? Broadly, do we see protection of minority rights and the right to contest? If we say yes, we say it’s a working democracy. As those begin to break down, especially those protections on dissent, on opposition, on running a competitive election as a member of the opposition, [01:18:00] especially as those weaken different people at different times will say it’s broken and they may backtrack. They may say, wait, it seemed broken. Now it’s actually working a little better.
I don’t think it’s a complete binary, even with the word broken, which sometimes might feel like it’s binary. That’s one of the things that you’re pointing out and that we struggle with in the book. Different people are going to see it differently, but I would say we did all decide on these cases that, ultimately, even if we can’t name the exact moment in time, there was a breakdown. The car – in this case, the democracy, wasn’t working.
ARNE WESTAD: Specifically with regard to Turkey, I think it is difficult because no one would argue that there are no forms of competitive democracy in today’s Turkey. But at the same time, as David alluded to earlier on in this conversation, I think it’s pretty clear that for a very large number of Turkish people, they have lost faith in much of the promise that democracy seemed to hold out to them when it was restored from authoritarian rule in the late 20th century. So, there is a trajectory [01:19:00] here, but the key for us, at least the key for me, is this depends very much on who you ask. When you get a system in which almost everyone feels that the system somehow does not work for them, that’s one element of the system.
In Turkey, be it the Kemalist institutions that were put in place in the early 20th century or the way of rule that President Erdogan has developed that doesn’t work for them, it’s not part of their vision of what a democracy should be. Then you know that there is trouble. Then you know there are significant weaknesses in terms of the political system that would not be recognized by many people who live under it as being democratic. I think this is one of the most important issues for me in terms of thinking about what we can learn from these cases is that all of those approaches would be different. I mean, those are situational. Those are based on historical and cultural and political differences that come out in the case.
ARCHON FUNG: Justin, to the Turkey case and then associated cases that we don’t really write about like Hungary and [01:20:00] maybe even India and other places, this goes to maybe the changing form of autocracy rather than the changing form of democracy. John Keane points out in his book, The New Despotism, that the new despots, unlike the old ones, have to conduct these quasi-democratic rituals as part of their own legitimation. One of them is elections. Another is public polling. This makes them very nervous because they think that they’ll probably win and in Putin’s Russia, almost certainly he would win.
But there’s a little bit of insecurity there because sometimes they don’t go your way and they know this. So, it may be a permanent democratic opening in the way that the new despotisms work. It seems like there has to be that minimum doorway to some minimum contestability in which things could go bad for the despot in a way that wasn’t quite true in prior eras of autocracy.
JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: [01:21:00] The Athenian chapter is interesting because it emphasizes not just democratic erosion and democratic breakdown, but also democratic recovery. But if we look at all of the different historical cases, any of the cases that date back to the 70s or earlier, they all eventually became thriving democracies later on. It makes me wonder whether when you suffer democratic erosion, if there’s really a point where democratic breakdown becomes almost inevitable. That to create democratic recovery, it needs to recover almost out of a complete breakdown, almost tabula rasa, if you will.
That’s one of the thoughts in my mind that I’d like to pose to you guys is whether democratic erosion, once it hits a certain point, does it become almost like a whirlpool where it just sucks you in to eventual breakdown [01:22:00] or can you recover your democracy at any point of the backsliding episode? Is it possible to recover from severe democratic erosion right at the point of democratic breakdown?
DAVID MOSS: I think there’s no way really to know. Certainly, in this book, we only looked at cases where they ended in breakdown. We can’t say if a country might’ve had a large amount of erosion and then it recovered. We’re not looking at those examples and beyond that it’s hard to put a number on it. We haven’t yet figured out how to do it, but it’d be great. V-DEM is trying and they have their method and others are trying. It’s hard, especially historically to have a lot of confidence in a number. So, it’s a little bit hard to say this one has more erosion than the other in very fine-grained ways. I’m not sure if we know the answer to that. That said I know the US example a little better than some of the others.
If you look at the US there was always a great deal of what [01:23:00] I would call political hypochondria. People always thought the democracy was breaking. From 1800 forward, they thought the Republic was breaking and except for in the case of the Civil War, they were always wrong. If you think about the restrictions, for example, just to give one very notable example, on black voting rights in the post-bellum period up through the 1960s, this is a very significant degree of political erosion and the country takes an awful long time, but is able to begin to rectify that particularly with respect to voting. So, I think you can have significant degrees of erosion.
If you look back again in the antebellum period in the United States, one of the reasons for the push for public education was the belief that small-d democratic values were eroding and that public education was necessary to correct that. Now, there was also a lot of bigotry associated with public education and a Catholic-Protestant fight and lots of things going on. There was this sense that there was erosion and here’s an institution [01:24:00] that can help address it. I don’t know how you measure in the fine grained way you’re talking about and we don’t know if a country that’s had significant erosion can come back without the breakdown, but I would tend to think that the possibility may be there.
Three experts on why democracies are facing growing threats globally - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 12-10-21
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: President Biden said there's a global competition between democracy and autocracy. Which side is winning in Latin America?
MIRIAM KOMBLITH: Unfortunately, I have to say that I think autocracy is winning.
Unfortunately, this is a region of the world that, until recently, praised itself of having all the countries in the democratic field, except for Cuba, and that has been a 60-year, long-lasting dictatorship. However, nowadays, we have — in addition to Cuba, we have Nicaragua and Venezuela, and we have a significant slipping into authoritarian trends both on the right and on the left.
And what's really worrisome is these authoritarian trends are being promoted from within, elected officials, [01:25:00] players, parties inside democratic systems that are pushing their own countries against the will of the people, in many cases, towards authoritarian regimes.
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Helen Kezie-Nwoha, we have seen coups in Guinea, Mali, Chad, Sudan, the highest number of coups in afternoon in 40 years.
Each, of course, have their own local causes. But what's behind what Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently called an epidemic of coups?
HELEN KENZIE-NWOHA: The democratic process in Africa has been mired with a lot of corruption in electoral processes.
You will find politicians taking advantage of poverty, a large number of unemployed youths, buying votes during elections, making elections not credible. We have also seen increasingly marginalization of minority groups, ethnic groups.
We see also increasingly social and economic inequalities [01:26:00] that have also led to agitations by people calling for changes in government. Once people are calling for changes, the army takes over. And when they took over, they also used elections itself to manipulate themselves into power, making it even worse for people.
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Heather Conley, how are leaders in Hungary and Poland especially challenging democracy, weaponizing cultural values, and how are other leaders in Europe, frankly, taking their example?
HEATHER CONLEY: Hungary, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has really been a leader in establishing an illiberal handbook, so restricting constitutional capabilities for an opposition to be able to express themselves, reduce media freedoms, so any media voice has to be supportive of the government, is controlling the judicial branch, making sure that there can't be any meaningful investigation [01:27:00] into a government.
Mr. Orban's handbook has now been adopted in Poland, increasingly in Slovenia. In part, it's to ensure the current government can maintain its political power and its base, and making sure that the opposition cannot do that.
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: So, let's talk a little bit in each region about how some local forces are fighting this.
Miriam Kornblith, let's start with you.
What do we see in terms of resistance in Latin America to these anti-democratic trends? How are people fighting back?
MIRIAM KOMBLITH: There is a lot of fighting back against the authoritarian trends.
Even in the case of Cuba, for the first time in 60 years, people took to the streets. There's a very vibrant civil society in Latin America that is fighting back. They are looking for transparency, anti-corruption. They're looking for rule of law, for independent judiciary, for independent legislative branches. There are lots of courageous, [01:28:00] innovative and very committed people fighting back.
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Helen Kezie-Nwoha, you talked a lot about elections. Why is it important for the world to try and support African election infrastructure?
HELEN KENZIE-NWOHA: Civil society organizations and others bodies are working very hard to ensure that electoral processes are more transparent, despite the militarized nature of states within Africa.
Although there's been a lot of works in terms of sensitizing the citizens on the rule of law on elections, you find that the environment itself is not conducive for civil society.
NICK SCHIFRIN - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Heather Conley, we have seen major protests across Poland. Can something like that make a difference?
HEATHER CONLEY: Absolutely.
So, you really are seeing a pretty significant social mobilization. But is it enough? You have governments that have all the tools. They control the media, they control the funding sources, and they [01:29:00] are able to use their majorities to pass through new laws.
But I think we're seeing some real improvements. So we see this as well in the European Union withholding pandemic relief funds from both Poland and Hungary because of the democratic backsliding, may, in fact, have the greatest leverage, in addition to strong U.S. engagement.
SECTION B: INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRACY
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: You've reached Section B: "International Democracy."
“More Than a Symbolic Victory”: Mexican Women’s Movement Paved Way for Election of 1st Female President - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-4-24
LAURA CARLSEN: After 200 years of democracy and 65 male presidents, the populace elected a woman for the first time, with an overwhelming majority. Now, this is more than a symbolic victory. What it means is that there’s an example for younger women that women can be leaders, that they can gain the support of the population, and they offer greater horizons for younger women as they begin to think about their own futures. It also means — and I’ve been talking to women from other countries, for example, in Chile, with [01:30:00] Michelle Bachelet as president, two terms, and also in Honduras, Xiomara Castro — that there’s a number of doors that open for women’s equality and policies that have to do with women’s equality. For one thing, there’s usually greater dialogue. There are more channels of dialogue. For another, there’s the support that women presidents can give each other, especially within this region, in terms of promoting gender equality policies across the region. This could be a path toward greater gender equality, and which is obviously very key to democracy within the region.
