Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

From the blurb for an upcoming Brookings Event titled The consequences of misinformation: A symposium on media and democracy:

 

The spread of false information is hardly new or unique to the current political moment. It has historical roots in sensationalist journalism, foreign espionage, propaganda, and partisan debates—a collection of approaches far richer than suggested by the phrase “fake news.” This historical context does not make disinformation any less dangerous, however. Understanding how disinformation is exploited by political actors both internal and external to the state, how existing divisions and polarization create the conditions for disinformation to be more effective, and the ways in which technologies incentivize or disrupt disinformation, is critical.

 

On May 31, Governance Studies at Brookings and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) will host a half-day forum on the history, circulation, and management of misinformation (untruths circulated without the intention to deceive) and disinformation (untruths intended to deceive). Several panels of experts will convene to explore the most effective means of identifying and countering false information, as well as the challenges in doing so. Social scientists and journalists will speak to three aspects of the current moment in misinformation: the status of facts/persistence of misinformation; the speed, virality, and spread of misinformation; and what we—or anyone—can do to correct or manage the misinformation that already exists.

One of the not so striking takeways in this paper by Rob Faris at al at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center is that "The institutional commitment to impartiality of media sources at the core of attention on the left meant that hyperpartisan, unreliable sources on the left did not receive the same amplification that equivalent sites on the right did."

 

Faris is one of a dozen or so presenters. I did not see any mention of the commitment to impartiality or the asymmetry of posts here in the water cooler. Perhaps he is not tracking this thread.

[Winstonm]

From the blurb for an upcoming Brookings Event titled The consequences of misinformation: A symposium on media and democracy:

 

 

One of the not so striking takeways in this paper by Rob Faris at al at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center is that "The institutional commitment to impartiality of media sources at the core of attention on the left meant that hyperpartisan, unreliable sources on the left did not receive the same amplification that equivalent sites on the right did."

 

Faris is one of a dozen or so presenters. I did not see any mention of the commitment to impartiality or the asymmetry of posts here in the water cooler. Perhaps he is not tracking this thread.

 

Faris's findings can be simplified:

 

We find....On the conservative side....highly partisan media outlets.

 

On the liberal side....objective journalism

 

Question is not what is happening but how to introduce facts to those who accept that partisanship as proper and normal and how to penetrate their shell of denial concerning facts.

[Winstonm]

The New York Times is reporting another failed attempt by DD to derail the Russia investigation:

 

By Michael S. Schmidt and Julie Hirschfeld Davis

May 29, 2018

 

WASHINGTON — By the time Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrived at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort for dinner one Saturday evening in March 2017, he had been receiving the presidential silent treatment for two days. Mr. Sessions had flown to Florida because Mr. Trump was refusing to take his calls about a pressing decision on his travel ban.

 

When they met, Mr. Trump was ready to talk — but not about the travel ban. His grievance was with Mr. Sessions: The president objected to his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump, who had told aides that he needed a loyalist overseeing the inquiry, berated Mr. Sessions and told him he should reverse his decision, an unusual and potentially inappropriate request.

 

Mr. Sessions refused.

 

The confrontation, which has not been previously reported, is being investigated by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as are the president’s public and private attacks on Mr. Sessions and efforts to get him to resign. Mr. Trump dwelled on the recusal for months, according to confidants and current and former administration officials who described his behavior toward the attorney general.

[y66]

From If only Brexit had been run like Ireland’s referendum by Fintan O'Toole at The Guardian:

 

In all the excitement of what happened in Ireland’s referendum on abortion, we should not lose sight of what did not happen. A vote on an emotive subject was not subverted. The tactics that have been so successful for the right and the far right in the UK, the US, Hungary and elsewhere did not work. A democracy navigated its way through some very rough terrain and came home not just alive but more alive than it was before. In the world we inhabit, these things are worth celebrating but also worth learning from. Political circumstances are never quite the same twice, but some of what happened and did not happen in Ireland surely contains more general lessons.

 

If the right failed spectacularly in Ireland, it was not for want of trying. Save the 8th, one of the two main groups campaigning against the removal of the anti-abortion clause from the Irish constitution, hired Vote Leave’s technical director, the Cambridge Analytica alumnus Thomas Borwick.

 

Save the 8th and the other anti-repeal campaign, Love Both, used apps developed by a US-based company, Political Social Media (PSM), which worked on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns. The small print told those using the apps that their data could be shared with other PSM clients, including the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and Vote Leave.

