As we mark the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I note that the supporters of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision revoking the constitutional right to an abortion, have sought to draw celebratory parallels between that decision and Brown v. Board of Education. This was the case that recognized the principle that “separate but equal” treatment of Blacks and Whites in segregated schools was incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Brown, Dobbs overturned a foundational precedent that had been in force for decades, and according to anti-abortion proponents, established an important right — the right to fetal life — denied by the discredited precedent. The Dobbs opinion itself referenced Brown a number of times, and Mitch McConnell said of the Dobbs decision: “The Court has corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.”

But the differences between Brown and Dobbs far overshadow their similarities. There is the much-discussed issue of how these decisions used history. The Brown court refused to be bound by the views of those who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The vast majority of those legislators almost certainly would have approved of racially segregated schools. In contrast, the Dobbs court found the fact that abortion was widely criminalized in 1868 to be decisive. Had Brown followed the Dobbs court’s method of constitutional reasoning, it would have upheld Jim Crow schools.

However, I would like to focus on another critical difference — the conditions under which the precedent was overturned. In Brown, the court was undoubtedly influenced by the changing attitudes toward race in the US. Having just fought a war against an enemy whose core ideology was extreme racism, and in which Black Americans served valiantly, the post-war period saw a reevaluation of racial attitudes. According to polls undertaken by the National Opinion Research Center, in 1942, only 42 percent of people believed that Blacks were the intellectual equal of Whites. By 1956 that number had risen to 78 percent. In 1942, 30 per cent believed that schools should be integrated; the percentage rose to just under 50 in 1956, and to over 60 per cent by the 1960s. The Brown court was not only influenced by changing attitudes toward race, but as these statistics suggest, helped to further catalyze that change by putting its imprimatur on the doctrine of racial equality. Reality has a way of intruding, however belatedly, on myth, and the myth of Black inferiority gradually gave way to the reality of Black equality.
 
By contrast, views on abortion remained fairly constant in the 30 years prior to the Dobbs decision. According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of those polled in 2022 believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, about the same percentage as those polled in 1995, with some fluctuation. Unlike racial attitudes, there was no corresponding shift in attitude away from abortion rights. The differences between a 15-week-old fetus and a newborn infant are significant, physiologically and neurologically. One can argue about the moral significance of those differences, but nothing we have learned about the science of fetal development since the abortion right was recognized in Roe has been cause to reevaluate one’s position on abortion.​

What made Dobbs possible was not shifting societal attitudes on abortion but a decades-long campaign on the part of right-wing politicians and their attorney counterparts to appoint antiabortion judges to the United States Supreme Court. As has been much discussed, the Federalist Society, since its inception in 1982, has played a preeminent role in choosing federal judges. After their initial disappointments in the appointments of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, sometimes moderate Anthony Kennedy and the downright liberal David Souter, the Society developed a sure-fire vetting process, generally recruiting from among their own ranks. Since the appointment of Clarence Thomas by George H.W. Bush in 1991, no Republican president has appointed anyone not affiliated with and/or blessed by the Federalist Society.
 
When it came to the Trump presidency, the predominance of the Federalist Society in choosing judges was on full view. In exchange for social and religious conservatives overlooking Trump’s many personal failings, he outsourced the vetting and selection of judicial candidates to the Society. Aided by Mitch McConnell’s infamous constitutional hardball, Trump got an appointment that should have been President Obama’s, then a second appointment with Justice Kennedy’s strategic resignation, and a third with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing on the eve of the 2020 election to cement the Dobbs majority. So, the success in overturning Roe, unlike the success of Brown, is not a story of society’s evolution on the abortion issue, but of consummate political engineering to change the high court’s personnel.
 
