Democracy (Theory and Philosophy)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Canada Races on Gun Policy When America Crawls

      by

      As Congress once more struggles through acrimonious and so far fruitless negotiations over gun reforms in the wake of a mass shooting, Americans may find themselves looking north in befuddlement.Canada’s government has begun moving to ban handgun sales and buy back military-style rifles — dramatic changes in a country with one of the world’s highest gun ownership rates outside of the United States, expected to pass easily and with little fuss.Ask Americans why Canada’s government seems to cut through issues that mire their own in bitterness and frustration, and you might hear them cite cultural differences, gentler politics, even easygoing Canadian temperaments.But ask a political scientist, and you’ll get a more straightforward answer.Differences in national culture and issues, while meaningful, do not on their own explain things. After all, Canada also has two parties that mostly dominate national politics, an urban-rural divide, deepening culture wars and a rising far-right. And guns have been a contentious issue there for decades, one long contested by activist groups.Rather, much of the gap in how these two countries handle contentious policy questions comes down to something that can feel invisible amid day-to-day politicking, but may be just as important as the issues themselves: the structures of their political systems.Canada’s is a parliamentary system. Its head of government, Justin Trudeau, is elevated to that job by the legislature, of which he is also a member, and which his party, in collaboration with another, controls.If Mr. Trudeau wants to pass a new law, he must merely ask his subordinates in his party and their allies to do it. There is no such thing as divided government and less cross-party horse-trading and legislative gridlock.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada with government officials and gun-control activists, during a news conference about firearm-control legislation in Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday.Blair Gable/ReutersCanada is similar to what the United States would be if it had only a House of Representatives, whose speaker also oversaw federal agencies and foreign policy.What America has instead is a system whose structure simultaneously requires cooperation across competing parties and discourages them from working together.The result is an American system that not only moves slower and passes fewer laws than those of parliamentary models like Canada’s, research has found, but stalls for years even on measures that enjoy widespread support among voters in both parties, such as universal background checks for gun purchases.Many political scientists argue that the United States’ long-worsening gridlock runs much deeper than any one issue or the interest groups engaged with it, to the basic setup of its political system.The Perils of PresidentsThe scholar Juan Linz warned in a much-discussed 1990 essay, as much of the developing and formerly Soviet worlds moved to democracy, that those countries not follow what he called one of the foundational flaws of the United States: its presidency.“The vast majority of the stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes,” Dr. Linz wrote.Presidential systems, on the other hand, tended to collapse in coups or other violence, with only the United States having persisted since its origin.It’s telling that when American diplomats and technocrats help to set up new democracies abroad, they almost always model them on European-style parliaments.Subsequent research has found that parliamentary systems also perform better at managing the economy and advancing rule of law than presidencies, if only for the comparative ease with which they can implement policy — witnessed in Canada’s rapid response to gun violence or other crises.Gun control activists during a rally in Washington last week.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAmerica’s legislative hurdles, requiring cooperation across the president, Senate and House to pass laws, are raised further by the fact that all three are elected under different rules.None represents a straight national majority. Presidential elections favor some states over others. The Senate tilts especially toward rural voters. All three are elected on different schedules. As a result, single-party control is rare. Because competing parties typically control at least one of those three veto points on legislation, legislation is frequently vetoed.Americans have come to accept, even embrace, divided government. But it is exceedingly uncommon. While Americans may see Canada’s legislative efficiency as unusual, to the rest of the world it is American-style gridlock that looks odd.Still, America’s presidential system does not, on its own, explain what makes it function so differently from a country like Canada.“As long as things are moderate, a presidential system is not so bad,” said Lee Drutman, a political scientist who studies political reform.Rather, he cited that America is nearly alone in combining a presidency with winner-take-all elections.Zero-Sum ContestsProportional votes, common in most of the world, award seats to each party based on its share of the vote.Under American-style elections, the party that wins 51 percent of a race controls 100 percent of the office it elects, while the party with 49 percent ends up with nothing.This all but ensured that politics would coalesce between two parties because third-ranked parties rarely win office. And as those two parties came to represent geographically distinct electorates struggling for national control, their contests took on, for voters, a sensation of us-versus-them.Canada, too, has winner-take-all elections, a practice inherited from Britain. Still, neither of those countries hold presidential contests, which pit one half of the nation against the other.And in neither country do the executive and legislative branches share power, which, in times of divided government, extends the zero-sum nature of American elections into lawmaking, too. And not only on issues where the parties’ supporters disagree.Mourners gathered at Newtown High School in Connecticut in 2012 for a service for those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.Luke Sharrett for The New York TimesIn 2013, shortly after a gunman killed 20 first graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., polls found that 81 percent of Republicans supported background checks for gun purchases. But when asked whether the Senate should pass such a bill — which would have required Republicans to side with the then-Democratic majority — support dropped to 57 percent. The measure never passed.The episode was one of many suggesting that Americans often privilege partisan victory, or at least denying victory to the other side, over their own policy preferences, the scholar Lilliana Mason wrote in a book on partisanship.“Even when policy debates crack open and an opportunity for compromise appears,” Dr. Mason wrote, “partisans are psychologically motivated to look away.”Unstable MajoritiesStill, there is something unusual to Canada’s model, too.Most parliamentary systems, as in Europe, elect lawmakers proportionally. Voters select a party, which takes seats in the legislature proportional to their overall vote share. As a result, many different parties end up in office, and must join in a coalition to secure a governing majority. Lawmaking is less prone to gridlock than in America but it’s not seamless, either: the prime minister must negotiate among the parties of their coalition.Canada, like Britain, combines American-style elections, which produce what is not quite a two-party system in those countries but is close, with European-style parliaments.As a result, Canada’s prime minister usually oversees a legislative majority, allowing him or her to breeze through legislation even more easily than in European-style parliaments.Handguns on display in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.Jennifer Gauthier/ReutersThis moment is an exception: Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party controls slightly less than half of the House of Commons. Still, his party dominates a legislative alliance in which he has only one partner. Canada also includes a Senate, though its members are appointed and rarely rock the boat.But the Canadian system produces what Dr. Drutman called “unstable majorities,” prone to whiplashing on policy.“If you have a 52 percent margin for one party, and then you throw the bums out because four percent of the vote went the other way, now you’ve moved completely in the other direction,” he said.Gun laws are a case in point. After a 1989 mass shooting, Canadian lawmakers passed registration rules, but phased them in over several years because they were unpopular among rural communities.Those rules were later abolished under a Conservative government. Though Mr. Trudeau has not reimposed the registry, he has tightened gun laws in other ways.In a European-style system, by contrast, a four-point shift to the right or left might change only one party in the country’s governing coalition, prompting a slighter policy change more proportional to the electorate’s mood.American liberals may thrill at the seeming ease with which Canada’s often-left-leaning government can implement policy, much as conservatives may envy Britain’s more right-wing, but similarly rapid, lawmaking under a similar system.But it is the slow-and-steady European model, with its frustratingly incremental advances, that, over the long run, research finds, tend to prove the most stable and effective. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Warning Signs of a Future Mass Killer