Now, in the clip that you played, Claudia Sheinbaum credited women before her with her victory. And it’s very important to recognize this. She owes a lot to women’s movements within Mexico. Women’s movements in Mexico began fighting decades ago for gender parity and equal representation [01:31:00] in political positions within the country. And it has not been an easy fight. We’re talking about a country with a traditionally macho culture which has now achieved a landmark in democracy that even the United States has not achieved. They began by requiring quotas in candidacies. They would get a legislation passed, and then the parties would find loopholes. They would have to close up the loopholes. They began to push for laws against political violence and gender-based violence that would disqualify or even threaten women for being women. And little by little, they made this progress, until, also with the support of Claudia Sheinbaum’s party and — the Morena, they achieved parity in the cabinet and within Congress at certain points in the recent history. So, all this was very important for her arriving.
Now, [01:32:00] the current government has not had a good relationship with women’s movements. Women’s movements have been dissatisfied particularly with the lack of progress on the key issue of gender violence. We saw massive demonstrations of over a million people throughout Mexico on March 8th, International Women’s Day, protesting against the lack of progress and what they see as relative indifference of the government toward women’s demands to reduce it and protect them. And, in fact, the president has been dismissive and at times even attributed their criticisms to a manipulation of the right wing.
There’s an expectation that the relationship will be different with Claudia Sheinbaum. The current government does have feminists who are involved in it. There’s an expectation that feminists will join this government, as well, and that there may be new policies to direct the issue [01:33:00] of violence, of gender-based violence. Femicide in Mexico is very high. It’s kind of hard to pin down the numbers, because it has a different legal definition in different entities. One of the things that she’s proposing is that there be a federal definition of “femicide” and that it be a crime that’s prioritized for prosecution, contributing with groups of lawyers for women who denounce crimes of gender-based violence. There’s a series of proposals, most of which are fairly similar to what’s been put — been in place before. So, women are looking to see a more aggressive policy. However, there is an expectation that there will be some changes here, and particularly in the tone.
Claudia Sheinbaum is a very different type of politician from Andrés Manuel López Obrador. He was obviously the wind in her political sails to be able to achieve a victory which is a 30-point margin. It’s greater [01:34:00] than even most of the polls assumed. She’s winning, by the latest figures, which is over 95% of the vote counted, by 59% to 28% to her closest rival, another woman candidate, which is interesting, from the right, Xóchitl Gálvez, as you mentioned. And so, his popularity, which has been consistently above 60% throughout his six-year period, significantly contributed to her win, as well as the popularity of his programs. These programs, which are called the Fourth Transformation, which means the fourth moment of significant change in the history of Mexico, from independence, the reform and the revolution, giving it this historic dimension, are really based on social programs where a majority of Mexican families are receiving benefits from the government. And that was reflected, as well, in the vote. So, she has promised [01:35:00] to continue with that.
And one of the big debates is: How much will she create her own mark on this presidency? Mexican presidents typically have a great deal of power, which means that former presidents typically fade into the background. But there is some question about how much she’ll be able to do that. She has, of course, insinuated that this kind of a question is sexist, which you could definitely see it that way, and has said that she has a commitment, because there’s a public mandate to continue with these policies, but that she will indeed be her own person.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Laura, I wanted to ask you, in terms of Sheinbaum’s policies toward the United States, and, of course, the very hot-button issue of immigration. We’re hearing that President Biden is about to issue an executive order that will effectively begin to close down the border for [01:36:00] migrants or people seeking asylum from through Mexico into the United States. Your sense of how Sheinbaum will be — attempt to deal with the Biden administration, or whichever administration takes office next January, in terms of immigration?
This is a critical issue. And so far what she’s repeated is the slogan “cooperation with respect.” The current government has walked a fine line in its relationship with both the presidency of Donald Trump and the presidency of Joe Biden, and particularly, of course, on the issue of immigration. Claudia Sheinbaum has not defined a very detailed plan for what Mexico will do with immigration. And so far what that policy has been is to toe the line of U.S. anti-immigrant policies that are focused on containing immigrant flows. There’s a lot of talk of going to the causes, creating jobs that would enable [01:37:00] people to remain in their home countries, particularly in Mexico and Central America. And what we haven’t seen, the investment that would correspond to really making that kind of a policy work. She has said that she will emphasize that. She has said that she will respect human rights. But we see a huge participation of the National Guard in immigration control, which has led to massive violations of immigrant rights here in Mexico. And she has certainly not said that that will stop.
LAURA CARLSEN: With the closure of the right to request asylum in the United States, Mexico has to receive these thousands of people. It is very likely that Claudia Sheinbaum will agree to receiving these people. Mexico has refused to be a third safe country, which is a formal agreement saying that everyone who wants to request asylum has to do it in the first safe country they pass through. But they have agreed to a number [01:38:00] of programs that require them to receive people who are technically waiting to go through a legal process in the United States. It will be a constant negotiation. It’s a very tricky negotiation. There’s always a sore point of national sovereignty involved, that Mexican governments, both López Obrador and now Claudia Sheinbaum, will defend. But they also know that they cannot anger the United States, at the risk of economic repercussions.
If it’s Donald Trump, that risk is even greater. And she will have the additional factor that he’s a misogynist. It will not be easy for a woman president to deal with Donald Trump. We’ve already seen his relationship with Angela Merkel, for example, in Germany. So, the challenges are great.
Indian Elections - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - Air Date 6-6-24
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: If you're wondering how there's been both substantial growth and increasing poverty, that is because India's economic gains have been widely [01:39:00] unequal. By some estimates, just one million people now control around 80 percent of India's wealth.
And as they've gotten richer, much of the country has gotten poorer, even with all those bags of grain with his face on them. Under Modi, the country has fallen in the Global Hunger Index and now sits below North Korea and war torn Sudan. And you would think That all of this would be fertile ground for Modi's critics to exploit.
But, it's actually hard to do that in India. For one thing, it's difficult to confront him to his face, because he hasn't held a single press conference in India in the last ten years. And the interviews that he's granted have been the exact opposite of hard hitting. What criticism there is of Modi often gets suppressed in India, sometimes in a pretty heavy handed way.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Publications that have done stories critical of India's leadership, like the BBC, recently saw their offices raided on charges of tax evasion or money laundering. One of the country's most popular news channels that reported critically on the government, [01:40:00] NDTV, had its founders raided for bank fraud.
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: It's true, not only were the founders of NDTV raided, but a few years later, a billionaire with close ties to Modi bought it, and its tone is now much friendlier to him.
Basically, if you criticize Modi, there's a pretty good chance that things are going to get very unpleasant for you. And given that we're here in America, I'm honestly not too worried about Moti's goons coming after me, but on the off chance that their reach does extend this far, you know what? Fucking try it!
You want to try and shut us down for being critical? I dare you! Do you have any idea who I am? I'm Bill fucking Ma, and my show has been on for, holy shit, over 20 years. And if you want to take us down, take your best shot. I, Bill Ma, would welcome it. It is no wonder. India is currently ranked 159th out of 180 countries for press freedom, that is 19 places lower than when Modi first came to power.
But it's not just national media, local outlets have been targeted too. This network in Kerala was suddenly taken off the [01:41:00] air by the government in 2020 for reasons explicitly linked to its content.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: The shutdown was triggered by the channels reporting on anti Muslim riots in Delhi in February 2020.
According to the notice from the Information Ministry, MediaOne's coverage was biased and critical of the role of the Delhi police, and of a Hindu nationalist outfit, the RSS. The ban was soon reversed, the channel back on air. But the signal was clear, fall in line or else.
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Yeah, that's not good. Because that crackdown creates a clear chilling effect, where media outlets may well be intimidated out of criticizing Modi.
And that could actually help explain why Hotstar, the platform that we were on in 2020, mysteriously chose to block our episode criticizing. And look, there are plenty of reasons to not watch this show. Depressing subject matter, too much profanity, and the very fact that the frantic pace of my talking voice causes dogs to, and this is a medical term, go nuts.
Also, the show seems biased, it's too long, I prefer Jimmy Fallon, Kimmel, Colbert, [01:42:00] Seth, or James Corden. Hi, Mum, by the way. Whatever your reason, at least it's your choice, not someone else's, to not watch. What I'm saying is, Meaningful criticism of Modi is scarce on TV in India. In fact, many veteran anchors who were critical of him have migrated to sites like YouTube instead.
But the government may soon be able to help heavily regulate digital media too. It's pushing a law which could mean that anyone making social commentary online would have to adhere to advertising and program codes prescribed by the government. Meanwhile, an amendment is working its way through the courts, which would establish a fact check unit, allowing the government to identify fake news about itself And order it to be taken down.
And I actually have a lead for that fact check unit. Check out the batshit claim that Modi stopped the war in Ukraine. Because there's a weird video going around that he should probably get taken down. And it's not just the press who found it hard to take on Modi. The same goes for his political opposition.
He's currently facing off against a coalition called the Indian National Developmental [01:43:00] Inclusive Alliance, or INDA. India, for short. A monumentally weak name for a coalition. The first I in India stands for Indian. It'd be like if the H in HBO stood for HBO. Which it obviously doesn't, it stands for Hank.
Hank's box office. The India Coalition. This election is led by the Congress Party, the face of which is Rahul Gandhi. And while his party never stood a realistic chance of challenging Modi, even so, its campaign has been significantly hampered by the fact that just weeks before this year's election began, tax agencies moved to freeze their bank accounts.
And on the same day that that was announced, the head of one of India's other opposition parties, And look, those could be just more lucky, complete coincidences for Modi. Except for the fact that over the years, multiple politicians who've opposed the BJP have found themselves facing charges of fraud or financial malfeasance.
Only for those charges to suddenly stall or be [01:44:00] dropped when they switch parties and join the BJP instead. There's even a term for this, the washing machine, where supposedly dirty politicians come out clean once they switch sides. And it is a completely open secret there.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: One opposition politician who joined the BJP in 2022 left the cat out of the bag when he said he sleeps easier now that he's a member of the ruling party.
I also had to switch to the BJP. Now I'm stress and tension free. All is good. No official inquiries, no investigation, and I can sleep peacefully. I'm tension free. Wow!
