Not since they dominated the world, recognized during its "Golden Age" in the 17th Century as the foremost maritime and economic power, have the Dutch received as much attention as they did this past month. They received all this attention because the Netherlands was the first E.U. country this year to hold a national election in which a far-right populist politician had a realistic chance of winning. Populist activists throughout Europe and the U.S. wondered out loud if the trend established by the U.K. Brexit decision, Rodrigo Duterte's election in the Philippines, and Donald Trump's ascendance in the U.S. would continue in advance of the French, the German, and a possible Italian election later this year. Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, a vocal champion of this movement, achieved recognition as its poster-child, and gained support from many hard-right political operatives. Analysts contributing to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other major media outlets recognized the impending threat to the status quo in the E.U., and cautioned about consequences linked to its success. In a column titled: "How the Dutch Stopped Being Decent and Dull," (NYT, March 12, 2017) Ian Buruma, professor at Bard College, wrote: "What happens in the Netherlands could be a harbinger for other elections in Europe, and this also means that the future of the European Union is at stake." A month out, 77% of the electorate had yet to decide who to vote for, and three days out Wilders' party was still favored to win. When the March 15 election concluded, many in the European political establishment sighed with relief. Disaster was avoided - for now. Wilders lost and, by political standards, he lost big, only winning 20 out of 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament, well below current Prime Minister Mark Rutte's VVD party's 33.
What put him in the cross-hairs of supporters and opponents alike was his rabid stance on hard-right populist issues. He wanted to stop immigration from Muslim countries, close all mosques, ban the Quran and the burqua, and, for preventative reasons, imprison radical Muslims, even those who had not committed any crimes, while promising a "Brexit" type of referendum on the Netherlands' continued membership in the E.U.. His domestic supporters mirrored a segment of the electorate similar to that which helped elect Donald Trump in the U.S., and which pushed the U.K. to exit the Union. Within Europe Wilders was openly supported by prominent populists like Marine Le Pen in France, Frauke Petry in Germany, and Nigel Farage in the U.K.. Americans got into the act as well. David Horowitz, a home-grown right-wing activists who called Wilders the "Paul Revere of Europe," donated $150,000 to Wilders' effort - a sizable sum by Dutch standards. And Iowa Representative Steve King made news when he expressed his support for Mr. Wilders because of his stance on immigrants, saying that civilizations can't be restored with "somebody else's babies." Aside from overtly expressed support, Dutch officials continued to be fearful of surreptitious meddling by Russian operatives.
Even if Wilders' party had ended up winning the most seats, it was extremely unlikely that he would have become the next Prime Minister. All of the establishment parties had pledged not to work with him. Since the Dutch system is based on proportional representation, no party has ever won the majority outright. Coalition government is inevitable. Any party winning 0.67% of the vote - 1/150 of all votes cast - will secure one seat. Thirty parties participated in the recent election, some very much on the fringe. Labels like: "Party For Animals;" "Jesus Lives;" "Think!;" and the "Non Voters" are not unusual in the Dutch idiosyncratic system. Of these 13 gained seats. Ultimately Prime Minister Mark Rutte's platform, touting the country's economic stability under his People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, and the European Commission's forecast that the Dutch economy was projected to grow steadily at 2% this year, outperforming the E.U. as a whole, won out with he most, be it unexpected.
While some may zoom in on the fact that the hard-right populists were unsuccessful this time around, few analysts are predicting similar outcomes elsewhere in Europe later this year. Some media outlets suggested that the Dutch vote set the tone for Europe. However, Wilders' loss is only part of the story. The populists still control the narrative. To defeat the insurgency Mr. Rutte was forced to relinquish his "centrist" position on the political spectrum, and move further to the right. His strategy to beat back populism included co-opting it. He liked to say that Wilders' type of populism was the "wrong kind of populism." But it is clear that, because of the populist threat, much of the European electorate has moved further to the right. It has become more acceptable to be against Islam, Muslims and immigration.