      by

      More from our inbox:The Republican Checklist After Another ShootingNew York Mayor’s Rejection of Covid MandatesVoters, Defend DemocracyEstonia’s Tough Voice Against Russian AggressionAbortion Funds Already ExistA crowd gathered Sunday outside Tops Market for a vigil the day after the shooting in Buffalo.Joshua Rashaad McFadden for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Before Attack, Solitary Teen Caused Alarm” (front page, May 16):In the days after the mass shooting in Buffalo we have witnessed a heightened focus on the mental health of adolescents. A few months ago, after the Michigan school shooting, we heard a similar concern.In each case the youths, when confronted with their potentially homicidal “behaviors,” denied them. They offered explanations that were accepted by school authorities and mental health professionals.Having worked in an emergency room where individuals were brought by the police for “behavioral issues,” I needed after assessing each of them to decide whether they should be hospitalized or discharged. These assessments frequently occurred in the middle of the night. In all cases the individuals I assessed assured me that they were fine and would harm no one. Some I hospitalized and some I allowed to leave the emergency room.One morning when my rotation was completed, I was afraid to turn on my car radio for fear I would hear of a shooting by two young men I let leave. I did not.Mass shootings are not simply a mental health problem that mental health workers can fix. They are also societal problems fueled by the availability of guns and the ubiquity of prejudice.Sidney WeissmanChicagoThe writer is a clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.To the Editor:Re “Others Joined Chat Room With Suspect Before Attack” (news article, May 18):I’m a 70-year-old tech dinosaur. I don’t understand what an algorithm is, but I do know that we have a significant problem if a racist openly discussed in chat rooms his plans to carry out an atrocity and no one did anything to stop it.Robert SalzmanNew YorkTo the Editor:Pages and pages about the recent tragic shooting in Buffalo. And in newspapers across the country, other incidents of gun violence involving young people as shooters. In schools, churches and places where people shop. The beat goes on, and the conversation remains the same. Hate. Gun control. Political bickering. And inaction.What’s missing in all too many of these gun tragedies are parent controls. Parents asleep at the wheel or parents being complicit or enabling seems to be a common thread. But not much discussion about that, by either journalists or political leaders. Maybe there should be.George PeternelArlington Heights, Ill.The Republican Checklist After Another ShootingTo the Editor:The Republican checklist after a mass shooting:Thoughts and prayers: Check.This is not the time: Check.Let’s not politicize: Check.Guns are not the problem: Check.Just enforce the laws we have: Check.More mental health care: Check.(Repeat.)Jon MerrittLos AngelesNew York Mayor’s Rejection of Covid MandatesSuzette Burgess, 79, of Morris Heights in the Bronx, gave out free masks on Thursday as part of her own personal campaign to fight the virus.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Adams Resists New Mandates as Covid Rises” (front page, May 20):We just don’t get it. Every time we “open up” and remove protective measures, Covid soars. Over a million Americans have died from the virus, depriving their loved ones of their presence. And needless hospitalization costs more than prevention and taxes the health system, already enormously overwhelmed.As physicians, we aim to prevent disease. New York City’s mayor thinks that it is better to treat Covid (with expensive drugs that don’t always work and can cause serious side effects) than to take the necessary steps to avoid it. And it may be more than just the mayor’s “tickle in my throat” if you wind up in the I.C.U. or get long Covid.Yes, the economy is vital, but more disease makes fewer people able to shop or eat out or go to work. And we don’t yet know the long-term effects on the brain and body. So prevention is key, and we need to follow the advice of public health experts who should be in control of this, not politicians.It is not a burden to get vaccinated and boosted and wear a good-quality mask. It is a responsibility to our fellow citizens and ourselves. We used to care about each other. Taking these steps would help us finally emerge from this scourge.Stephen DanzigerBrooklynThe writer, a physician, is a member of the Covid-19 Task Force of the Medical Society of the County of Kings (Brooklyn).Voters, Defend Democracy Jason Andrew for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “In Primaries, G.O.P. Voters Reward a Lie” (news analysis, front page, May 19):In November, voters must decide to cast their ballots either for congressional candidates who view fidelity to the rule of law as sacrosanct or for those who consider the oath to “support and defend the Constitution” a hollow pledge. The outcome may determine whether or not our constitutional republic survives.John Adams pessimistically asserted: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” If, as Adams suggested, our form of government is on a path toward suicide, then we must look to the electorate for intervention.To prove Adams wrong, the electorate must once again rise to the occasion as it did in the 2020 presidential election when it ousted Donald Trump for undermining democratic governance.Jane LarkinTampa, Fla.Estonia’s Tough Voice Against Russian AggressionPrime Minister Kaja Kallas of Estonia in Brussels just after Russia invaded Ukraine in February.Pool photo by John ThysTo the Editor:Re “Estonian Leader Warns Against Deal With Putin” (news article, May 17):As an American living in Estonia, I have watched with great admiration Prime Minister Kaja Kallas’s leadership on all issues related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has been a firm and unyielding voice urging tough measures against Russian aggression.Estonia is a small country, but it punches well above its weight in terms of its commitment to NATO, its commitment to helping Ukraine, including taking in a huge number of refugees relative to its population, and its commitment to freedom and democracy.Ms. Kallas has advocated a 21st-century strategy of “smart containment,” appropriately building on the 20th-century Cold War “containment” policy first advocated by George F. Kennan. She has insisted on Western resolve to stop Russia before Vladimir Putin’s desire to re-form the Soviet Union through war is realized.The West should heed Ms. Kallas, especially her forceful argument that Russia must lose this war, and any result short of that is unacceptable. Tragically, if her policy of “smart containment” had been largely implemented before the Russian invasion, Mr. Putin would have never invaded.It’s not as if the war in Ukraine was a surprise — certainly not to those in the Baltics who through history and proximity know Russia well.Michael G. BrautigamTallinn, EstoniaAbortion Funds Already ExistTo the Editor:Re “An Abortion Fund” (letter, May 16):We appreciate Jack Funt’s interest in a national fund that would support people traveling for abortion after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. Mr. Funt will be delighted to learn that a network of more than 80 abortion funds already exists.Legal abortion has never meant accessible abortion. The cost of a first-trimester abortion averages $575, but can exceed $1,000. Three-quarters of abortion patients are low income. Even with Roe in effect, many Americans struggle to pay for their abortions and travel to clinics. Since before 1973, abortion funds have helped people access care that would otherwise have been out of reach.We encourage people to learn about and support the work already being done to ensure abortion access. Readers can find their local abortion fund by visiting the website of the National Network of Abortion Funds.Rhian LewisAriella MessingThe writers direct the Online Abortion Resource Squad, which connects people to high-quality information about abortion. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Abortion and America’s Polarized Politics