 

Irish voters were subjected to the same polarising tactics that have worked so well elsewhere: shamelessly fake “facts” (the claim, for example, that abortion was to be legalised up to six months into pregnancy); the contemptuous dismissal of expertise (the leading obstetrician Peter Boylan was told in a TV debate to “go back to school”); deliberately shocking visual imagery (posters of aborted foetuses outside maternity hospitals); and a discourse of liberal elites versus the real people. But Irish democracy had an immune system that proved highly effective in resisting this virus. Its success suggests a democratic playbook with at least four good rules.

 

First, trust the people. A crucial part of what happened in Ireland was an experiment in deliberative democracy. The question of how to deal with the constitutional prohibition on abortion – a question that has bedevilled the political and judicial systems for 35 years – was put to a Citizens’ Assembly, made up of 99 randomly chosen (but demographically representative) voters. These so-called ordinary people – truck drivers, homemakers, students, farmers – gave up their weekends to listen to 40 experts in medicine, law and ethics, to women affected by Ireland’s extremely restrictive laws and to 17 different lobby groups. They came up with recommendations that confounded most political and media insiders, by being much more open than expected – and much more open than the political system would have produced on its own.

 

It was these citizens who suggested entirely unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Conservatives dismissed this process, in Trump style, as rigged (it wasn’t). They would have been much better off if they had actually listened to what these citizens were saying, and tried to understand what had persuaded them to take such a liberal position. The Irish parliament did listen – an all-party parliamentary committee essentially adopted the proposals of the Citizens’ Assembly. So did the government. And it turned out that a sample of “the people” actually knew pretty well what “the people” were thinking. If the Brexit referendum had been preceded by such a respectful, dignified and humble exercise in listening and thinking, it would surely have been a radically different experience.

 

Second, be honest. The yes side in the Irish debate handed its opponents a major tactical advantage but gained a huge strategic victory. It ceded an advantage in playing with all its cards turned up on the table. Technically, the vote was merely to repeal a clause in the constitution. There was no need to say what legislation the government hoped to enact afterwards. But the government chose to be completely clear about its intentions. It published a draft bill. This allowed opponents of reform to pick at, and often distort, points of detail. But it also completely undercut the reactionary politics of paranoia, the spectre of secret conspiracies. Honesty proved to be very good policy.

 

Third, talk to everybody and make assumptions about nobody. The reactionary movements have been thriving on tribalism. They divide voters into us and them – and all the better if they call us “deplorables”. The yes campaigners in Ireland – many of them young people, who are so often caricatured as the inhabitants of virtual echo chambers – refused to be tribal. They stayed calm and dignified. And when they were jeered at, they did not jeer back. They got out and talked (and listened) without prejudice. They did not assume that an elderly lady going to mass in a rural village was a lost cause. They risked (and sometimes got) abuse by recognising no comfort zones and engaging everyone they could reach. It turned out that a lot of people were sick of being typecast as conservatives. It turned out that a lot of people like to be treated as complex, intelligent and compassionate individuals. A majority of farmers and more than 40% of the over-65s voted yes.

 

Finally, the old feminist slogan that the personal is political holds true, but it also works the other way around. The political has to be personalised. The greatest human immune system against the viruses of hysteria, hatred and lies is storytelling. Even when we don’t trust politicians or experts, we trust people telling their own tales. We trust ourselves to judge whether they are lying or being truthful. Irish women had to go out and tell their own stories, to make the painful and intimate into public property.

 

This is very hard to do, and it should not be necessary. But is unstoppably powerful. The process mattered, political leadership mattered, campaigning mattered. But it was stories that won. Exit polls showed that by far the biggest factors in determining how people voted were “people’s personal stories that were told to the media”, followed by “the experience of someone who they know”.

 

Women, in the intimate circles of family and friends or in the harsh light of TV studios, said: “This is who I am. I am one of you.” And voters responded: “Yes, you are.” If democracy can create the context for that humane exchange to happen over and over again, it can withstand everything its enemies throw at it.

