Democracy (Theory and Philosophy)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Barrage of Trump’s Awful Ideas Is Doing Exactly What It’s Supposed To

      by

      The first month of the second Trump presidency has put the lie to the widespread wisdom that Donald Trump has no ideology and no ideas, only an insatiable thirst for power and money. Trump has shown that he has ideas. So many ideas. They are just really bad ideas:The United States can own, ethnically cleanse and redevelop Gaza as a luxury resort. The U.S. will buy Greenland and take possession of the Panama Canal. The government will become more efficient by cutting the Department of Education, U.S.A.I.D., medical and science research and many many jobs. D.E.I. caused the collision of an Army helicopter and a passenger plane in the air near Washington, D.C. Immigrants and transgender people are an existential threat to Americans. The president can and should rule by decree. These are all ideas, in the sense that they are opinions, beliefs or expressions of a possible course of action.Some of these ideas would have seemed unthinkable just weeks ago. But now that they have been thought and uttered by the man in possession of the world’s biggest megaphone, all of us are forced to engage with them. Otherwise sane people start debating questions like: Could the U.S. really take over Gaza? Would Egypt or Jordan go along with the ethnic cleansing project? Can trillions of dollars really be cut from the federal budget with a few keystrokes? Is there evidence that D.E.I. caused the crash? Are all immigrants criminals? Do trans people exist? Did the founders intend to check the power of the executive?Flooding the ether with bad ideas isn’t Trump’s unique know-how — it’s standard autocratic fare. Hannah Arendt used the word “preposterous” to describe the ideas that underpinned 20th-century totalitarian regimes. Bad ideas do a lot of the work of building autocracy. By forcing us to engage with them, they make our conversations, our media and our society dumber. By conjuring the unimaginable — radical changes in the geography of human relationships, the government and the world itself as we have known it — they plunge us into an anxious state in which thinking is difficult. That kind of anxiety is key to totalitarian control.Life under autocracy can be terrifying, as it already is in the United States for immigrants and trans people. But those of us with experience can tell you that most of the time, for most people, it’s not frightening. It is stultifying. It’s boring. It feels like trying to see and breathe under water — because you are submerged in bad ideas, being discussed badly, being reflected in bad journalism and, eventually, in bad literature and bad movies.Much has been said about the Democrats’ failure to sound the alarm loudly enough, fast enough or broadly enough as Trump has mounted his campaign of destruction. Some of the criticism is not entirely fair. The American system of checks and balances isn’t designed to move as fast as Trump is moving or to stop a bad-faith individual intent on breaking it. A real problem, though, is that Democrats’ objections to these ideas have been primarily procedural. Trump understands politics as the interplay of power and ideology. His opponents see politics as procedure. The contrast has never been starker — and never has the Democrats’ technocratic, legalistic approach been more detrimental to the cause of democracy. It’s not Trump who doesn’t have ideas; it’s the people who should be fighting to stop Trump’s autocratic breakthrough.It is not enough to say that Trump and his crony Elon Musk are staging a coup, though they are. Many of the people who voted for Trump want to see him smash what he has successfully framed as a useless, wasteful government. It is not enough to say that Trump is destroying American democracy. Many of the people who voted for him did so because they have long felt that the system as it is constituted doesn’t represent their interests — and both Trump and Musk have argued that they are wresting democracy back from unelected bureaucrats. It is not enough to say that Trump’s actions have caused a constitutional crisis or that his executive orders may violate laws passed by Congress. Many of the people who voted for Trump longed to see their frustrations addressed by decisive, spectacular action, which he is delivering.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      In First Post-Election Speech, Obama Calls for ‘Forging Alliances and Building Coalitions’