      by

      More from our inbox:A Threat to DemocracyU.S. Should Focus on Diplomacy, Not Arms Shipments to UkraineDon’t Name the Gunman Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “How Roe Warped the Republic,” by Ross Douthat (column, May 8):Mr. Douthat argues that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was “an inflection point where the choices of elite liberalism actively pushed the Republic toward our current divisions,” but he ignores three glaring facts.First, Roe v. Wade still aligns well with the American people’s best sense about the complexity of abortion: that it be safe, legal and rare. Second, it was deliberate decisions by conservative elites that weaponized minority opposition to abortion for their own goals. Third, it is the unyielding minority religious belief that personhood begins at the moment of conception that has been driving the divisive politics of abortion for decades.Frederick CivianDedham, Mass.To the Editor:Ross Douthat lays the social divisions of this country at the feet of the liberal elites who foolishly made the mistake of codifying a constitutional right not specifically delineated in our Constitution. He overlooks the deliberate choice of abortion as a politically galvanizing issue by movement conservatives who, seeking to unite a party in disarray after the “Southern strategy” and Watergate, fixed on abortion as a standard to unite under.Abortion was not originally a significant concern of evangelicals and was simply one tool they picked to create and sustain the quest for political control. Mr. Douthat, while thoughtful, is simply dead wrong on this one.Andrew MishkinPortland, MaineTo the Editor:Ross Douthat’s column about Roe was exceptionally brilliant. In an age when so much opinion content is designed to simplify complex issues, to create easy distillations that fit into previously established convictions, it takes courage to present issues with nuance and complexity and trust that readers will reward you for it.Well done, Ross!Ben LincolnMount Desert Island, MaineTo the Editor:I am a strongly pro-choice feminist, and I understand and respect the perspective of people who are opposed to abortion. However, opposition to abortion has taken on an element that is not pro-life. Not making an exception for instances of rape and incest suggests a lack of compassion, rather than reverence for life. Criminalizing and instigating vigilante injustice suggest not just lack of compassion, but also punishment and vindictiveness.Where in this response is the love and mercy that are at the heart of the message of Jesus?Berne WeissEstoril, PortugalA Threat to Democracy Bernardo BagulhoTo the Editor:“Running for Office to ‘Stop the Steal,’” by Barbara McQuade (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, May 15), should strike fear in the heart of every patriotic American.Between now and November, honest Americans of every political stripe need to get the word out that Donald Trump is working frantically to elect “his” state legislators, secretaries of state and election officials who will replace the honest bipartisan ones who said there was no election fraud in 2020. His apparent goal is to have Trump electors tallied instead of legally chosen ones in what could be our last free election.People need to be reminded how Mr. Trump attempted to cajole officials — even his own vice president — into overturning an honest election. Now he’s learned a better way to do it, and only the voters can prevent this electoral calamity and national tragedy.Two years from now our democracy could be in as much danger as Ukraine’s is now, but without one missile being launched or one shot being fired.Bobby BraddockNashvilleU.S. Should Focus on Diplomacy, Not Arms Shipments to Ukraine Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Perils of 2 Ukraine War Endgames” (column, May 15):Ross Douthat is right to envision these endgame scenarios. He fears that if the Ukrainian military (with U.S. weapons support) should come close to expelling the Russian forces, “nuclear escalation suddenly becomes more likely than it is right now.”If the Russians should decide to end a protracted war with a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine, the U.S. might be tempted to retaliate against Russia with its own nukes. Both sides have put the nuclear option back on the table.Even short of World War III, a continuing military stalemate in the Donbas would likely have serious consequences: global grain shortages, starvation in poor countries and eventual upheavals and mass migration. U.S. arms aid would also come with high domestic costs, including the likely abandonment of needed social programs.The U.S. and NATO should make the reduction of nuclear war risk a top priority. They should stop stoking the conflict with arms shipments. Instead, they should encourage Volodymyr Zelensky to engage in meaningful negotiations with Vladimir Putin, even if it means territorial concessions in the Donbas region.President Biden’s objective should now be peace through diplomacy, not endless war through the continuing supply of weapons.L. Michael HagerEastham, Mass.The writer is co-founder and former director general of the International Development Law Organization.Don’t Name the GunmanFBI agents stand outside the supermarket in Buffalo where a racist attack occurred Saturday. Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York TimesTo the Editor:According to the F.B.I. expert who spoke to my synagogue on Sunday about how to survive an attack by an “active shooter,” we should not encourage mentally ill bigots by giving them heroes, that is, by naming other shooters they can emulate.In other words, every time the news media repeats the shooter’s name, sick folks will have another person to admire. So stop saying those names. What is horrific to us is cool to them. Don’t name them.Emily FarrellPhiladelphia More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      America’s Doug Mastriano Problem