One of the biggest shifts at the polls was the "collapse of the once powerful Labor Party, which won less that 6% of the vote, compared with 25% in the 2012 parliamentary elections." (Marcus Walker, Wall Street Journal). One of the big stories is that the top three political parties in the Netherlands, which won 85% of the total in 1985, and 74% in 2003, only collected 45% of the seats this year. The traditional left-right axis, with the communists and the socialists on the left, conservatives and capitalists on the right, bridged by moderate centrists, is going away. In the Netherlands "Labor" is in shambles, in the U.K. it is in turmoil, and in France the Socialists have become irrelevant. Smaller parties are flourishing and unstable coalitions are becoming the norm all over Europe. The main issues have shifted from the economy to immigration, E.U. membership, crime, security, national identity and globalization.
During the run-up to the election, Geert Wilders predicted that his exclusion from power would start a revolution. Establishment parties may have won the battle this time. However, the war is far from over. Some will claim that the "revolution" is still picking up speed.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
WHILE COVER-UP UNRAVELS, WATERGATE RESURFACES
The White House is in turmoil. Politicians from both parties and media of all stripes seem more focused on rumored Trump campaign contacts with Russia than on policy. The question heard all over Washington is the same one former Senator Howard Baker asked in 1973: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
Much of what is going on today resembles what happened during "Watergate." The Trump White House consistently denied that there was any contact between its operatives and members of the Russian government. On March 3, USA Today listed 21 denials members of the Trump team used when denying that any contacts took place. Nevertheless, on February 13 National Security Advisor Michael Flynn "resigned" for lying about is discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisliak..
On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, accused of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the same ambassador, recused himself from investigations involving contacts between the Trump team and Russia. A few days later several other team members, including Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, were identified as having been involved as well.
In the meantime the administration appears to have developed palpable paranoia, showing greater concern about the leaks of information, than about the substance of the investigation. Finally, last week the president accused his predecessor of committing a felony by tapping is phone, which caused the director of the FBI to ask the Justice Department to tell the president to stop lying.
As this political melodrama continues to unfold, it may be useful to review the chronology of events that surrounded the Watergate scandal. Much of the following was first reported by the Washington Post:
* June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins printing the "Pentagon Papers" released earlier by former defense analyst Daniel Elsberg.
* Sept. 9, 1971: The White House "Plumbers," a covert special investigations unit established July 24, 1971 during Richard Nixon's presidency tasked with stopping leaks of classified information, burglarizes Elsberg's psychiatrist's office.
* June 17, 1972: Five men are arrested trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel and office complex.
* June 19, 1972: Reports surface that a GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any complicity in the operation.
* Aug. 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, earmarked for the Nixon campaign, ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar.
*Sept. 29, 1972: The Post reports that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance a wide-spread intelligence gathering operation against the Democrats.
* Oct. 10, 1972: A Post article asserts that the Watergate break-in stemmed from a massive political spying and sabotage campaign conducted on behalf of the Nixon re-election effort.
* Nov. 11, 1972: Nixon re-elected in a landslide , crushing Democratic nominee George McGovern of South Dakota.
* Jan. 30, 1973: Former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. convicted of conspiracy and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five others plead guilty.
* April 30, 1973: Top White House staffers H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
* May 18, 1973: Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General Elliot Richardson taps former Solicitor General Archibald Cox to be Special Prosecutor.
* June 3, 1973: John Dean tells Watergate investigators that he discussed the cover-up with Nixon at least 35 times.
* June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo to John Ehrlichman describing Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's break-in in great detail.
* July 13, 1973: Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield tells Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon, since 1971, has recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his office.
* July 18, 1973: Nixon orders White House taping system disconnected.
* July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tape recordings to the Watergate Committee.
* Oct. 20, 1973: Saturday night massacre - Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resign.
* Dec 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes.
* April 30, 1974: White House releases more than 1,200 edited transcripts of Nixon tapes. Committee insists that the actual tapes must be turned over.
* July 24, 1974: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Nixon's claim of executive privilege, and directs that the White House must turn over tape recordings of presidential conversations.
* July 27, 1974: The House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
* August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. President to resign his office.
None of this is intended to suggest that the current investigation will lead to a similar outcome. The party in power controls the scope and intensity of the inquiry. Impeachment, after all, tends to be more political than strictly constitutional.
Much of what is going on today resembles what happened during "Watergate." The Trump White House consistently denied that there was any contact between its operatives and members of the Russian government. On March 3, USA Today listed 21 denials members of the Trump team used when denying that any contacts took place. Nevertheless, on February 13 National Security Advisor Michael Flynn "resigned" for lying about is discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisliak..