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: It is so universally understood. Everyone in that audience laughed, and laughed so hard, honestly. I'm a little bit jealous. It kind of makes me wonder if I should have spent our last show admitting to political corruption, instead of, what were we talking about?
What, corn? I did 25 minutes on fucking corn, and people watched it? What exactly is this show? [01:45:00] But in general, and to put it mildly, It seems good to be on Modi's good side, and very, very bad to be on his bad side. And that brings us back to his attacks on Muslims. As I mentioned earlier, he and his party are adherents to Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva.
It used to be a fringe ideology, but is now mainstream. And it's been said, nobody has done more to advance this cause than Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And Muslims, as India's largest religious minority, have borne the brunt of this. Early this year, Modi famously opened an over 200 million dollar Hindu temple, showing up personally to help consecrate it.
Which might seem benign, until you learn that temple was built on the former site of this mosque, that was demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992, in an incident that set off riots, reportedly killing over 2, 000 people, most of them Muslim. So it's a site of tremendous pain. And the symbolism of opening a temple on that exact spot has been called the crowning achievement of a national movement aimed at establishing Hindu [01:46:00] supremacy in India.
But the damage here isn't just symbolic. In the climate that Modi stoked, Muslims have been lynched by Hindu mobs over allegations of eating beef or smuggling cows, an animal considered holy to Hindus. And then, there's been this.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Muslim owned buildings are literally being bulldozed in what the government calls a crackdown on illegal construction and accused criminals.
A brand of bulldozer justice all too common in India.
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: That is awful and it's happening so much now that bulldozer justice has become a commonly used term. In fact, the bulldozer itself has become a Hindu nationalist symbol and it's been featured during election victories and in political rallies. This hardline BJP leader has even earned the nickname Bulldozer Baba.
And with anti Muslim hate speech and violence on the rise, it is no wonder many are feeling increasingly targeted and in incredibly grim ways.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Muslim shopkeeper Shamsher Ali feels like he's being pushed out. [01:47:00] Anything can happen at any point. That is the amount of hate now. Violence against Muslims is on the rise.
A Delhi police officer was caught on camera last month kicking a group of Muslim men, praying by the side of the road. The video went viral. The officer suspended. Another police officer arrested for killing three Muslims on a train, praising the prime minister while standing over their bodies.
JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Yeah, and it's worth remembering, that is not a bug of Modi's leadership, it is a feature.
So given all of this, what can we do? Well, for those of us who don't live in India, nothing really. Also, asking a British person, what should we do about India, is a little bit dangerous, as we tend to have quite a lot of ideas, none of which should be listened to. But as an international community, it seems past time to stop the uncritical, thawning praise of a man who is, to put it mildly, a deeply complicated figure.
So maybe we could at least stop comparing him to Bruce Springsteen. [01:48:00] And when you talk about what he's done for India, at least acknowledge that while, yes, he's responsible for giving bags of grain to people, he's also responsible for some getting sent bulldozers. And it should be possible to acknowledge the good things that Modi's managed to do for India, while acknowledging that many Indians live in active fear of what he seems more than happy to represent.
El Salvador’s "Cool Dictator" Bukele Begins Controversial 2nd Term with Backing from Biden & Trump - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-4-24
AMY GOODMAN: President Bukele’s inauguration comes as his government continues to enforce a state of exception in El Salvador, a so-called war on gangs that’s led to the detention of nearly 80,000 people since 2022, many without charge or access to due process. Human rights groups have warned of gross violations and torturous conditions inside overcrowded Salvadoran prisons and estimate at least 240 people have died in police custody.
Despite growing concerns for Bukele’s authoritarianism, the Biden administration sent a high-level delegation, led by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, to the inauguration. Just three years ago, Biden officials had [01:49:00] refused to meet with Bukele in D.C. amidst concerns of his anti-democratic rule. Also in attendance at Saturday’s inauguration in San Salvador was Argentina’s right-wing President Javier Milei, Donald Trump Jr. and several Trump allies, including Florida Congressmember Matt Gaetz, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Protesters gathered outside the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington, D.C., to call out the Biden administration’s recognition of what they called an illegal and unconstitutional second term for Bukele.
CONSUELO GÓMEZ: [translated] We know that your government knows of the kidnapping and deaths of our children and families in Bukele’s jails. President Biden, it shames us that your government decided to participate in the inauguration of a new dictator in El Salvador.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to San Salvador, where we’re joined by Roman Gressier, a French American journalist, reporter with El Faro English, covering Central American politics. His latest piece for El Faro English is headlined “Biden [01:50:00] and Trump Camps Jockey for Favor in Bukele’s New El Salvador.” El Faro’s editorial board also recently published an op-ed titled “A Dictatorship Is Born.”
Explain the significance of this inauguration, the second term of Bukele, who describes himself as the “coolest dictator.”
ROMAN GRESSIER: As you noted in the introduction to this segment, this is essentially the evolution or the fulfillment of a process that’s been developing at least since 2021, when the Constitutional Chamber and the attorney general were removed in the first day of the last legislature, when Bukele’s party had achieved a supermajority in the elections. So, they removed the Constitutional Court, or Chamber, which then dramatically reversed course, just three, four months later — I believe in September of that year — ruling, despite six articles of the Constitution, that Bukele could seek reelection. So, that was [01:51:00] essentially the first stepping stone. And the following year, he declared that he would indeed run for reelection. And late last October, just minutes before the enrollment deadline as a candidate, he did indeed register as a candidate for reelection, without resistance from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal or other institutions. And on February 3rd, he was reelected with over 80% of the public’s support. And he was just sworn in on Saturday.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And, Roman, if you could explain to our viewers and listeners why Bukele has such deep support among so many Salvadorans?
ROMAN GRESSIER: Well, I think it has to do with a number of factors, first and foremost being the state of exception, which, while it has been very repressive, as you had also identified in the introduction, does hold the strongest support among the — [01:52:00] in the electorate and in polling. We saw throughout the election that the government, in fact, did not hold very much — did not do very much campaigning at all. The president did not do very much campaigning at all. It was more of a — and there weren’t future-looking proposals, such as, “We want to do this or that.” It was more a victory lap, stressing the reduction of gang presence, the dramatic reduction of gang presence in communities across the country. And there were even ads being run prior to the election suggesting that if the opposition, quote, “were to return to power,” then there would be a dramatic unleashing of gangs from the prisons, and this could only be avoided if the president’s majority in the Legislature were to continue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And could you talk about the Bukele government’s crackdown on journalists and [01:53:00] human rights defenders? You yourself were among a group of journalists who were surveilled by the Bukele government with the Pegasus spyware.
ROMAN GRESSIER: That’s right. At the time, in late 2022, when we announced the Pegasus surveillance, extensive Pegasus surveillance, of El Faro, there were also multiple other newsrooms who were touched by that, as well as human rights organizations, columnists. It was very extensive. And I would suspect that if more people were to subject their phones to the same tests that we ran, we would have an even broader picture of what that surveillance truly looked like. But the digital surveillance certainly has been strong. The context of digital — of in-person and digital intimidation has also been very — has been ever present.
Just a few days before — two days before inauguration, if I’m not mistaken, the government announced arrests against nine [01:54:00] historic FMLN leaders, accusing them of plotting to plant bombs throughout the capital. And the audio that the police posted online didn’t speak of that in those terms. It spoke of a product that could not fail, etc. And one legal aid organization that knows the defendants asserted that they were speaking of firecrackers that are often used at protests.
So, the broader context or the undertones of inauguration have been very tense, hostile at times. And at inauguration itself, there were snipers on the rooftop, on rooftops close to the event, the military checking people who were coming in and out. So, the whole context definitely had militaristic undertones to it.
AMY GOODMAN: Roman, as we begin to wrap up, you’ve got Bukele detaining over 80,000 people since 2022, many without charge, in his so-called war on gangs. You have the Biden [01:55:00] administration, just three years ago, officials refusing to meet with President Bukele in D.C., given the human rights abuses or his tendency toward authoritarianism. Now you have a high-level delegation, led by Mayorkas, being present at the inauguration. And you have the right wing there. You have Florida Congressmember Matt Gaetz. You have Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host. And you have Donald Trump Jr., clearly representing Donald Trump. Why? What are their interests?
ROMAN GRESSIER: Yeah, it was interesting — it was interesting to see these what appeared to be parallel U.S. delegations at inauguration on Saturday. On one hand, you have the Biden administration, who, after the initial ruling by the Constitutional Court — actually, even before that, after the removal of the last Constitutional Court in May [01:56:00] 2021, they were extremely critical, as were most of the countries in the hemisphere, or many of the countries in the hemisphere. And that posture gradually changed. So, by the next year — actually, even adding one more step to the picture, when interim U.S. Ambassador Jean Manes left the country in around November 2021, the U.S., by that time, had compared Bukele’s ambition to seek reelection to Hugo Chávez. And she left the country saying that she didn’t — she believed she didn’t have a partner in the country at that time. So, the criticism was very broad. But by the following year, what Juan Gonzalez — the other Juan Gonzalez, the former national security adviser to President Biden, told El Faro English essentially said in a public forum the following year was that, you know, “There are different interpretations of the Constitution, and we’ll let the people decide.” [01:57:00] And at that point, things were more ambiguous. And by this year, the administration has settled into a posture of steering clear of the question of unconstitutional reelection and focusing on efforts to draw closer to the Bukele administration. I think part of that has to do with the fact that when the current U.S. ambassador faced his Senate hearing, Florida Senator Marco Rubio stressed that we don’t — and I believe this is a direct quote. He said, “We don’t have to applaud everything that they’re doing, but there is a national security interest that should also be balanced.” So, I believe that’s what is afoot on the side of the Biden administration.