      by

      If the Ohio Senate primary two weeks ago provided some clarity about the ideological divisions in the Republican Party, Tuesday’s primaries often seemed more like a showcase for the distinctive personalities that populate a Trumpified G.O.P.The Pennsylvania Senate race gave us an especially vivid mix: As of this writing, the Celebrity Doctor and the Hedge Fund Guy Pretending to Be a MAGA True Believer may be headed for a recount, after the Would-Be Media Personality With the Inspiring Back Story and the Unfortunate Twitter Feed faded back into the pack. In the governor’s race, Republican voters chose to nominate Doug Mastriano, a.k.a. the QAnon Dad. In North Carolina, they ended — for now — the political career of Representative Madison Cawthorn, the Obviously Suffering Grifter.On substance, as opposed to personality, though, the night’s stakes were relatively simple: Can Republicans prevent their party from becoming the party of constitutional crisis, with leaders tacitly committed to turning the next close presidential election into a legal-judicial-political train wreck?This is a distinctive version of a familiar political problem. Whenever a destabilizing populist rebellion is unleashed inside a democratic polity, there are generally two ways to bring back stability without some kind of crisis or rupture in the system.Sometimes the revolt can be quarantined within a minority coalition and defeated by a majority. This was the destiny, for instance, of William Jennings Bryan’s 1890s prairie-populist rebellion, which took over the Democratic Party but went down to multiple presidential defeats at the hands of the more establishmentarian Republicans. You can see a similar pattern, for now, in French politics, where the populism of Marine Le Pen keeps getting isolated and defeated by the widely disliked but grudgingly tolerated centrism of Emmanuel Macron.In the alternative path to stability, the party being reshaped by populism finds leaders who can absorb its energies, channel its grievances and claim its mantle — but also defeat or suppress its most extreme manifestations. This was arguably the path of New Deal liberalism in its relationship to Depression-era populism and radicalism: In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was able to sustain support from voters who were also drawn to more demagogic characters, from Huey Long to Charles Coughlin. Two generations later, it was the path of Reaganite conservatism in its relationship to both George Wallace’s populism and the Goldwaterite New Right.The problem for America today is that neither stabilizing strategy is going particularly well. Part of the Never Trump movement has aspired to a Macron-style strategy, preaching establishment unity behind the Democratic Party. But the Democrats haven’t cooperated: They conspicuously failed to contain and defeat Trumpism in 2016, and there is no sign that the Biden-era variation on the party is equipped to hold on to the majority it won in 2020.Meanwhile, the Republican Party at the moment does have a provisional model for channeling but also restraining populism. Essentially it involves leaning into culture-war controversy and rhetorical pugilism to a degree that provokes constant liberal outrage and using that outrage to reassure populist voters that you’re on their side and they don’t need to throw you over for a conspiracy theorist or Jan. 6 marcher.This is the model, in different styles and contexts, of Glenn Youngkin and Ron DeSantis. In Tuesday’s primaries it worked for Idaho’s conservative incumbent governor, Brad Little, who easily defeated his own lieutenant governor’s much-further-right campaign. Next week the same approach seems likely to help Brian Kemp defeat David Perdue for the governor’s nomination in Georgia. And it offers the party’s only chance, most likely via a DeSantis candidacy, to defeat Donald Trump in 2024.Unfortunately this model works best when you have a trusted figure, a known quantity, delivering the “I’ll be your warrior, I’ll defeat the left” message. The Cawthorn race, in which the toxic congressman was unseated by a member of the North Carolina State Senate, shows that this figure doesn’t have to be an incumbent to succeed, especially if other statewide leaders provide unified support. But if you have neither unity nor a figure with statewide prominence or incumbency as your champion — no Kemp, no Little — then you can get results like Mastriano’s victory last night in Pennsylvania: a Republican nominee for governor who cannot be trusted to carry out his constitutional duties should the presidential election be close in 2024.So now the obligation returns to the Democrats. Mastriano certainly deserves to lose the general election, and probably he will. But throughout the whole Trumpian experience, the Democratic Party has consistently failed its own tests of responsibility: It has talked constantly about the threat to democracy while moving leftward to a degree that makes it difficult to impossible to hold the center, and it has repeatedly cheered on unfit Republican candidates on the theory that they will be easier to beat.This happened conspicuously with Trump himself, and more unforgivably it happened again with Mastriano: Pennsylvania Democrats sent out mailers boosting his candidacy and ran a big ad buy, more than twice Mastriano’s own TV spending, calling him “one of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters” — an “attack” line perfectly scripted to improve his primary support.Now they have him, as they had Trump in 2016. We’ll see if they can make the story end differently this time.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Former Aides and Advisers on the Peril He Poses