On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, accused of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the same ambassador, recused himself from investigations involving contacts between the Trump team and Russia. A few days later several other team members, including Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, were identified as having been involved as well.
In the meantime the administration appears to have developed palpable paranoia, showing greater concern about the leaks of information, than about the substance of the investigation. Finally, last week the president accused his predecessor of committing a felony by tapping is phone, which caused the director of the FBI to ask the Justice Department to tell the president to stop lying.
As this political melodrama continues to unfold, it may be useful to review the chronology of events that surrounded the Watergate scandal. Much of the following was first reported by the Washington Post:
* June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins printing the "Pentagon Papers" released earlier by former defense analyst Daniel Elsberg.
* Sept. 9, 1971: The White House "Plumbers," a covert special investigations unit established July 24, 1971 during Richard Nixon's presidency tasked with stopping leaks of classified information, burglarizes Elsberg's psychiatrist's office.
* June 17, 1972: Five men are arrested trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel and office complex.
* June 19, 1972: Reports surface that a GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any complicity in the operation.
* Aug. 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, earmarked for the Nixon campaign, ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar.
*Sept. 29, 1972: The Post reports that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance a wide-spread intelligence gathering operation against the Democrats.
* Oct. 10, 1972: A Post article asserts that the Watergate break-in stemmed from a massive political spying and sabotage campaign conducted on behalf of the Nixon re-election effort.
* Nov. 11, 1972: Nixon re-elected in a landslide , crushing Democratic nominee George McGovern of South Dakota.
* Jan. 30, 1973: Former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. convicted of conspiracy and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five others plead guilty.
* April 30, 1973: Top White House staffers H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
* May 18, 1973: Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General Elliot Richardson taps former Solicitor General Archibald Cox to be Special Prosecutor.
* June 3, 1973: John Dean tells Watergate investigators that he discussed the cover-up with Nixon at least 35 times.
* June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo to John Ehrlichman describing Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's break-in in great detail.
* July 13, 1973: Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield tells Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon, since 1971, has recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his office.
* July 18, 1973: Nixon orders White House taping system disconnected.
* July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tape recordings to the Watergate Committee.
* Oct. 20, 1973: Saturday night massacre - Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resign.
* Dec 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes.
* April 30, 1974: White House releases more than 1,200 edited transcripts of Nixon tapes. Committee insists that the actual tapes must be turned over.
* July 24, 1974: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Nixon's claim of executive privilege, and directs that the White House must turn over tape recordings of presidential conversations.
* July 27, 1974: The House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
* August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. President to resign his office.
None of this is intended to suggest that the current investigation will lead to a similar outcome. The party in power controls the scope and intensity of the inquiry. Impeachment, after all, tends to be more political than strictly constitutional.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
ARE DEMOCRACIES BECOMING ILLIBERAL?
Most of us grew up convinced that a democratic form of government is preferred over any other system out there, and many believe naively that all democracies are alike. We tend to equate democracy with freedom, and whenever we hear of anti-government demonstrations in other countries we instinctively assume that the demonstrators aspire to change their system of government to a democratic one - one just like ours.
The facts are that not all democracies are alike, that democratic traditions have evolved over time, and that even our founding fathers were very critical of democracy in its purest form. John Adam was quoted as saying that "remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Benjamin Franklin thought that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." And Libertarian Ron Paul opined that: "The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this."
Our founders designed a republican form of government, incorporating public participation in selecting leaders with a system of checks and balances to control dominance by any one center of power. During the early years, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, James Madison produced the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which listed specific prohibitions on governmental power. These rights, like freedom of speech, religion, belief, property ownership, assembly and dissent, roughly based on the Magna Carta, a charter agreed upon between King John and his barons in England in 1215, were institutionalized, and did not only protect us against the abuse of a tyrant, but also from democratic majorities. In most western countries that adopted some form of democratic government, the protection of basic liberties became intertwined with the electoral system and became what we now refer to as a "liberal democracy."
More than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies - regimes in which political parties compete and come to power in regularly scheduled elections. This is up from 40 percent in the late 1980s. However, not all of these democracies continue to provide equal protection under the law. While many started out by guaranteeing liberties to their citizens, in some cases even enshrining these protections in constitutions or basic laws, in an increasing number of countries individual freedoms are disappearing.