And as for the Trump orbit, there has — Bukele was very close to the Trump administration and to U.S. Ambassador Ronald Johnson, who was there. There was an extensive cooperation on migration, efforts to stop migration to the U.S. at Mexico border. And in recent months, [01:58:00] you could say in the past year, as things have been particularly delicate with the Biden administration and there was a lot of uncertainty as to the tenor of the relationship, Bukele was very openly courting the U.S. far right. He was meeting with Tucker Carlson on his show, taking other steps. And it was very evident that there was a mutual affinity. And basically, the visit by Donald Trump Jr. confirmed. It was the most public sign of what had been understood for some time, which is that Bukele does, in fact, bet on and support the return candidacy of Donald Trump.
How to Dismantle a Democracy - Analysis - Air Date 2-19-24
DAVID RUNCIMAN: In the 1990s, there were these sort of fantastical visions of a democracy where you'd have nightly referendums where the people would choose on whatever the question was by clicking on their screens, whatever the technology was in the 1990s, policy choices for the government. So none of that has ever come to pass.
Instead, he says, technology is all [01:59:00] too often being used to damage democracy. If you think about the dawn of the digital technology age, the great hope was that this technology would provide the tools for citizens to expose their government. It was meant to be the great vehicle of democracy. democratic emancipation.
This is thought to be a democratic technology because it puts information in the hands of citizens. And I think what we have learned is that there is a massive power imbalance here. And actually the scope and the capacity to use and manipulate information lies with governments. They have far greater power to do this.
They have far greater appetite to do it. They have far greater capacity to do it.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: Amos Lipovich from Freedom House says the Turkish government is one of many, which is keen to check out what people have posted on platforms like X, often many years ago, to see if it offers potential to go after them.
AMY SLIPOWITZ: If you kind of get on the bad side of the Erdogan government, they'll just go back through your social media history, look [02:00:00] through your tweets, go back 10 years even, and find something that's not true.
that seems to be critical of the government and use that to investigate or prosecute them. So it also leaves this kind of digital trail that can threaten arrest at any moment.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: Turkish President Erdogan won't have to face the jeopardy of another presidential election now until 2028. But for the country normally referred to as the world's largest democracy, crunch time is fast approaching.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Modi is generating an immense amount of enthusiasm today, there's almost a frenzied atmosphere inside the rally.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: India is holding elections in two months time, with Narendra Modi seeking a third five year term in office. 900 million people are registered to vote. There are six recognized national parties, dozens of regional parties, and more than 2, 000 unrecognized ones.
Surely that shows a thriving democracy.
LARRY DIAMOND: The grip of the ruling party, [02:01:00] the BJP, just keeps tightening.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: Not according to Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who's concerned that, in fact, increasingly, it's just one party in serious contention. That's Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP.
LARRY DIAMOND: People are self censoring.
A lot of people won't, even in intellectual life, say certain things on social media in public for fear of being prosecuted. Businesses and independent media know that the taxman cometh with a political hatchet if they say too much that is critical of the government or the ruling party.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: Forget the Marines.
Sending in the tax authorities is a perfect way to intimidate your opponents. While most of us would agree companies and individuals who evade tax should be investigated, Larry Diamond says some suspect it has become a political tool in India to silence opposition.
LARRY DIAMOND: An independent research institute, not, you know, not one of the most oppositional ones [02:02:00] whose name probably I should leave out so that their plight isn't made even worse than it already has become, had to close down because they said modestly critical things and the tax man came.
That's the strategy now.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: The Indian Income Tax Department has raided an impressive number of organisations. The charities Oxfam and Amnesty International and several news websites which have been critical of its BJP party. The BBC has not been immune. In February last year, its Delhi offices were raided for three days over allegations of tax evasion.
Larry Diamond believes the Indian media has taken note.
LARRY DIAMOND: Many Indian newspapers now have become so quiet, so tame, even so servile. Their owners have huge business interests, and they don't want the tax man coming.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: The governing BJP party denies that journalists are being targeted, and believes [02:03:00] that much of what is happening is part of an orchestrated propaganda against the government.
But observers say India is using the courts to silence high profile opponents with the sorts of charges which would not have been brought before. For decades after independence, the Congress Party dominated Indian politics. But in March last year, one of its senior leaders, Rahul Gandhi, was sentenced to two years in prison for defamation after surname at an election rally.
He was also later disqualified as a lawmaker.
JENNIFER GANDHI: The prosecution of Rahul Gandhi, who is a prominent figure due to his family name and his position in the Congress party, but actually using the law to prosecute him in such a clearly manipulative way to prevent him from standing in the election is probably a pretty prominent low point.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: Jennifer Gandhi, no relation to Rahul, is professor of political science and [02:04:00] global affairs at Yale University. In August last year, India's Supreme Court suspended Rahul Gandhi's conviction. But Professor Gandhi says it's not just the final verdict that's important. It's the amount of time, money and energy political opponents have to expend in fighting their cases.
JENNIFER GANDHI: I mean, just think about the amount of energy and resources that those people who've been targeted by the government, how much they have to muster to defend themselves. It's a scary prospect, right? That you'd have to find counsel who's willing to represent you, who's not intimidated themselves by what the government could do to them.
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: India's neighbours, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have a combined total population of around 400 million people and have both held elections this year. In January, Bangladesh Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, secured her fourth straight term in a controversial election. The [02:05:00] main opposition, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, boycotted the poll after mass arrests of its leaders and supporters.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Pakistan goes to the polls this week, but there are questions about how free or fair these elections will be. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan is disqualified from running An
MATT QVORTRUP - HOST, ANALYSIS: India's great rival and neighbour, Pakistan, has jailed former Prime Minister, a past captain of the Pakistani cricket team, Imran Khan and his wife, for seven years after voiding their marriage.
He was already in prison after having been found guilty on corruption charges. The week before the couple were convicted of profiting from state gifts, even the cricket bat, the symbol of Khan's PTI party, was banned from appearing on ballot papers for February's elections. That may seem like a small detail, but in a country where there are high rates of illiteracy, it's likely to confuse voters.
Anne Applebaum says smearing your opponent and trying to question their [02:06:00] integrity. It's part of the playbook.
ANNE APPLEBAUM: If you can undermine someone and destroy their credibility and harass them and ruin their lives, then you depress their followers and their admirers as well. It can include accusations of corruption.
It can include harassment, you know, tax inspections or forcing people to produce lots of documents about their financial status. You can just say you think they're good, you know, you think they're well meaning, you know, you think these are idealistic people. They're not, they're corrupt.
SECTION C: THE CULT OF TRUMP
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now, Section C: "The Cult of Trump."
Jon Stewart Tackles The Trump Conviction Fallout & Puts The Media on Trial - The Daily Show - Air Date 6-3-24
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: For Democrats, of course, the challenge is how do we exploit the moment politically without giving the impression that this was the plan all along? Republicans needed to employ a slightly different strategy.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: This was a sham rigged political show trial from the very beginning.
This is the most outrageous travesty
I've ever seen. This was not law, this was not criminal justice, this was politics, this was a political smear job.
LAURA INGRAM: I [02:07:00] guess we all need, what, to shop at Banana Republic from now on? Because that's what it feels like, yeah, a Banana Republic.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: After this trial, we need to shop at Old Navy, because our country is a sinking ship.
It was a sham, a sham, this trial. A sham, I say. It was a sham. I'm shopping at Old Navy. The trial was a sham. Yes, we impaneled grand juries and submitted evidence and cross examined witnesses. But how is Donald Trump or his family not allowed on the jury? Outrageous! our justice system wasn't a sham, but certainly applying our justice system to Donald Trump was.
SENATOR TIM SCOTT: This is the weaponization of the justice system against their political opponent.
This is a justice system that haunts Republicans while protecting Democrats. [02:08:00]
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: Oh my God! The justice system hunts Republicans while protecting Democrats. Someone should mention that to such unprotected Democrats as Senator Robert Menendez and Congressman Henry Cuellar, both facing corruption charges brought by our Department of Justice.
Not to mention, Hunter Biden was facing jury selection in a federal gun charges trial. F ing today! Through your sham upitization, the good hearted and good intentioned denizens of MAGA tania have finally been pushed too far.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Be ready, because on January 20 of next year, when he's former president, Joe Biden, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh said Trump should, quote, Make and publish a list of 10 high ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office. These
MEGYN KELLY: Democrats will rue the day they decided to use lawfare to stop a presidential candidate.
It won't be Hunter Biden the next time. [02:09:00] It's going to be Joe Biden. It could potentially still be Barack Obama. It could still potentially be Hillary Clinton.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: It could be Barack Obama.
Perhaps it is time for those on the right to begin to examine what it might be like to investigate Hillary and William Clinton. Or perhaps to do it continuously and relentlessly for the last 30 years. But! To admit their own political gamesmanship, their own attempts at weaponizing justice, their own relentless pursuit of opponents, their own dehumanizing rhetoric towards the left, would be to allow a molecule of reality into the airtight distortion field that has been created to protect Magadonians from the harsh glare of the world.
It is a place where a moment such as this next one can pass without so much as a gasp of [02:10:00] what planet do you live on? For it is clearly not ours.
WILL CAIN: You famously said regarding Hillary Clinton, lock her up. You declined to do that as president.
DONALD TRUMP: I didn't say lock her up, but the people don't say lock her up, lock her up.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: What the f k? You never said lock her. I think I remember you saying it to her face at a debate.
HILARY CLINTON: It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
DONALD TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: To be fair, I apologize. guys. You did not say the words, lock her up, you only used a phrase synonymous with locking her up. Lock her up! Lock her up! Again, apologies. You didn't say lock her up, you merely gave [02:11:00] the thumbs up to thousands of others chanting lock her up. But that doesn't mean he literally said lock her up, although to be fair, he literally said lock her up all the f
DONALD TRUMP: ing time.
So Crooked Hillary, Crooked Hillary, you should lock her up, I'll tell ya. For what she's done, they should lock her up. Lock her up is right. Lock up Hillary.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: three of them? And that, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you is why we need courts.