      by

      Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper agreed with an interviewer that President Trump posed “a threat to democracy.” Other former administration officials have expressed similar concerns.In his new book “A Sacred Oath,” released earlier this week, Mark T. Esper, the former defense secretary, revealed that President Donald J. Trump in 2020 had floated the idea of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and asked why the military could not “just shoot” racial justice protesters in Washington in the legs.Mr. Esper also described his concerns that Mr. Trump might misuse the military during the 2020 election, for example by asking soldiers to seize ballot boxes.On Monday, when a Fox News host asked if he thought President Trump “was a threat to democracy,” Mr. Esper was blunt.“I think that given the events of Jan. 6, given how he has undermined the election results, he incited people to come to D.C., stirred them up that morning and failed to call them off, to me that threatens our democracy,” he said.“So, yes?” asked the host, Bret Baier.Mr. Esper replied: “What else can you conclude, Bret?”That comment, from a man who has also served as secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the conservative Heritage Foundation, was seen by some as a startlingly direct condemnation. But Mr. Esper was not the first former Trump administration official to go beyond criticisms of President Trump’s temperament or specific policies to say he posed a threat to American democracy itself.Here is a compilation of comments by Mr. Esper and other former officials, made during and after President Trump’s term in office.In a new book, Mr. Esper said that President Trump in June 2020 asked him why the military could not “just shoot” racial justice protestors in Washington in the legs.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMARK T. ESPER, secretary of defense (July 2019-November 2020)“It was a very troubling event. The moment, it was an insurrection, an attempt to overturn a free and fair election and to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And it [sic] was right to be impeached.”— Interview with Judy Woodruff, “PBS NewsHour,” May 6, commenting on the Jan. 6 insurrectionSTEPHANIE GRISHAM, White House press secretary and communications director (July 2019-April 2020)“Everybody’s showing their fealty to them, he’s on his revenge tour to people who dared to vote for impeachment. I want to just warn people, once he takes office, if he were to win, he doesn’t have to worry about re-election anymore, he will be about revenge, he will probably have some pretty draconian policies.”— Interview on “Good Morning America,” Oct. 4, 2021, in which she also said she would urge Mr. Trump “not to run” in 2024MILES TAYLOR, chief of staff, Department of Homeland Security (February 2019-September 2019) and author of the anonymously published book “A Warning”“I’m still astounded by the countless Trump officials who privately agreed with me that he was a threat to democracy yet *still* remain silent. Why?”— Twitter, June 11, 2021JOHN F. KELLY, secretary of homeland security (January 2017-July 2017) and White House chief of staff (July 2017-January 2019)“What happened on Capitol Hill yesterday is a direct result of his poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the frauds.”— Interview with Jake Tapper, CNN, Jan. 7, 2021Other former administration officials who have publicly expressed concern over dangers President Trump might pose to democracy include the former defense secretary James N. Mattis.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesH.R. MCMASTER, former national security adviser (February 2017-April 2018)“It’s a gift to our adversaries, who want to shake our confidence in who we are, shake our confidence in our democratic principles and institutions and processes.”— Interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Sept. 27, 2020, commenting on President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the electionJOHN R. BOLTON, former national security adviser (April 2018-Sept. 2019)“The concern I have, speaking as a conservative Republican, is that once the election is over, if the president wins, the political constraint is gone. And because he has no philosophical grounding, there’s no telling what will happen in a second term.”— Interview with Martha Raddatz, ABC News, June 21, 2020, in which he also said President Trump posed a “danger for the republic”JAMES N. MATTIS, secretary of defense (January 2017-January 2019)“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander in chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”“We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”— Statement published by The Atlantic, June 3, 2020, following the clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C.REX W. TILLERSON, former secretary of state (February 2017-March 2018)“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.”“If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both the public and private sector — and regrettably at times even the nonprofit sector — then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”— Commencement speech at Virginia Military Institute, May 16, 2018 More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Is Australian Democracy in Decline?