In some, like the old Soviet Union, a democratic system was proclaimed, even to the point of literally copying our Constitution. In reality its "democracy" only resembled the liberal variety and never lived up to its promise. In countries like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Iraq and the Philippines a "democratic shell" remains, meaning that elections do take place, but the elected governments manage to change relevant laws eliminating many of the freedoms we have become accustomed to, ignoring constitutional limits on their power while concentrating most if not all political power in the executive, legitimized by claims of support by the majority party. These countries have in fact become "illiberal."
Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton peace accords, on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, lamented: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That's the dilemma." (Fareed Zakaria, "Doubts about Democracy," Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1997.}
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria who as far back as 1997 articulated his concerns about the trend towards illiberal democracy in a growing number of countries is now projecting that we may be on track to experience something similar in our country. He believes that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices. In other words democratic behavior, and he suggests that our culture of liberal democracy is waning. According to Zakaria our political parties have collapsed, and have become "mere vessels for whoever wins the primaries. Congress has caved, professional groups have become largely toothless, and the media has been rendered irrelevant." ("America's democracy has become illiberal," Washington Post, Dec. 29, 016).
From the President's assertion that the media only produces "fake news," to his senior advisor's proclamation that there is "no such thing as judicial supremacy," and that "what the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States," when reacting to the 9th Circuit Court's decision to deny lifting a temporary restraining order on the administration's travel ban, we ought to stay alert and resist descending into the same abyss many other countries are falling into.
The facts are that not all democracies are alike, that democratic traditions have evolved over time, and that even our founding fathers were very critical of democracy in its purest form. John Adam was quoted as saying that "remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Benjamin Franklin thought that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." And Libertarian Ron Paul opined that: "The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this."
Our founders designed a republican form of government, incorporating public participation in selecting leaders with a system of checks and balances to control dominance by any one center of power. During the early years, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, James Madison produced the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which listed specific prohibitions on governmental power. These rights, like freedom of speech, religion, belief, property ownership, assembly and dissent, roughly based on the Magna Carta, a charter agreed upon between King John and his barons in England in 1215, were institutionalized, and did not only protect us against the abuse of a tyrant, but also from democratic majorities. In most western countries that adopted some form of democratic government, the protection of basic liberties became intertwined with the electoral system and became what we now refer to as a "liberal democracy."
More than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies - regimes in which political parties compete and come to power in regularly scheduled elections. This is up from 40 percent in the late 1980s. However, not all of these democracies continue to provide equal protection under the law. While many started out by guaranteeing liberties to their citizens, in some cases even enshrining these protections in constitutions or basic laws, in an increasing number of countries individual freedoms are disappearing.
In some, like the old Soviet Union, a democratic system was proclaimed, even to the point of literally copying our Constitution. In reality its "democracy" only resembled the liberal variety and never lived up to its promise. In countries like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Iraq and the Philippines a "democratic shell" remains, meaning that elections do take place, but the elected governments manage to change relevant laws eliminating many of the freedoms we have become accustomed to, ignoring constitutional limits on their power while concentrating most if not all political power in the executive, legitimized by claims of support by the majority party. These countries have in fact become "illiberal."
Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton peace accords, on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, lamented: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That's the dilemma." (Fareed Zakaria, "Doubts about Democracy," Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1997.}
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria who as far back as 1997 articulated his concerns about the trend towards illiberal democracy in a growing number of countries is now projecting that we may be on track to experience something similar in our country. He believes that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices. In other words democratic behavior, and he suggests that our culture of liberal democracy is waning. According to Zakaria our political parties have collapsed, and have become "mere vessels for whoever wins the primaries. Congress has caved, professional groups have become largely toothless, and the media has been rendered irrelevant." ("America's democracy has become illiberal," Washington Post, Dec. 29, 016).
From the President's assertion that the media only produces "fake news," to his senior advisor's proclamation that there is "no such thing as judicial supremacy," and that "what the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States," when reacting to the 9th Circuit Court's decision to deny lifting a temporary restraining order on the administration's travel ban, we ought to stay alert and resist descending into the same abyss many other countries are falling into.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)