[kenberg]

From If only Brexit had been run like Ireland's referendum by Fintan O'Toole at The Guardian:

 

 

 

I find many items on this thread that I would not see otherwise, and I appreciate it. I like all four of O'Toole's points but I want to particularly stress the last one. Part of it: "The political has to be personalised. The greatest human immune system against the viruses of hysteria, hatred and lies is storytelling. Even when we don’t trust politicians or experts, we trust people telling their own tales." This is often forgotten or dismissed or both. Most people have only a limited attention span for vitriolic political discourse. We tire of the name calling. But if someone tells us of their own life experience, many of us listen. Long ago, after Roe v Wade but not long after, a Catholic woman was talking with me about her sister's earlier illegal abortion. I can still largely recall the conversation. The short version would be that abortion may well be a sin, but when your young unmarried sister is pregnant you assess priorities. Whether one agrees with their decision or not is one thing, but the honesty and seriousness of what was being said was beyond question. Many many many of our views are a result of direct experience or the experiences of others that we know and trust. It cannot be otherwise and I would not want it to be otherwise.

 

It sounds as if listening to what others had to say was a really effective approach. Yeah, I can imagine that it might be.

 

[barmar]

There have been lots of reports recently about the Trump administration's hard-line policy on illegal immigrants, breaking up families when they deport the parents and send the children to foster families. The administration has been saying that this is actually a program that has been going on for years, it began during the Obama years.

 

If they're "blaming" Obama for this, that concedes that it's wrong, and Trump has made it very clear since his candidacy is that he wants to undo all of Obama's mistakes. Why is this one being continued?

[ggwhiz]

Ahhh War. The U.S. just can't stay mad at you but this time it's trade. And instigated by a jerk that knows nothing about economics or it's consequences.

 

I guess we could avoid it by agreeing to settle NAFTA trade disputes in American courts and a dozen or so other things that are as likely as the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup but it's a shame that the full impacts won't be felt until after the mid-terms with so many voters still hooked on the Kool-Aid.

[ldrews]

Ahhh War. The U.S. just can't stay mad at you but this time it's trade. And instigated by a jerk that knows nothing about economics or it's consequences.

 

I guess we could avoid it by agreeing to settle NAFTA trade disputes in American courts and a dozen or so other things that are as likely as the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup but it's a shame that the full impacts won't be felt until after the mid-terms with so many voters still hooked on the Kool-Aid.

 

And yet unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, GDP is projected to be above 4%, North Korea is negotiating. Somebody must be doing something right.

[jjbrr]

My friends, I've done the unthinkable and resigned my position at a company some of you may be familiar with; I've moved in with my girlfriend and her 2-year-old son. This is my formal goodbye.

[ggwhiz]

My friends, I've done the unthinkable and resigned my position at a company some of you may be familiar with; I've moved in with my girlfriend and her 2-year-old son. This is my formal goodbye.

 

I did the brand new life thing 16 years ago and have never been happier. Y'all come back when you are settled in and may you say the same.

[Winstonm]

My friends, I've done the unthinkable and resigned my position at a company some of you may be familiar with; I've moved in with my girlfriend and her 2-year-old son. This is my formal goodbye.

 

Best of fortunes. This, too, shall pass. Hopefully, soon.

[Winstonm]

These attorneys seem to think DD may already be under sealed indictment.

[kenberg]

My friends, I've done the unthinkable and resigned my position at a company some of you may be familiar with; I've moved in with my girlfriend and her 2-year-old son. This is my formal goodbye.

 

Best wishes to the three of you.

Life can be complex, it can also be good.

Ken

 

[y66]

My friends, I've done the unthinkable and resigned my position at a company some of you may be familiar with; I've moved in with my girlfriend and her 2-year-old son. This is my formal goodbye.

Very best wishes to you and your new fam.

[y66]

[Winstonm]

Dennison's lawyers are now claiming he has powers of a monarch.

 

By Michael S. Schmidt, Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Matt Apuzzo

June 2, 2018

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

 

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

 

[Read the Trump lawyers’ confidential memo to Mr. Mueller here.]

 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offense.

 

Mr. Trump’s broad interpretation of executive authority is novel and is likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions. It is unclear how that fight, should the case

[barmar]

And yet unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, GDP is projected to be above 4%, North Korea is negotiating. Somebody must be doing something right.

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

 

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

[Winstonm]

Lawfare has an interesting read.

[Winstonm]

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

 

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

 

You should doublecheck claims made:

 

GDP forecasts, https://www.conference-board.org/data/usforecast.cfm

 

Wage growth, https://www.conference-board.org/data/usforecast.cfm

 

Record unemployment, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

 

And even North Korea - their history of negotiating: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations

[rmnka447]

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

 

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

 

 

Funny, but that's an argument conservatives used when progressives were touting 4.0% unemployment in 2016 as proof the economy was doing just fine. The election proved that a significant part of the electorate didn't buy those claims.