      by

      With a federal election just a few weeks away, it’s time to put Australia’s system and political flaws into context.The Australia Letter is a weekly newsletter from our Australia bureau. Sign up to get it by email.How healthy is democracy today?I’ve been thinking a lot about that question lately, after reporting on what’s needed to strengthen the liberal world order after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and as Australia’s campaign season has intensified.Worldwide, the diagnosis isn’t great.“Antidemocratic alliances.”“A rot within democracies.”“Dropping the pretense of competitive elections.”These are a few of the subheads in the latest Freedom House report about global governance. An even more data-driven study from more than 3,000 global scholars associated with the V-Dem Institute in Sweden recently reached similar conclusions, noting that liberal democracies like Australia are increasingly rare.Their numbers peaked in 2012 with 42 countries and are now down to the lowest levels in over 25 years, with 34 nations and just 13 percent of the world population.“Electoral autocracy” remains the most common form of government, with 44 percent of the world’s population. And it’s not hard to see why. Under electoral autocracy, there is enough systemic suppression to keep opponents disadvantaged, but elections exist. They’re just manipulated to serve those in power. I saw a version of this when I covered Cuba — the government there held elections that were far from free, and returned the Communist Party to power again and again.But more recently, democracies have slipped in that direction gradually rather than through revolution.“Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves,” wrote Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in “How Democracies Die,” their 2018 book. “Like Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Ukraine. Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box.”Their book and these global reports make the same point: Democracy is fragile and should not be taken for granted. No country — as the United States has discovered in recent years — should consider itself immune to the slippery slope of democratic decline.Where does Australia fit into this dismal portrait?Australia is stronger than most. Freedom House gave the country a score of 95 out of 100. The experts at V-Dem ranked Oz 14th in its measure of liberal democracy, below New Zealand (coming in at No. 5) but far above the United States (at 29).A big part of that has to do with the way Australia runs elections. Compulsory voting ensures high turnout; the independent Australian Electoral Commission runs the election with technocratic efficiency according to national standards that are widely supported and respected by political parties and the public. Politicians do not decide district boundaries, or where to put polling booths, or how many polling sites to set up.“All of those ways that partisan politics can distort outcomes, it’s just not there,” said Judith Brett, an emeritus professor of politics at La Trobe University, who is also the author of a book on Australia’s electoral history called “From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage.”But there are still many causes for concern. Polls have been showing for years that a growing number of Australians distrust the government and feel disconnected from politics.Australia’s leaders and major political parties have also shown a disturbing tolerance for secrecy — especially when it comes to the money that finances their campaigns. As I wrote in February, Research from the Center for Public Integrity shows that over the past two decades, the source of nearly $1 billion in party income has been hidden.The combination of big money and a disaffected electorate is reshaping Australian democracy in other ways as well. Professor Brett pointed out that the government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a habit of spraying government funds all over districts it needs to win to stay in power, often for projects that defy logic but come pretty close to attempted vote buying — from dams to BMX courses to footpaths.The Australian media has taken to calling these “election sweeteners.” Critics call it soft corruption, and they fear that it could become the norm, making Australian election results more transactional, while encouraging leaders avoid the broader challenges society faces.“We have an electorate where party loyalty is less strong,” Professor Brett said. “It’s up for grabs and if the way those votes are grabbed is with money for a sporting facility, and serious policy issues are neglected, I think we’re in big trouble.”So what can be done? Solutions are out there, and according to democracy scholars, interactions that bring people together across political and social divides tend to produce stronger, more responsive governments.With that in mind, I’ll be helping to host an event at the New South Wales Parliament on May 11 in Sydney with the Athens Democracy Forum asking how we can reconnect people with their elected officials. Presented by The New York Times in collaboration with New Democracy, an independent research organization, we’ll be gathering everyday citizens, politicians and experts for a wide-ranging discussion that will help create a report with recommendations about how to better engage all of us in democracy, worldwide.If you’re interested in being a delegate, please fill out this form.You’ll hear from six speakers, including former Premier Geoff Gallop and Rod Simpson, the commissioner of Greater Sydney, in a participatory workshop format. We’ll be selecting about a dozen readers in Sydney (or those willing to travel to Sydney) to take part in the gathering.Now here are our stories of the week.Australia and New ZealandPrime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand in Tokyo last week.Pool photo by Yuichi YamazakiNew Zealand Deal May Put Japan Closer to ‘Five Eyes’ Intelligence Alliance The two countries announced a goal of “seamless” sharing of classified information as China moves to expand its influence in the Asia-Pacific region.Chris Bailey, Who Gave Australia Punk Rock, Dies at 65 His band, the Saints, introduced the country (and the world) to their raw sound just as the Sex Pistols were emerging in London and the Ramones in New York.Can Art Help Save the Insect World? A renowned photographer who hopes to persuade humans to love their insect brethren has teamed with scientists on a new exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History.Around the TimesA crew of quarantine workers in Shanghai. The city is in its fourth week of a Covid lockdown.The New York TimesChina’s Covid Lockdown Outrage Tests Limits of Triumphant Propaganda Public anger and grief over the bungled lockdown in Shanghai is creating a credibility crisis for the country’s leader, Xi Jinping, and his zero Covid policies.Fears Are Mounting That Ukraine War Will Spill Across Borders American and European officials say their concern is based in part on a growing conviction that the war will not end any time soon.At Madeleine Albright’s Service, a Reminder of the Fight for Freedom The former secretary of state, who died last month, was honored at Washington National Cathedral as America faces the kind of struggle between democracy and autocracy that she warned about.More Kids? After the Last Two Years? No Thanks. The travails of pandemic parenting have been well documented. But how has this time shaped decision-making (and baby-making) going forward?Enjoying the Australia Letter? Sign up here or forward to a friend.For more Australia coverage and discussion, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      US Braces for Potential French Election Shockwave