Whatever flaws the American justice system has, and they are legion, especially for non billionaire former presidents, [02:12:00] it does appear to be the last place in America where you can't just say whatever the f k you want regardless of reality. Trump knows this better than anyone.
DONALD TRUMP: Now I would have testified, I wanted to testify.
The theory is you never testify because as soon as you testify, anybody. If it were George Washington, don't testify, because he'll get you on something that you said slightly wrong, and then they sue you for perjury. You would have said something out of whack, like it was a beautiful sunny day and it was actually raining out.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: Yes, our jails in America are filled with incompetent weathermen. I'm telling you, officer, I thought thundersnow! 20 percent is still a chance! Don't take me away! Don't take me away! This is why the law and order right hates court procedures when applied to them. Courts are the last remaining guardrail that has a [02:13:00] standard of evidentiary presentation.
It is the last place where you have to prove what you say and you see the difference in what they say out of court versus what they say in court. Here is Trump on the 2020 election, out of court.
DONALD TRUMP: This is a fraud on the American public. We know there was massive fraud. It was a rigged election, 100%.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: Here are his lawyers in court.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: This is not a fraud case. We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We're not alleging that anyone's stealing the election.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: Here is Rudy Giuliani pleading before the Court of Seasonal Landscapers. What happened there? It's a mix up. He's pleading, but not in the actual court.
RUDY GUILIANI: It's a fraud. An absolute fraud.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: And what does Giuliani say about that in court?
RUDY GUILIANI: If we had alleged fraud, yes, but this is not a, [02:14:00] this is not a, a fraud case.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: It's not a fraud case in court where I would need evidence. It's only a fraud case out there amongst the sod and the mulch where I can say whatever I want. Fox News says that Dominion voting machines rigged the election for Biden out of court.
SIDNEY POWELL: They were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist. The whole situation was carefully calculated and created to steal the election from President Trump.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: But in court, Fox was forced to pay 787 million for false statements. The difference between in court and out of court is that in court, someone can say, prove it. [02:15:00] And the problem is that most of the time in this country, our political leaders are not in court. They are here on TV where the news media has decided that there's really no such thing as reality.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: We now live in two utterly different universes. These two Americas are living in two different realities. We're living in two different realities. Americans are living in two, for the most part, two very different realities right now.
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: No, you're thinking of the multiverse. We are all living in one reality, and it can be the news media's job to litigate the parameters of said reality.
What the courts do really well is look backwards and reconstruct the realities of what happened. The news media could do the same, but what they do instead [02:16:00] is look forward and wildly speculate on the future.
ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: If Donald Trump is the nominee,
and if he is convicted of a crime, could you support him? If he's a convicted felon, if he is the Republican nominee, does that mean you're still going to vote for him?
He
could be convicted before November. Would you still support him then? Will you commit to certifying the 2024 election results, no matter who wins?
Let me look forward. Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, Senator?
JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: No matter what, Senator. Voting irregularities, ant overlords, voting machines that suddenly transform into fighting robots, voting booth powers activate, will you still certify?
Who f ing cares? No one knows what the future holds. Ask this person what it was about the 2020 election that they found objectionable, and then litigate the realities of their objections to the election to them, in front of them, so when they say to you, I never said locker up, you can say, [02:17:00] I object!
Jack Posobiec Welcomes END OF DEMOCRACY - Says They "Didn't Get All the Way There on Jan 6th!" - Dollemore Daily - Air Date 2-24-24
JESSE DOLLEMORE - HOST, DOLLEMORE DAILY: When Republicans tell you who they are, when they say who they are, and what they stand for, and what they believe Believe them, because they're not even hiding it anymore. It used to be like this, this cute little game they'd play. Oh no, voter ID is, that's not racist.
We just want to have voter security. Even though there have been Republicans on tape, long, time after time after time saying that they want voter ID in place because it diminishes minority vote. They've said it. They've admitted it. They tell on themselves. And we're in a place now where Donald Trump has given these people permission to be the worst versions of themselves.
To say the worst, most horrible things just right out in the open. And it doesn't really even get covered. Jack Posobiec is the guy who he either came up with or just was a guy who really ran with the conspiracy about the pizza gate. You know, the comet ping pong pizza here in [02:18:00] Washington, D. C. That they said there was a Uh, some kind of a child abuse ring in the basement, you know, the pizza place that doesn't have a basement that apparently was running something out of their non existent basement that, that initiated some psycho from North Carolina to drive to North, to, to, to Washington DC and discharge a firearm in an effort to stop what was taking place in this pizza place.
The thing that wasn't taking place in the basement that didn't exist. That's Jack Posobiec, him and Cernovich and Alex Jones. They're all of the same ilk. They're all cut from the same cloth. They are white supremacists. They are conspiracy theorists. They'll rabble rousers. They're real, real pieces of work.
And Jack Posobiec isn't just your random. Uh, fringy, cringy, conspiracy theorist. Now he holds weight within the Republican party. He's been given platforms. He's, he's, he sought after to speak. And this [02:19:00] was CPAC two days ago where Jack Posobiec sidled up next to Steve Bannon, says exactly what their intent is, what their mission is, what their end state seems to be, and that is to end democracy in America.
And he's not, he's not being cute. He's not being funny. He gets an amen brother from Steve Bannon. When they say what they want, believe them.
JACK POSOBIEC: All right. Welcome. Welcome. I just wanted to say welcome to the end of democracy. We're here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6th, but we will, we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with, with this right here.
We'll replace it with this right here. Amen. That's right. Because all glory, all glory is not to government, all glory to God.
JESSE DOLLEMORE - HOST, DOLLEMORE DAILY: Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to [02:20:00] overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January. but we will endeavor to get rid of it. So all of you conservative trolls out there who watch and comment, what do you say to this? The same group of people who, it wasn't an insurrection. It was a tourist event.
It was at the very worst, a trespassing event. It was a protest that got a little out of hand. It was a happy family reunion, says Michelle Bachman. All of these things have been said by, by Andrew Clyde, by Michelle Bachman, by Tucker Carlson, by Deon Clark. Even Jack Posobiec. So if you tried to end democracy on January 6th, that wasn't an insurrection, you're saying in one breath, it wasn't an attempt to overthrow the United States government by ending a or overturning a free and fair election.
You say that, but then also you [02:21:00] say, we're here to end democracy. We didn't quite get it done during our insurrection. Listen to what they say. These people treat it like it's a game. You see, clout is a currency in Republican circles. They don't care if the country is harmed as a direct result of it. They don't care if we all suffer, if some of us don't get a say in governance, in self governance.
You know, the system that was set up by our founders, that these people so go on about, that is all outlined here within the confines of this document, the Constitution of the United States. The document they claim to revere, that they wave around like a prop. They don't care. They don't want democratic rule.
You know, as much as it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, which is a form of democracy. So much so they think it's a game that they literally constructed a game [02:22:00] out of the insurrection. Here is the J6 insurrection pinball machine that was at CPAC. They're calling it an insurrection. The January 6th insurrection.
The Peaceful Transfer of Power Is at Stake - Democracy Docket - Air Date 5-31-24
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: You recently wrote an article describing the asymmetry of election denialism in the country. Explain to us what you mean by that.
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Yeah. So, you know, I was inspired to write this because I saw a poll out of Arizona that said that, um, half of Republicans in the state want Donald Trump to contest the outcome of the election if he loses. Before the election has taken place, before a single ballot has been cast, before there can be any claim of fraud or irregularity, they already want him to conduct the election, whereas when you look at the number on the Democratic side, it is like 10%.
Right? So there is an asymmetry in how election denialism has set up the two parties, where one party is like, We definitely want to contest the election no matter what. Where one candidate in the person of [02:23:00] Donald Trump is saying, Oh, I won Minnesota. And you're looking at it and you're like, Wait a second, what do you mean you won Minnesota?
Like you lost Minnesota by over 200, 000 votes. And his party believes him. And you have one candidate in the person of Donald Trump who at a rally in New Jersey says, I'm going to win New Jersey. He says, I'm going to win New York. And then you have another party who is like, well, we are committed in the Democratic party, who's committed to the peaceful transfer of power.
Who's like, we really want Joe Biden to win, but we also want to make sure they're free and fair elections. Who does not believe that Joe Biden won Alabama in 2020. Who does not believe, breaking news, that Joe Biden is going to win Mississippi. Or, uh, or Louisiana in 2024, and who is not lined up to say that if, if Donald Trump wins, you know, Arizona, no matter what, no matter what, Joe Biden needs to contest the outcome of the election.
So there is this grave asymmetry between the two parties. And what that is doing is [02:24:00] creating a real threat. To the peaceful transfer of power, because if you have a party that says, no matter what, we believe that, that there needs to be an election contest, no matter what, the election cannot be legitimate.
If, if Donald Trump doesn't win, then how can you have a peaceful transfer of power if that party loses? And so I'm very, very, very worried about this.
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Republicans are quick to point out that some Democrats in 2016 called Donald Trump's election illegitimate.
So how is that any different from GOP election denialism?
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Yeah, it's, it's apples and oranges. I mean, let's just start with some basic facts. In 2000, uh, Al Gore lost by a few hundred votes after the Supreme Court halted a recount. Uh, he immediately conceded. In 2004, John Kerry lost by, uh, by a few thousand votes in a, in a single state of Ohio.
And the next morning he conceded, uh, in [02:25:00] 2008. In 2016, uh, Barack Obama won, and John McCain and Mitt Romney conceded in 2016, the election. You ask about Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump the night of the election to concede. The next morning she gave a speech conceding saying that Donald Trump needed our support 'cause he was going to be our president.
Okay. So this is mythology that, that, that somehow, uh, that, that there is a parallelism here. Now are there, were there questions raised by Secretary Clinton and others? Myself and others about the tactics? Donald Trump used to win the election? Absolutely. And by the way, in a courtroom in New York City, those, some of those, uh, some of those concerns have played out in a criminal trial.