      by

      “Purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success,” the former president said in the speech in Chicago.In his first speech since the presidential election in November, Barack Obama urged Americans who want democracy to survive to look for ways to compromise, engage with the other side, turn away from identity politics and build relationships with unlikely potential allies.“Pluralism is not about holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya,’” Mr. Obama said in Chicago on Thursday. “It is not about abandoning your convictions and folding when things get tough. It is about recognizing that, in a democracy, power comes from forging alliances and building coalitions, and making room in those coalitions not only for the woke, but the waking.”He added: “Purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success.”Billed as an address on “the power of pluralism,” the speech — a road map of sorts for political survival for liberals in a second term for Donald J. Trump — was delivered before hundreds of people as part of an annual Democracy Forum put on by the Obama Foundation, a private nonprofit entity that is led by Mr. Obama.Mr. Obama opened the speech with an acknowledgment that when he told friends of the focus of this year’s forum, the topic drew groans and eye rolls.“We’ve just been through a fierce, hard-fought election, and it’s fair to say that it did not turn out as they had hoped,” said Mr. Obama, who had, along with his wife, Michelle, campaigned intensely for Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the final weeks.For Mr. Obama’s friends, he said, talk of bridging differences in a bitterly divided country seemed like an academic exercise.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why I’m Not Giving up on American Democracy

      by

      In his dank Budapest prison cell in the mid-1950s, my father imagined he heard Dvorak’s “New World” Symphony. Though no one in my family had ever set foot in the actual New World, just knowing it existed brought my father solace during his nearly two-year incarceration.Locked up in Soviet-occupied Hungary’s notorious Fo Street fortress, my father was blessedly still unaware that his wife — my mother, a reporter for United Press International — ­occupied a nearby cell. Nor did he know that his two small children, myself and my older sister, were living with strangers paid to look after them by the American wire services, my parents’ employer. Their crime was reporting on the show trials and jailing of priests, nuns and dissidents that Stalinist satellites of the postwar era used to clamp down on dissent.My parents would find it bitterly disappointing that American conservatives, including Donald Trump, have come to admire their small European homeland, with its habit of choosing the wrong side of history, and even to see it as a role model. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has branded Hungary an “illiberal democracy” as he systematically rolls back hard-won freedoms, reinvents its less than glorious past and cozies up to Russia, Hungary’s former occupying power and my parents’ jailer.I recall a different Orban.On June 1989, I stood with tens of thousands of Hungarians in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square during the reburial of the fallen leaders of the 1956 uprising against the Soviet-controlled government. From the podium, a bearded, skinny youth captured our attention with a fiery speech. “If we are sufficiently determined, we can force the ruling party to face free elections,” he shouted, urging negotiations for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. “If we are courageous enough, then and only then, can we fulfill the will of the revolution.” The 26-year-old speaker’s name was Viktor Orban.The events of 1989, when several members of the Eastern Bloc were throwing off the Soviet yoke, were thrilling. Hungary was taking small steps toward democracy, something that I experienced very personally. At my wedding in 1995 in Budapest, my husband, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, announced in his toast, “In marrying Kati, I also welcome Hungary to the family of democracies.” Hungary’s president, Arpad Goncz, four years into his work to democratize the country, was also present.For a time, Mr. Orban, no longer bearded or skinny, head of the youth party Fidesz, befriended Richard and me. He invited us to dinner and the opera, and we hosted him in our New York apartment at a return dinner. (As it happens, the financier and philanthropist George Soros — whom Mr. Orban has aggressively attacked in recent years — was also present on that occasion.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      What Worries Me About Uruguay’s Elections This Year