      by

      WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are anxiously watching the French presidential election, aware that the outcome of the vote on Sunday could scramble President Biden’s relations with Europe and reveal dangerous fissures in Western democracy.President Emmanuel Macron of France has been a crucial partner as Mr. Biden has rebuilt relations with Europe, promoted democracy and forged a coalition in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Macron is in a tight contest with Marine Le Pen, a far-right challenger.Ms. Le Pen is a populist agitator who, in the style of former President Donald J. Trump, scorns European Union “globalists,” criticizes NATO and views President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as an ally.Her victory could complicate Mr. Biden’s effort to isolate Russia and aid Ukraine. But the very real prospect of a nationalist leading France is also a reminder that the recent period of U.S.-European solidarity on political and security issues like Russia and democracy may be fragile. Poland and Hungary, both NATO members, have taken authoritarian turns. And Germany’s surprisingly strong response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is already drawing domestic criticism.“To have a right-wing government come to power in France would be a political earthquake,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown who was the Europe director of the National Security Council during the Obama administration. “It would send a troubling signal about the overall political health of the Western world.”He added: “This is a moment of quite remarkable European unity and resolve. But Le Pen’s election would certainly raise profound questions about the European project.”Mr. Macron was unable to command more than a small plurality of support against several opponents in the first round of voting on April 10. Ms. Le Pen, who finished second, is his opponent in the runoff election on Sunday. Polls show Mr. Macron with a clear lead, but analysts say a Le Pen victory is completely plausible.An immigration hard-liner and longtime leader of France’s populist right, Ms. Le Pen has campaigned mainly on domestic issues, including the rising cost of living. But her foreign policy views have unsettled U.S. officials. Last week, she renewed vows to scale back France’s leadership role in NATO and to pursue “a strategic rapprochement” with Russia after the war with Ukraine has concluded. Ms. Le Pen also expressed concern that sending arms to Ukraine risked drawing other nations into the war.Mr. Macron, right, has been a crucial partner as President Biden has rebuilt relations with Europe.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIn a debate on Wednesday, Mr. Macron reminded voters that Ms. Le Pen’s party had taken a loan from a Russian bank. “You depend on Mr. Putin,” he told her.Ms. Le Pen insisted she was “an absolutely and totally free woman” and said she sought foreign cash after French banks refused to lend to her. She also sought to deflect charges that she was sympathetic to Russia’s war aims, declaring her “absolute solidarity” with the Ukrainian people.Ms. Le Pen has also pledged to curtail the influence of the European Union, which the Biden administration sees as a vital counterweight to Russia and China.One senior U.S. official noted that France has a recent history of right-wing candidates striking fear into the political establishment before falling short. That was the case five years ago, when Mr. Macron defeated Ms. Le Pen in a runoff.But recent elections in the West have been prone to upsets, and analysts warned against complacency in Washington, especially given the stakes for the United States.One sign of how much the Biden administration values its partnership with Mr. Macron was the minor sense of crisis after France withdrew its ambassador to Washington in September after the disclosure of a new initiative between the United States and Britain to supply Australia with nuclear submarines.Mr. Macron’s government blamed the Biden administration for the loss of a lucrative submarine contract it had with Australia and was especially angry to learn about the arrangement through a leak to the news media. Biden officials expressed profuse support for France in a flurry of meetings and phone calls, and Mr. Biden called the episode clumsy. France was an “extremely, extremely valued” U.S. partner, he said.If Ms. Le Pen were to win, Mr. Biden’s national security team would be forced to reassess that relationship.What to Know About France’s Presidential ElectionCard 1 of 4Heading to a runoff. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Fear for Democracy. Why Aren’t They Running on It in 2022?