And by the way, not the only criminal trial that, uh, Donald Trump's, uh, supporters have been involved in related to the 2016 election. So, sure, there are people who, who believe that Donald Trump won that election by doing some really terrible things, some really illegitimate things, [02:26:00] including perhaps falsifying records and paying off porn stars.
Uh, but that is not the same thing as saying that, that, that we are challenging that the vote totals were inaccurate, that, that, that, that somehow they were illegal ballots. That has never, that has not taken place on, uh, among Secretary Clinton or her supporters. And so this is a total, total. Uh, false, uh, false comparison.
PAIGE MOSKOWITZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: Since 2020, we have seen contests against election challenges fail. We have seen indictments for people involved in efforts to overturn elections in Arizona, Georgia, Washington, DC. We've seen states change their laws around election certification, fake electors. Do you think any of the things that have happened since 2020 would discourage Republicans from trying, you know, to vote?
January 6, 2. 0.
MARC ELIAS - HOST, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: So look, again, this is part of what I write about, um, uh, in the democracy docket piece. I, I think that, [02:27:00] that unfortunately it's gotten worse, not gotten better, right? I mean, the fact is that election denialism is much, much more central to the identity of the Republican party and the Trump campaign in 2024 than it was in either 2016 or 2020.
I mean, in 2016, you know, you could point to a number of things that Donald Trump campaigned on. He campaigned on building a wall, which was ridiculous. Uh, he campaigned on a whole bunch of sort of ridiculous economic theories, trade policies, you know, in 2020, he, you know, he again, campaigned on a whole bunch of, of, of things that he had done while he was president, a lot of which were lies, but they related to when he was president. In 2024 the only thing he's campaigning on is election or not. I mean, if you think about it, you know, he waffles back and forth on a bunch of other issues. But the only thing he is consistent about is that, uh, he believes that the election was stolen in 2020 and will, and that, uh, that there will be massive fraud in 2024.
And [02:28:00] that Republicans need to be prepared, uh, for that. So election denialism is the central tenant of the Republican party and his campaign, and his claims about election denialism have become much more outrageous. I mean, we've gone from, you know, him lying about the results of 2020 in a handful of states, now he's lying about the results of 2020 in states like Minnesota, which he lost by seven percentage points.
So it's gotten much worse. It's also, by the way, Page, gotten much worse among the Republican party. There were people in the Republican party who were. Donald Trump in 2016. A lot of them, there were people pushing back against Donald Trump's election denialism in 2020, not enough Republicans, but there were some.
Look at the parade of Republican on a Sunday television. It's like literally a convention they hold every week for invertebrate, um, you know, invertebrate politicians, you know, in which they prostrate themselves on TV every week saying that they don't necessarily agree that The, uh, Joe Biden won in 2020, and predicting fraud in [02:29:00] 2024.
Uh, people like Tim Scott, who was supposed to be a moderate. People like Marco Rubio, who we are constantly told is one of the sensible Republicans in the middle of the Senate. These people are now far Full out election deniers. They are showing up at his criminal trials wearing matching suits and ties.
The Speaker of the House showed up wearing a matching suit and tie. I mean, there is nothing left to the Republican Party other than election denialism, which is why they kicked out Ronna McDaniel, replaced her with a more reliable and aggressive election denier, and why they now have Donald Trump's daughter in law running the RNC.
Former Republican strategist raises alarms about GOP in 'The Conspiracy to End America' - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 10-24-23
AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: In your book, you lay out five driving forces on the right that you say are working in concert basically to end our democracy. You list them as propagandists, the support of a major party, financers, legal theories to legitimize actions and shock troops.
But I want to begin with this idea of support of a major party, because you draw a pretty alarming comparison.
In the book, you write: "What happened within the Republican Party in 2016 [02:30:00] was a repeat of the rise of national socialism in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany."
You're arguing that the Republican establishment's acceptance of Mr. Trump echoed the German establishment's acceptance of Hitler. What are the parallels you're talking about here?
STUART STEVENS: Yes, it's interesting.
For a long time, there was sort of a trope that any time you compared anything to 1930s Germany or World War II, it reduced it to sort of absurdity. But I take a very different view, because I think the parallels are striking.
What happened in Germany was that the ruling class, mostly Prussian aristocrats, realized that they had lost touch with the working class, and they thought that they could control Hitler, that he would be someone who could connect them to the working class and take them into power.
And it's really exactly what happened with the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell said that he was confident that Trump would change, that they would change Trump, that they were the mainstream conservative and [02:31:00] Trump would adapt to that.
And it just proved to be incredibly naive, and it's still playing out. And every chance the party has to turn against Trump, they go in the other direction, and they embrace him more.
AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: There are some along the way who've rung the alarm, so to speak, like Mitt Romney, for example, whose campaign you ran in 2012.
STUART STEVENS: Yes.
AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: He criticized Donald Trump, but then he considered joining his Cabinet.
So, you can't really argue that some folks didn't see the danger. Is the story here that they just chose to ignore it?
STUART STEVENS: It's a fascinating question, because it is very difficult to find anyone in the Republican Party who will say in private that Donald Trump was a great leader, that Donald Trump is someone that they admire on any sort of personal level.
And yet they have basically turned over the party to him. And I think that what happened here was that Donald Trump, in some sort of animal instinct, realized that the Republican Party [02:32:00] ultimately did not believe in all the things that we had said that we believed.
What we said were values turned out to be marketing slogans, and that he realized that if he could give the party power, the party would go along with whatever he wanted. And that literally is what's happened now. And it's extraordinary.
I don't think we have seen anything like this in American history, just a complete collapse of a party. But it's the reality. It's the world that we live in, and it's not going to change. And there's a good chance he will be reelected president.
SECTION D: DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And, finally, Section D: "Democracy in Action."
The Separation Of Church & State Is Eroding - Why, America? with Leeja Miller - Air Date 6-5-24
LEEJA MILLER - HOST, WHY, AMERICA?: If you ever find a Supreme Court decision these days to be incredibly fucked, I encourage you to seek out the dissenting opinions of the case. More often than not, Justice Sotomayor is the voice of reason, laying bare the absolute fuckery happening on the highest court of the land in every dissent that she writes.
It's both cathartic and disheartening. to read her dissents, and I do not envy her job right now. In case after case, this Supreme Court has made it [02:33:00] very clear that they do not care about facts, they do not care about precedent, and they don't even care about basic rules of standing. Nor do they care about trust in the institution as a whole, or even attempting to appear impartial.
They have an agenda, and they're sticking to it. 250 years of precedent be damned. And this turn towards irresponsible judicial activism is clearest when it comes to the withering away of the long established wall between church and state. Religion has a terrifying ability to justify just about anything.
Genocide against Native Americans? Manifest destiny, baby. Slavery? Practically a favor. How else would the inferior races have found God and salvation? Rampant inequality? Prosperity gospel. If you got it, you must deserve it. And look, I'm not out here to fight anyone about their personal religion, believe what you want.
My point is that religion is uniquely potent, and therefore, And the US already grants people, well, certain people anyway, a huge amount of freedom to practice their beliefs. Even to the point that their right to free expression bumps right up against other people's right to not be forced to practice a religion.
These are all the [02:34:00] states that allow religious or belief based exemptions for school immunization requirements. In every one of the colored states, Parents can say, no thank you, I would prefer not to vaccinate my child for measles or whooping cough or meningitis. And then their little crotch goblin just gets to skip off to public school without their shots, endangering everyone else.
Super religious families enjoy a lot of freedom when it comes to isolating and indoctrinating their own children. And on the third day, God created the Remington Bull Action Rifle. So that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen. And yet, conservative Christians have made it clear that that's not enough.
The free exercise clause has been weaponized by the Christian right to strengthen their calls of victimization, to claim persecution at the hands of Democrats, to say their way of life is under attack, when in reality they are simply living under a government that has full control. For decades, made it very clear that imposing your religion upon someone else is never a right you had to begin with.
Your rights cannot be under attack when they aren't your rights at all. They [02:35:00] forget that they live in a society with other people, and so their freedom to practice religion must be balanced against the rest of our freedom from having religion imposed upon us. But that is unacceptable, and so the religious right has set to work not only systematically changing the laws in their favor, but also vilifying the groups that require them to compromise by balancing their freedom to, and our freedom from, religion.
The gays and the trans kids require that the Christians allow them to exist, god forbid. The people who want to end their pregnancies require that the Christians allow them to exist. Notice that the trend is, freedom from beneficiaries are simply trying to exist, while freedom to beneficiaries are trying to exert control over others.
Basically, your freedom from having my religion imposed upon you is violating my freedom to practice my religion by imposing it upon you. Yes, Susan, that's how it works when you exist in a society of people who are different from you. Or I guess you could go the Nazi way and just try to exterminate the ones who are different from you Oh, you're already trying to do that?
Another way you can [02:36:00] tell that the encroachment of Christianity into the well established separation of church and state is getting worse, not better, is because the population is less religious than ever, but our elected officials remain about as religious as they have ever been. Nearly 30 percent of Americans surveyed by Pew between 2020 and 2023 said they consider themselves religiously unaffiliated.
Since 1980, the number of Americans who identify as Christians has dropped by more than 20 percentage points. From around 90 percent in 1980, on par with Congress that year, to 68 percent today. Yet 88 percent of the voting members of Congress today are Christians. That number has only dropped by 3 percent in the last 45 years.
Why? I couldn't find a single straightforward answer about the cause of this over representation phenomenon, but I have a theory. There are three major hurdles to running a successful campaign that I think being a church member would help a candidate overcome. One, networking. Churches have listservs.