 

The following article provides some more substantial evidence with regard to where we're at --

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-us-unemployment-rate-reached-a-17-year-low-2018-06-01

[Winstonm]

Funny, but that's an argument conservatives used when progressives were touting 4.0% unemployment in 2016 as proof the economy was doing just fine. The election proved that a significant part of the electorate didn't buy those claims.

 

The following article provides some more substantial evidence with regard to where we're at --

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-us-unemployment-rate-reached-a-17-year-low-2018-06-01

 

Actually, I think the Lawfare article I linked to above is the best description of where we are as a country.

[Winstonm]

Bob Bauer writes in Lawfare:

 

The Sindler definition gets at the key element in the conduct of the demagogue, which is the manipulation of language to attract and maintain popular support in service of the demagogue’s unbounded self-interest. The leadership function has become pathologically personalized; personal ends and ambitions are of primary importance to the demagogue. His self-interested ends justify the use of virtually any means—or at least any he could hope to get away with.

 

Among the consequences is the demagogue’s resistance to institutional and legal limits on that power. In Michael Signer’s words, the demagogue may, as he sees fit, “threaten an outright…break with established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law.” When an adversary demanded that he heed the state Constitution, Huey Long infamously responded: “I’m the Constitution around here now.” To violate or circumvent the law, the demagogue believes that he requires only the proclaimed validation of the “people” who stand behind him. As James Fennimore Cooper wrote in his 1838 essay “The Demagogue,” it is in “affecting a deep devotion to the interests of the people” that the demagogue claims justification to put those interests “before the Constitution and the laws.”

 

The demagogue’s aims lead relentlessly toward the maintenance of high-pitched rhetoric and its ready escalation. He is, after all, a leader charged with giving effect to the popular will that he personifies and defending against the barriers wrongly erected against it. If constitutional laws and legal limits must give way, so too must the objections and opposition of adversaries. The demagogue specializes in lashing out.

 

The fully fledged demagogue is, however, that kind of politician and leader: Demagoguery constitutes his style of political leadership, a style irreconcilable with the oath to execute his office in trust for others. This is the source of massive political “injuries…done immediately to the Society itself” identified in Federalist No. 65. Theorists who have taken up the subject of the demagogue agree on the seriousness of the damage. So a progressive student of demagoguery, Michael Signer, can agree with the prominent conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield that the demagogue is an “enemy” of democracy.

[rmnka447]

Actually, I think the Lawfare article I linked to above is the best description of where we are as a country.

 

Fine, if that's your opinion.

 

But the source you cite is also just an opinion provided by a not-demonstratably unbiased source.

 

My reference was a fact-based article to shed some light on the economic situation.

 

See you in a month or two when I may espy something else worthy of comment here.

[ldrews]

Enjoy! A list of the accomplishments of President Trump after the first 500 days in office.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-historic-accomplishments-after-first-500-days-in-office/

[kenberg]

What should we make of the economy? A couple of references and a thought or two.

Robert Samuelson has a column in WaPo today. It's not all that sunstantial but he does not seem to be carrying water for anyone in particular.

 

https://www.washingt...1030035d

 

However he gives a reference that could be useful for study

https://www.federalr...olds-201805.pdf

 

One thought: When we look at progress, it is probably easier to get unemployment figures to drop from 8% to 6% than it is to get them to drop from 6% to 4%. For example, I doubt anyone thinks it will drop from 4% to 2%, and if by some miracle that should happen it will not then drop from 2% to 0%. So we need to be careful about a linear interpretation to numbers which inherently are not linear.

 

Another thought, along the same lines. There are still people out of work Far fewer than before, but still people out of work. Sometimes the solution is to increase the number of jobs. Not always. We are getting to a point where we right ask "How many of the now unemployed are able to hold a job if one existed?" I have known a couple of young men that, as near as I can see, simply cannot hold a job. This can be because of ability, or it can be a personality issue, or some combination of these.

And still another thought. There are, most unfortunately, a lot of single parents out there. Let's suppose she or he has the ability to do a job and the personality to not get fired. Can s/he feed and house the kid(s) on what s/he is earning?

 

It really pains me to see so many young people growing up in bad circumstances. How can it be that it was easier when I was growing up in the middle of the last century? I recently went to the 80th birthday party of a classmate from the 1952 graduating class of my K-8 elementary school. This has triggered a flood of memories and comparisons of then and now. No doubt memory is faulty, but "then" seems like it was better than "now". This does not please me.

 

 

Yes. I was and am white. I was and am male. I got that, we have to acknowledge it. Still.