      by

      In a year of landmark elections, my country’s presidential vote last month flew under the radar. And perhaps with good reason: Uruguay’s balloting was marked by unexciting candidates and their lackluster attempts to entice undecided voters to the polls. In the end, no candidate won a majority, leaving weary Uruguayans to brace for another round of unimpressive speeches leading up to a runoff on Sunday.It’s out of character for Uruguay to have such a boring political season. For as long as I can remember, elections here have been a spectacle, with balconies draped in political flags and spirited debates in the streets. Memories of life under a brutal dictatorship late last century have nourished our enthusiasm for democracy and the peaceful transfer of power between the right and left. Over four decades, this has been our superpower, rendering our nation of 3.4 million a politically stable oasis in a tumultuous part of the world. An uneventful vote seems preferable to the deep polarization that has surrounded presidential elections over the past year in countries like El Salvador, Argentina, Venezuela and even the United States.But underneath our staid election lies an urgent problem: Young people here feel increasingly left behind, despite Uruguay’s reputation as a beacon of economic and social success. That’s potentially bad news for one of the strongest democracies in Latin America: In a 2023 Latinobarómetro poll, 38 percent of the young people surveyed said they’d be fine giving up democracy for a government that could solve their problems.And young Uruguayans are afflicted by many problems. The country has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Latin America, at 26 percent in 2023, compared with Argentina’s 18 percent the same year. Uruguay has elevated high school dropout rates. Young people are disproportionately affected by food insecurity and high imprisonment rates, with one in five children and adolescents living in poverty and 45 percent of the prison population under 30. As it did in other countries, the Covid-19 pandemic left Uruguay in the grip of a mental-health crisis that hit this group hard. In recent years, suicide was one of the leading causes of death among young people.All of this has translated into political apathy among marginalized young voters. But older generations also show dissatisfaction, voicing considerable disappointment in the government’s handling of childhood poverty, the high cost of living, corruption and rising crime rates. Although the inflation rate has slowed, net public debt rose, and there have been high-profile cases of mismanagement of public funds and corruption in President Luis Lacalle Pou’s administration.Before the first round of elections, I spoke with a handful of undecided young voters in the capital, Montevideo, all of whom were casting ballots for the first or second time. Some said that the presidential candidates who made it to Sunday’s runoff — Yamandú Orsi of the leftist Broad Front, and Álvaro Delgado of President Lacalle Pou’s center-right National Party — seemed distant, out of touch and difficult to understand.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democracy Lives and Dies by Math

      by

      A documentary filmmaker and a mathematician discuss our fear of numbers and its civic costs.“Math is power” is the tag line of a new documentary, “Counted Out,” currently making the rounds at festivals and community screenings. (It will have a limited theatrical release next year.) The film explores the intersection of mathematics, civil rights and democracy. And it delves into how an understanding of math, or lack thereof, affects society’s ability to deal with its most pressing challenges and crises — health care, climate, misinformation, elections.“When we limit access to the power of math to a select few, we limit our progress as a society,” said Vicki Abeles, the film’s director and a former Wall Street lawyer.Ms. Abeles was spurred to make the film in part in response to an anxiety about math that she had long observed in students, including her middle-school-age daughter. She was also struck by the math anxiety among friends and colleagues, and by the extent to which they tried to avoid math altogether. She wondered: Why are people so afraid of math? What are the consequences?One of many mathematicians who share their perspectives in the film is Ismar Volic, a professor at Wellesley College and a founder, in 2019, of the Institute for Mathematics and Democracy. He is also the author of “Making Democracy Count: How Mathematics Improves Voting, Electoral Maps and Representation.”Dr. Volic grew up in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a country that in the early 1990s went through “a horrific war,” he said. “I am familiar with what collapse of democracy can lead to.” He saw parallels between what happened in Bosnia and what was happening in the United States and around the world. “That has driven me in the last few years, understanding the mechanics of democracy, the infrastructure of democracy, which is very much mathematical,” he said.The following conversation, conducted by videoconference and email, has been condensed and edited for clarity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      For Executives, ‘Defending Democracy’ Can Seem Risky

      by

      Even seemingly anodyne sentiments supporting fair elections have become politically charged.Republicans have spent months laying the groundwork to challenge a defeat of Donald Trump in the presidential election. During a fund-raising call organized by corporate lawyers in September, Douglas Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, asked for help if those efforts veer outside legal grounds.According to two people on the call, Emhoff asked the lawyers to reiterate to their corporate clients the risks posed by efforts to undermine the integrity of the election.The request underlines the pressure some executives are feeling to repeat public calls they made four year ago, urging politicians to respect the results of the 2020 presidential election. But making those kinds of public statements may have gotten more complicated. Executives, who were outspoken during the pandemic, have resumed their efforts to stay out of politics. And seemingly anodyne sentiments are now politically charged: Only one of two candidates has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That candidate has support of roughly half the country. And he has made it clear that if he takes power, he’s willing to go after his enemies.Democracy, as a term, “has become kind of loaded” for executives, Charles Elson, the founding director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, told DealBook.“I think that’s why you haven’t heard anything from them. But you got two weeks to go.”The landscape has changed. The Blackstone C.E.O. Stephen Schwarzman and the hedge fund boss Nelson Peltz, two billionaires who condemned Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have since offered him their support. And one of his most high-profile supporters, Tesla C.E.O. Elon Musk, has questioned the accuracy of elections themselves: “When you have mail-in ballots and no proof of citizenship, it’s almost impossible to prove cheating,” Musk said at a rally in Pennsylvania this week.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency

      by

      Throughout American history, business leaders have been able to assume that an American president of either party would uphold the rule of law, defend property rights and respect the independence of the courts. Implicit in that assumption is a fundamental belief that the country’s ethos meant their enterprises and the U.S. economy could thrive, no matter who won. They could keep their distance from the rough-and-tumble of campaign politics. No matter who won, they could pursue long-term plans and investments with confidence in America’s political stability.In this election, American business leaders cannot afford to stand passive and silent.Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, have sketched out versions of their parties’ traditional positions on issues like taxation, trade and regulation that are well within the give-and-take of politics. In this election, however, stability itself is also at stake.Mr. Trump denies the legitimacy of elections, defies constitutional limits on presidential power and boasts of plans to punish his enemies. And in these attacks on America’s democracy, he is also attacking the foundations of American prosperity. Voting on narrow policy concerns would reflect a catastrophically nearsighted view of the interests of American business.Some prominent corporate leaders — including Elon Musk, a founder of Tesla; the investors David Sacks and Bill Ackman; and the financier Stephen Schwarzman — have been supportive of Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Beyond pure cynicism, it’s nearly impossible to understand why.Business leaders, of course, may be skeptical of Ms. Harris’s policies, uneasy because they don’t feel they know enough about how she would govern or worried that she may not be open to hearing their concerns — a frequent criticism of the Biden administration. They may be reluctant to offend or alienate employees, customers or suppliers who have different political views. Most of all, they may be afraid of angering Mr. Trump, who has a long track record of using the levers of power to reward loyalty.They should be more afraid of the consequences if he prevails.This week Donald Trump provided a stark reminder that this election is different. In remarks that ought to alarm any American committed to the survival of our democratic experiment, the Republican nominee again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. That comes on the heels of remarks in which he declared that he regards his political opponents as an “enemy from within” and that he would consider deploying the military against them merely for opposing his bid for the presidency. The implication is that participation in the democratic process is treason, and the threat is a fresh indication that if he is elected to a second term, Mr. Trump intends to deploy government power in new and dangerous ways.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      En caso de crisis electoral, esto es lo que debes saber

      by

      En 2020, cuando Donald Trump cuestionó los resultados de las elecciones, los tribunales rechazaron decisivamente sus intentos una y otra vez. En 2024, el poder judicial podría ser incapaz de salvar nuestra democracia.Los renegados ya no son principiantes. Han pasado los últimos cuatro años haciéndose profesionales, diseñando meticulosamente una estrategia en múltiples frentes —legislaturas estatales, el Congreso, poderes ejecutivos y jueces electos— para anular cualquier elección reñida.Los nuevos desafíos tendrán lugar en foros que han purgado cada vez más a los funcionarios que anteponen el país al partido. Podrían ocurrir en un contexto de márgenes electorales muy estrechos en los estados clave de tendencia electoral incierta, lo que significa que cualquier impugnación exitosa podría cambiar potencialmente las elecciones.Disponemos de unas pocas semanas para comprender estos desafíos y así poder estar alerta contra ellos.En primer lugar, en los tribunales ya se han presentado docenas de demandas. En Pensilvania se ha iniciado un litigio sobre si están permitidas las papeletas de voto por correo sin fecha y si se pueden permitir las boletas provisionales. Stephen Miller, exasesor de Trump, presentó una demanda en Arizona alegando que los jueces deberían tener la capacidad de rechazar los resultados de las elecciones.Muchos estados han cambiado recientemente su forma de votar. Incluso una modificación menor podría dar lugar a impugnaciones legales, y algunas invitan afirmativamente al caos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More