Dwindling Lyft serves, but Lyft serves nonetheless. And being a member provides access to highly connected, very well funded communities who don't have [02:37:00] to pay those pesky taxes, and opportunities for reputation building. Like learning to golf or pretending to enjoy cigars, being a person of faith is a great way to rub elbows with powerful, wealthy, well connected people.
Number two, moral proxy. Humans love patterns, almost as much as we hate thinking. So when a religion offers a shortcut to understanding something as consequential as a political candidate's moral compass, you're darn tootin we're gonna take it. To many religious people, the idea that a person is capable of having a moral compass without being guided by a 2, 000 year old book is unthinkable.
Where do you learn how to be a good person without it being beaten into you through shame and cult like conformity to a belief system? Instead of politicians having to prove that they have a moral compass by walking the walk, they can just say, Look, I'm a Christian man. I go to church every Sunday. And we, somehow, despite years of proof to the contrary, believe that that automatically means that they are a good person led by a strong moral compass.
And number three, picky active voters. White evangelicals are more politically active than the average population. More evangelicals are registered to vote, and more of those registered actually [02:38:00] show up to cast a vote than the average eligible citizen. This means that even though white evangelicals represent a relatively small percentage of voters, their nearly unified bloc can have a major impact.
A 2021 Pew survey found that 85 percent of white evangelical voters identify with or lean toward the GOP. In the past three decades, the share of white evangelicals who associate with the GOP has risen by 20 percentage points, and the share identifying as or leaning Democratic has declined by 20 percentage points.
And who are these loyal Republicans eager to vote for? Another Pew survey found that among major religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were especially likely to find it important that political candidates share their religious views. Americans are less religious across the board regardless of age, but people over 65 are the most religious age group currently alive.
They also vote more consistently than other age groups, especially in local elections. A 2021 study found that the average age of white evangelical Protestants in America was 56, the highest age of any denomination. So, these folks are older, more organized, more politically active, [02:39:00] more Republican, and more invested in religious alignment with their elected officials.
When considered together, all these factors help explain the over representation of Christians in Congress. So, to answer the fervent questions in my comment section, I'm Yes, there is a separation of church and state. No, that doesn't mean that our elected officials have ever distanced themselves from their own religious identities, but yes, that means that we have decades of Supreme Court precedent establishing very clearly what the state can and cannot do in order to protect the general populace from having religion forced upon them, while balancing that same general populace's right to practice religion freely.
However, in recent years, Christian conservatives have done everything in their power to do away with the freedom from religion and focus solely on the victimhood of the righteous Christian crusader who has been forced to bend the knee to the heathenist ways of the godless woke left. And it's only getting worse.
So what do we do? Vote. Y'all, Project 2025 is no joke, and it will hit Trump's desk the day he enters office if he wins. We say Ronald Reagan ruined [02:40:00] everything, but that was 45 years ago, and there's nothing we can do to change the past, but we can at the very least vote now to try to avoid me having to make t shirts 40 years from now that say Trump ruined everything.
Though frankly, by then, if he wins, this place will likely be a burnt apocalyptic hellscape. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are both in their 60s. Seventies ripe for just conveniently and casually retiring. Say next year, should Trump win the presidency virtually ensuring another full generation of a conservative court with little deference to precedent or respect for the institution they represent.
So for the love of God, vote. Stay vigilant, and prove that it's possible to be both moral and godless by supporting mutual aid and building community outside hierarchical church structures.
"Propaganda Machine": NY Congressmember Jamaal Bowman on AIPAC's $25 Million Campaign to Unseat Him - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-6-24
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: The primary is coming up fast. I think June 15th begins early voting. Can you talk about, I mean, the kind of history that’s being made in this reelection bid for your seat?
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: Yes. It’s unprecedented. I believe AIPAC is spending more money [02:41:00] in this race than they have ever spent before. You know, they are bombarding my constituents with ads, ironically, that have nothing to do with Israel, even though they are a lobby group for Israel.
And so, it’s been overwhelming for the district. The district is actually pretty tired of it and frustrated by it and angered by it, because they know my record. They know what I’ve done the last three years, bringing in over a billion dollars to the district, reducing gun violence, investing in mental health and substance abuse, investing in affordable housing, etc. But they also know my work for 10-and-a-half years in this district as a middle school principal. So, for AIPAC to come in and try to hurt my reputation and manipulate people with disinformation and, in some cases, outright lies is pretty despicable.
And it is mainly because I called for a permanent ceasefire back in October, [02:42:00] and we have been consistent in calling what’s happening in Gaza right now an ongoing genocide. So, AIPAC cannot have that. They don’t want anyone to be critical of the state of Israel, even though an honest critique will lead to the ongoing safety and security of the people of Israel and, hopefully, get us a free Palestine, which is the objective, first and foremost.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: AIPAC super PAC United Democracy Project has already spent over $10 million on commercials alone to target you. This is one of the TV ads.
UNITED DEMOCRACY PROJECT AD: Jamaal Bowman has his own agenda and refuses to compromise, even with President Biden. Bowman voted against the president’s Infrastructure Act, against rebuilding roads and bridges in New York, against replacing lead pipes. And Jamaal Bowman voted against President Biden’s debt limit deal, putting Social Security and Medicare payments at risk, along with our entire economy. Jamaal Bowman has [02:43:00] his own agenda, and he’s hurting New York. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Jamaal Bowman, if you can respond?
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: My agenda is the people’s agenda. My agenda is Medicare for All. My agenda is a Green New Deal. My agenda is assuring we put forward President Biden’s full agenda, which includes universal child care, universal pre-K, paid leave for the first time in U.S. history, historic investments in affordable housing. We have an affordable housing crisis right now, and President Biden, with Build Back Better, was trying to move forward on that issue. And we were working with him to move forward on affordable housing and all of Build Back Better, but it was stopped in the Senate by Senator Joe Manchin.
And my opponent, being a top recipient of AIPAC money and funded by racist MAGA Republican billionaires, [02:44:00] is already bought and paid for and in the pocket of AIPAC. And just like Joe Manchin, he is going to serve his donors, not the people.
And so, the people of our district have to ask themselves, “Do I want another Joe Manchin in Congress serving donors, or do I want to continue to support Congressman Bowman, who has dedicated his entire life?” I have dedicated my entire life to serving children, to serving families, to uplifting education — I come from the working class — because I know that the only way our democracy works for everyone is if we really support those who have been least, lost, left behind, historically marginalized, historically neglected and left vulnerable. That is unacceptable. That is what we have to change.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Interestingly, I’m looking at Haaretz. They say, “Bowman has charged both AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel with weaponizing antisemitism and primarily targeting Democratic candidates who are women and people [02:45:00] of color.” If you can talk about the major funders of AIPAC? I mean, this is historic, the amount of money they’re expected to spend in this election cycle, not only in your race, but around the country. It’s believed to be what? Over $100 million?
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: Yeah. Again, it blows you away, the sheer amount of money they’re looking to spend. And they have donors like Paul Singer and others like him who support Supreme Court justices who have supported the gutting of voting rights. Many of their donors support taking away a woman’s reproductive rights, taking away affirmative action. They support at least 109, I believe, election deniers, people who did not want to certify or members who did not want to certify the 2020 election results.
So, this is a right-wing organization. This is an extreme organization. This is a racist organization. [02:46:00] And they’re the ones trying to come in and buy this seat from a majority-minority community with their first Black representative finally speaking up for justice, equality and our collective humanity. It’s really, really gross, when you think about the spending.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: If you can talk about the Jewish groups that have rallied around you, Democratic Congressmember Bowman?
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: No, thank you for that, because just like the African American community, the Jewish community is not a monolith. So, we have tremendous support from organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace, Bend the Arc, Americans for Peace Now, IfNotNow, The Jewish Vote, the [c][4] arm of JFREJ, and many others.
And so, yes, there are Jewish constituents who want me to have a different approach to Israel in general, and specifically a different approach to what’s happening [02:47:00] in Gaza, but there are many Jewish organizations and many Jewish constituents who support the work I’m doing and understand very clearly that a pathway to peace forward has to include a free Palestine.
We can fight antisemitism and have a free Palestine at the same time. You can criticize Israel, you can criticize Zionism, and not be antisemitic. And it’s been very challenging having these conversations, because AIPAC and others, with their propaganda machine that’s been in place for many years, do not engage in these conversations. And the only way to create a better world and a better democracy and a better Israel and a free Palestine is through honest, open conversations that move us forward.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I’m looking at a piece in The Intercept that says, “As AIPAC has started to spend directly on elections, the group aligned itself with far-right Republicans. During the 2022 cycle, AIPAC endorsed more than 100 [02:48:00] Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.” If you can talk about the latest news about the congressional invite to Benjamin Netanyahu, who the International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan is now seeking indictments against for war crimes in Gaza, to address a joint session of Congress?
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: Yeah. I’m in complete disbelief. I’m horrified by that invitation. I can’t believe we are doing this. You know, when you think about and when I think about my Palestinian constituents, my Muslim constituents, my constituents who stand up for justice and humanity, who have been fighting to end this genocide in Gaza, what we see is the continued not just ignoring, but [02:49:00] dehumanization of Palestinian people. By inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, we are stating to Palestinians that your lives do not matter. Your lives are less sacred, less precious and less valuable than other lives, particularly the lives of those Israeli lives. And it’s particularly disgusting because most of the people who have died in Gaza, been killed in Gaza, are women, children and babies. I can’t believe we’re inviting him here right now.
Election Deniers In Government Plot To Steal 2024 Election - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 6-5-24
THOM HARTMANN - THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: A Republican, uh, on the Fulton County Election Board, now this is down in, in Georgia, Fulton County of course is the Atlanta area, an area that, uh, well, Fannie Willis is the district attorney for example. Um, but this, this uh, white Republican lady, Julie Adams is her name, uh, she is one of five board members, uh, who certify [02:50:00] elections.