It is said that the process of judicial decision making is fundamentally different from politics — that judges must at least appear to be interpreting rather than making law. But it is clear that the overturning of Roe did not really occur in the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court, but upstream, in the precincts of the Federalist Society and the decisions of Republican presidents and senators. And unlike Brown, a decision that is now almost universally accepted and praised, it is most unlikely that Dobbs, a decision that never even acknowledged the enormous burden that abortion bans place on women’s liberty, will ever enjoy such widespread acceptance. Its legacy instead is likely to be the further politicization of the High Court and degradation of its reputation.
 
Given the right-wing playbook of exerting political power to appoint ideological judges, there likely will come a time when the Democrats will be in a position to answer politics with politics in the form of increasing the number of members on the High Court or requiring that Supreme Court justices are rotated out of the court after a term of years. Whatever form it takes, Democrats will follow the path laid out by Republicans that the key to success in the Supreme Court is to choose, by whatever means are expedient, the right Supreme Court justices.

In our time, and all times, there have primarily been two types of leaders.
 
Early in the human story, according to most anthropologists, members of small tribes participated in decisions about the rules they would follow and who would lead. Survival depended on leaders considering the best views of tribe members as they forged a path forward.

​As tribes grew into nations, a central leader or ruling family emerged. This provided an enhanced chance of survival because large social units guarantee greater protection and security. But the needs and priorities of people were sublimated to the whole. They were forced to give up individual freedoms and lost the ability to provide input on the rules that would govern them. Most autocratic nations have a history of attempted — and often failed — rebellion because of the impulse toward freedom and recognition within every human being.

On December 5 we had a special presentation by Claude Fischer, sociology professor at UC Berkeley, about his book Made in America (2010, University of Chicago Press).
 
The intent of the book is to chronicle the reality of America’s past based on the actual lives of its people, rather than in broad historical generalities. This was done by examining records that were written by or about those who dwelled in what now is the United States going back to colonial times. 
 
A quote from Page 5 summarizes the intent of the book:

The question the author aims to answer is: “How has American society changed or not?” since its founding. Some myths that exist in our time may not be accurate, such as the ideas that we have turned from religion over the years, or we have become more violent, or that we are less caring toward each other than we once were.
 
He states that what has made the US unique — and still does — is the shared idea that we are individuals who participate voluntarily in community and that individuals succeed through a voluntary — not forced — commitment where each does his or her share to advance the whole.
 
Early in our history most Americans were dependent on others as indentured servants, women, or children. Only white, property holding, men had “competency,” or autonomy and independence as others depended on them for sustenance. Over time, more Americans were able to participate as productive members of society. In earlier times, life was more of a struggle for the average person than it is today. People had many children, and the childhood death rate was high. Over time, with improved hygiene and general prosperity, people lived longer, which freed them to pursue improvements in their lifestyles.
 
Average Americans also experienced more security over time with the gradual introduction of more government intervention to protect working class individuals. Anti-trust and labor laws were enacted around the time that the 19th turned into the 20th century. After the Great Depression resulted from broad market over-speculation, more government programs were put into place to prevent people from spiraling into intense poverty, such as work programs, and to protect workers in retirement, such as Social Security. Banks were more regulated to prevent them from speculating with the funds of their customers. Persistent poverty then was attacked by legislation such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, which also saw the enactment of the Clean Air and Civil Rights Acts.
 
Over time, with greater mass buying power, more goods became available that people eventually took for granted. In Colonial times, clothes for most were handmade and worn until they became threadbare; beds, tables and chairs were considered luxury items. By the 20th century, electric lights, cars, and telephones were considered necessities even by those considered to be at the poverty level, as were computers and cell phones in the 21st century.
 
Toward the end of the 20th century, Americans lived less in the public sphere and retreated more into private life as they gathered around their TV sets with their families. Self-improvement, once the realm of only the wealthy and literate, became the vogue for average Americans, as many became familiar with the views of Freud and Benjamin Spock.
 