      by

      Republicans are far more energized about the issues of elections and voting, powered by a former president and many base voters who believe the 2020 contest was illegitimate.One party is running on democracy and elections in 2022, and it’s not the Democrats.Despite a broad consensus on the left that the country’s most revered institutions are in trouble, with President Biden and other leaders warning gravely that protecting voting rights and fair elections is of paramount importance, the vast majority of Democratic candidates are veering away from those issues on the campaign trail.Instead, they are focusing on bread-and-butter economic topics like inflation and gas prices. Continuing to win elections must come first, the thinking goes — and polls and focus groups show that the issue of voting rights is far down the list of voters’ most urgent concerns.“You cannot buy a lot of groceries with voting rights,” said Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state representative who organized Democrats’ flight from the state in July in a failed effort to block a Republican election bill. “Last summer there was nothing more important than voting rights, but the universe has shifted, and it’s become a conversation about our economy and inflation and the cost of goods.”But as that conversation has shifted, Democrats have largely ceded the political turf on the structure of American democracy to Republicans. Riding a lasting wave of anger over the 2020 election, many G.O.P. candidates have put what they call “election integrity” front and center, even as they attack Mr. Biden and Democrats over the rising cost of living.Many Republican candidates have falsely argued in debates, social media posts and TV ads that the 2020 race was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump, views that are shared by large numbers of the party’s voters. Mr. Trump’s allies have continued to try to decertify the 2020 results, and he has made questioning the last election a litmus test for winning his endorsement, which is coveted in Republican primaries.“It’s critical that we keep the heat on in terms of exposing what was a stolen election,” Peter Navarro, a former top White House adviser to Mr. Trump, said on Steve Bannon’s podcast last month.There is no evidence of meaningful fraud in the 2020 election, a finding consistent from the initial days after the vote through an array of reviews in the nearly 18 months since. Republicans ranging from William P. Barr, Mr. Trump’s attorney general, to state officials from Wisconsin to Wyoming have acknowledged that Mr. Biden was the rightful winner.The parties’ wide gap in energy on elections and voting — which comes during a midterm year when Republicans are ascendant — worries some Democrats, especially Black Democrats who have been dismayed by the party’s inability to pass federal voting protections while in power.“If people don’t see that Democrats are defending our right to vote, then people may not be enthused about coming out to vote,” said Angela Lang, the executive director of Black Leaders Organizing for Communities in Milwaukee.Partly in response to their base and to Mr. Trump, Republican state lawmakers have pressed vigorously to remake the country’s election systems, passing 34 laws restricting voting access in 19 states last year.Republican candidates are promising more: Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama, who is up for re-election, is running an ad saying the election was stolen and highlighting voting restrictions she signed into law. Her leading challenger, Lindy Blanchard, has attacked Ms. Ivey for at one point saying Mr. Biden won fairly.“The Republican base and all Republicans care about not just voter integrity but voter security,” said Corry Bliss, an adviser to several Republican candidates. “If you need identification to buy NyQuil, you should need identification to vote in our elections.”“You cannot buy a lot of groceries with voting rights,” said Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state representative who organized Democrats’ flight from the state in July in a failed effort to block a Republican election bill.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesOn the Democratic side, a small handful of candidates running for office at any level of government have run television ads pledging to work to expand voting rights, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.In both parties, candidates are following their voters.Democrats have told pollsters, focus groups and organizers knocking on their doors that they are most worried about inflation. Despite macroeconomic data that Democrats paint as rosy, Americans broadly do not feel good about the economy. That includes Republicans, but they are also impassioned about electoral issues: Polls show that nearly three-quarters believe Mr. Biden’s victory was illegitimate.Incumbent Democrats and the White House are trying to make a case that Mr. Biden is overseeing a drop in the unemployment rate accompanied by an increase in wages, a difficult strategy since inflation overshadows both of those trends and Democrats are the party in charge. An NBC poll last month found that voters were far more likely to blame Mr. Biden for inflation than for the pandemic or corporate price increases.Representative Pete Aguilar of California, who serves both on the Jan. 6 Committee and in the House Democratic leadership, said that while “we hope that everybody starts with the base level of, ‘protect democracy, support a peaceful transfer of power,’” he and other party leaders wanted candidates “talking about issues that matter, and that is economic.”Some Democrats have tried to make voting rights a leading issue in the United States. When the Texas legislators fled Austin for Washington last summer, they tried shaming Senate Democrats into passing a sweeping federal expansion of voting rights. In January, as Mr. Biden pushed for the same goal, he gave a soaring speech in Atlanta comparing today’s Republicans to George Wallace and Bull Connor, villains of the civil rights era.Neither effort worked.Now voting rights has virtually disappeared as a top issue for both voters and candidates. In an AARP poll of likely voters aged 50 and older that was released this month, voting rights was ninth on a list of the most important issues facing the country, just behind immigration and ahead of racism. Katie Hobbs, who as Arizona’s secretary of state defended President Biden’s 2020 victory in her state, said voters and fellow Democrats were tired of talking about voting rights.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesThe party’s highest-profile defenders of voting rights are also training their attention elsewhere. Stacey Abrams, the leading Democratic candidate for governor of Georgia, is focusing far less on voting rights than she once did in her speeches, eschewing her flagship issue to spend more time addressing topics like Medicaid expansion and aid to small businesses. And in Arizona, Katie Hobbs, the secretary of state who defended Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory there, said voters and fellow Democrats would rather talk about anything else.“The Democratic lawmakers I talk to are tired of this fight,” Ms. Hobbs said. “They’re focused on addressing real issues that affect people’s daily lives rather than relitigating the 2020 election.”Democratic strategists are also advising their clients to move on from talking about expanding voting rights.“Democrats have to choose between a legislative agenda that advances voting rights with the need to educate communities of color about the new laws in their states,” said Dan Sena, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who represents a host of clients running for House seats.Few Democrats have aired television ads pledging to expand voting access since the Senate effort faltered in January. Two Democratic congresswomen in Georgia who are facing off in a primary, Representatives Lucy McBath and Carolyn Bourdeaux, are both on the air highlighting their support for the failed federal voting legislation.The candidate making the most concrete promises of expanding voting access is Neville Blakemore, who is running to be the clerk of Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville.Understand the Battle Over U.S. Voting RightsCard 1 of 6Why are voting rights an issue now? More