And she's also the, uh, uh, affiliate of the Tea Party Patriots, which has now become, uh, an election denying group. It was, you know, kicked off by the Koch brothers back in the day to, to fight against, uh, socialized medicine, uh, uh, aka Obamacare. Um, but now it's kind of gone its own way and turned into just another kind of right wing weird crank group.
Uh, she's also the regional coordinator for the southeastern states in the so called Election Integrity Network. Election integrity is a buzz phrase that Republicans use for preventing black people from voting, basically. And, uh, the EIN, Election Integrity Network, is a national group now that has recruited election deniers to try to fill spots in local election offices in communities where there are a lot of black voters, so that they can simply refuse to certify those elections so that those black votes don't get counted.
And, uh, she helped [02:51:00] start the Georgia Election Integrity Coalition after, uh, in 2022, attending the national, uh, EIN summit. And, uh, so, in May, uh, well, this is May, last week, or maybe two weeks ago, uh, Georgia had their primaries. And, uh, Fannie Willis, by the way, got re elected, as did the judge in that case, Scott McAfee.
Uh, Or at least won their primaries. I can't say they got re elected. Um, but they got re elected, you know, they won their primaries. But Julie Adams, this fifth member of the board that certifies the results, refused to certify the results. And, uh, she said that the reason why was because she wanted a bunch of additional information.
And the additional information that she was asking for would have basically just ground the entire system to a halt. Uh, she wanted to, you know, she wanted copies of all [02:52:00] the ballots, she wanted, uh, I mean, just insane stuff. It was just crazy. And, this is happening all over the country. That these election deniers from this, uh, we don't want no black people voting, uh, EIN group, have, uh, or are refusing to certify elections.
It's crazy. , and this is a, essentially in the primaries here, this is a dress rehearsal for this November. And you know, that's, that's how Trump tried to steal the election in 2020, was with the fake electors. Uh, you know, that the fake electors kind of blew up in his face. But if the real electors, or if the people who certify the election, that defines the real electors.
refused to certify the elections at the state level. See, they were trying to get at the federal level. You had 147 Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted [02:53:00] against certifying the election in 2020. Uh, that which is, you know, about, what, 60 or 70 short of what would have been necessary to shut down the election and throw it to the House of Representatives.
And, I guarantee you, they're gonna try to do that again this, this fall. If Trump loses. I, I, you know, hopefully, knock wood, you know, uh, please God, uh, when Trump loses. But, uh, in any case, this is, you know, part of their strategy. And, uh, one of Trump's, uh, former lawyers, Cleta Mitchell, uh, founded the Election Integrity Network.
Uh, we don't want no black people voting, uh, their in their unofficial motto. And she was on that phone call where Trump was, uh, telling Brad Rassenperger that if he didn't find 11, 000 plus votes, To put him over the top, that Rafson Perjure, the Secretary of State of Georgia, could be facing jail time.
Trump threatened him. And that, of course, is what Fonny Willis wants to charge him with. [02:54:00] And, um, and of course what the Republicans in Georgia are trying to prevent from happening. But, uh, the day after the primary, uh, Uh, uh, Adams had filed a lawsuit against the Fulton County Board, uh, to try to get all this information that she said she needed.
Um, you know, it's just, it's just gumming up the works. I mean, it's just, uh, very straightforward stuff. So keep an eye on this. This is, this is an early warning system. This is a sign, this is, like I said, this is a rehearsal. These people are practicing for what they're going to do this fall. In order to try to throw the election to the house.
Because in the House, you know, under the 12th amendment, if an election, if, if neither party, if neither Biden or Trump reach, assuming those are the candidates, if neither one of them reaches, uh, 270 votes, [02:55:00] then there is no Electoral College decision. It has to 50 percent plus one person. And if that does not happen, Then the fallback is that the House of Representatives selects the president.
And when they do that, each state has one vote, and that vote represents the will of the, of the majority of the people on that state's congressional delegation. So if you've got a congressional delegation that's got, you know, seven Republicans and two Democrats, like I believe North Carolina does, um, then, you know, they're gonna vote for Trump.
And, it turns out that there's 27 states that are majority Republican controlled, and, you know, only 23 that have, uh, either, uh, balanced, uh, representation or majority Democratic control. So, if a, if the election gets thrown to the House, Donald Trump will become President. And the Republicans know this. And, uh, that's what they're working toward, that's what [02:56:00] this is all about.
Margaret Huang : Fighting Hate and Protecting Democracy - Guy Kawasaki's Remarkable People - Air Date 3-27-24
MARGARET HUANG: We have identified individual candidates running for a political office as extremist candidates. And that is something that the SPLC Action Fund does. That's our C4.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: So, there's a bad boys list and that comes out once a year or?
MARGARET HUANG: It's come out around election times every year. And we haven't been doing it that long. Our C4 has only been around for six years.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: Who's been on the list recent?
MARGARET HUANG: Some names you might recognize, but there are also some folks who are running for local or state office who might not be familiar. But you can find those on our website as well.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: Okay. But just throw a name out now though.
MARGARET HUANG: Sure. So Marjorie Taylor Greene's made it on the list. This is not a surprise.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: No.
MARGARET HUANG: Yeah. There are a few others. We actually just recently uncovered that Congresswoman Greene has a white nationalist working for her who has formal affiliations with extremist organizations. I think that he no longer now works [02:57:00] there.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: What's the trend line look, because it's hard to judge from reading media? It is worse?
MARGARET HUANG: It is worse in some ways. So, let me explain. There has always been hate and extremism in this country, since before it was founded. And the organization of that hate and extremism has never been as open, as coordinated, as well funded, and as tied to political leaders as it is now.
These groups have traditionally been more on the extremes. Now, of course, in the deep South during Jim Crow, there were political leaders, law enforcement leaders who were part of the KKK. So, that's familiar.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: Is it the George Wallace days?
MARGARET HUANG: But we haven't seen that since the end of Jim Crow. Right?
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: We're getting close.
MARGARET HUANG: And [02:58:00] what I'm trying to say is, it's a return. So it's not new, we've seen it before. But we are going back to a moment where it is inextricably tied to people in power and seeking to return to power in ways that we have not seen for decades.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: And do you this as a last gasp, desperate play for survival and the trend is not their friend? Or this is just how it's going to be forever?
MARGARET HUANG: It's not inevitable. No, it's not. The key here is that this is coming as part of a backlash. They're recognizing the changes that are happening in the country.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: Demographically.
MARGARET HUANG: Demographically, the values and morals of the younger generations who are growing up and coming into power, they're not aligned with this way of [02:59:00] thinking. And it is a bit of a last gasp, but only if we stay organized and aware and push back.
If we don't turn out in record numbers to reject this in 2024, we may lose the opportunity to have our democracy pushback. Because our opponents have been very clear that they're going to take away all of the powers of participatory democracy. This will become much more of an autocracy, of a fascist state. And that is when we are really in trouble, because we won't be able to organize at that stage.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: And it would be very difficult to dig yourself out of that hole?
MARGARET HUANG: Very difficult. Not impossible, but it will be much more difficult and likely much more violent.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: Even with people of color becoming the majority, it still will be hard?
MARGARET HUANG: Absolutely, because they're suppressing the vote now, Guy. If you look at the states where the Southern Poverty Law Center has offices, work, staff, [03:00:00] we are seeing hundreds of bills to suppress the vote in each of our states, every year. They're going after people of color, they're going after people with disabilities, they're going after women.
They're going after young people, they're going after senior folks. There's not a constituency that they haven't identified ways to suppress their vote. And the more that we let them do that, who will be voting in the end? That's when we lose our power.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: And call me naive or stupid, but how can you believe that is going to be a winning strategy in the long run?
MARGARET HUANG: For some of them, I don't think they care about the long run. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing the crisis and climate issues, right? They're really only thinking about themselves at this moment. Maybe their kids, probably not. So, I don't think these are people who care about the long term.
I think they're people who are in it for their own benefit [03:01:00] right now. I think for the rest of us who are worried about the future, who have to think about what happens next, it's a very different calculation.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: And how do you think they came to have this kind of mentality?
MARGARET HUANG: I think people like having power. I think once they've had it, they're unwilling to share or give it up.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: This is a depressing interview.
MARGARET HUANG: I don't mean it to be, because I'm not actually demoralized by this. If anything, I feel strongly motivated. And I'll tell you, we see stories all the time, even in the deep South where some of these challenges are the biggest, I think, there are communities that are organizing and fighting back. The organization that happened in Georgia over the last decade.
GUY KAWASAKI - HOST, REMARKABLE PEOPLE: The Stacey Abrams Movement?
MARGARET HUANG: Stacey Abrams Movement, and the movement of so many other strong Black women who led the organizing effort in [03:02:00] Georgia has transformed the way that people in that state feel about their relationship to government, and the accountability that they expect elected officials to have.
Is it sustainable? We've got to keep working on that. But they've shown us how to do it. And we are trying to replicate that incredible model across all of our states in the South to really build strong leadership, strong communities who understand what their priorities are and what they're going to stand for.
Credits
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always keep the comments coming in. I would love to hear your thoughts or questions about today's topic or anything else. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at (202) 999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].
The additional sections of the show include clips from Disorder, Democracy Paradox, the PBS NewsHour, Democracy Now!, Last Week Tonight, [03:03:00] Analysis, The Daily Show, the Dollemore Daily, Democracy Docket, Why, America? with Leeja Miller, the Thom Hartmann Program, and Guy Kawasaki's Remarkable People. Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Aaron Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken, Brian, Ben, and Andrew for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today at BestOfTheLeft.com/support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. Membership is how you get instant access to our incredibly good and often funny weekly bonus episodes, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes, along with a link to join our [03:04:00] Discord community, where you can also continue the discussion.
So, coming to you from far outside, the conventional wisdom of Washington, DC, my name is Jay!, and this has been the best of left podcast coming to twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.