Thus, based on research into the lives of Americans over the first two-and-one-half centuries a few trends become clear:
 

1. We have become more secure and able to plan for the future. 
2. Since the 1970s, however, economic security, and inequality have increased.
3. Persistent in our history — and perhaps increasing — is the view that Americans should be independent, and not dependent on their society. But even when Americans are dependent on society, such as is the case with many on Social Security, some act and vote as if that is not the reality, which then affects our political system. This false belief in independence often has had negative results, resulting, for example, in the US having the highest Covid death rate of any Western nation.
4. There has been a consistent decline of White patriarchy over our history, which has threatened the perceived status of many Americans who fear being “replaced” by minorities who will take their jobs and force them into poverty.

 
One more important aspect of studying and surveying our culture is the issue of whether greater general prosperity over time has led to greater happiness. Results show almost universally that “average American happiness … stayed flat. … Beyond a basic level … more money does not make people happier.” Of course, this is not only an American phenomenon, but if accumulating greater wealth and possessions is not the key to happiness, with the US being the richest country on Earth (according to the World Bank), one must wonder what is the key. Perhaps that realm lies in another area of study.

​But the Supreme Court, as it has for most of our history, maintained a more regressive view. It ruled in Lochner v New York (1905) and other cases that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed that all citizens would not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, incorporated the principle of “liberty of contract” that restricted the government’s ability to regulate the conditions of employment, ignoring that workers often had little ability to bargain with their employers. These rulings meant that states were, in many cases, prohibited from legislating limits on working hours and other conditions of employment.
 
FDR was concerned that The Wagner Act (1935), which created the National Relations Labor Board to enforce employee rights to collective bargaining, also would be overturned. But public opinion, reflected in FDR’s landslide re-election in 1936, may have persuaded the Court to uphold this landmark legislation.
 
During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, anyone proposing legislation that was seriously pro-worker or favored redistribution of income was in danger of being labeled a communist. This moved economic rights for workers a step backwards.
 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices, including literacy tests, as a prerequisite to voting. However, the Johnson administration failed to address trends such as automation that were leading to a decline in the good-paying working-class jobs that were the basis of post-war prosperity and could help raise the economic fortunes of Blacks and other minorities that had suffered from discrimination.
 
Starting in the 1970s, and particularly in the Reagan years, there was a steep decline in union power and membership with Democrats unwilling to defend union rights. An increasingly conservative Supreme Court promoted corporate power. The movement toward “limiting government” protected the rich and undermined efforts to include those previously excluded from equal economic consideration. The authors suggest that the political left now must counter with its own constitutional economic program, that would include a wealth tax, greater enforcement of antitrust laws, and reinvigorating labor law to empower unions.
 
Next month’s topic: We will discuss The Nature of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Butter.

Everyone can review the Mandate on our Web site and sign it, or suggest changes and then choose to sign or not. They can remove their signatures if they believe that ongoing changes no longer reflect the true function of democracy as they see it.
 
Most often the energy and comments of those who want to reform democracy are focused on what is wrong, but rarely has a statement included the direction that democracy should take. Criticism is easy — we all do it — but finding common ground for a direction forward is much harder. That is why we are so polarized — we know what we don’t want and who to blame but rarely focus on the clarifying the direction in which we want our democracy to go. The Mandate is a forward-looking document that describes the essential vision of democracy and how we can move toward enacting that vision.
 
How does the process work?
 
Please review the Mandate for Democracy at thefutureofdemocracy.net/mandate.html. Using the form at the bottom of that page, state that you would like to support it and/or suggest changes that you would like to see which more clearly express your idea about how democracy should function. Our committee, which consists of long-standing members of our group, will consider your changes and let you know if they are accepted. If you want to sign, indicate your name, where you live, and your vocation.
 
What is our intent in creating the Mandate for Democracy?
 
When people who live in democracies express their views of how their governments and citizens should combine efforts toward a common vision — rather than only stating what they see as wrong — the more likely that democracy will move in the direction of being “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as expressed by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. As more people back this idea it can begin to end the polarization we see all around us that threatens the continuation of democracy as we know it.
 
Another purpose of the Mandate is to provide clear principles to guide us as we consider which candidates and propositions we are going to support.
 
If you believe in democracy — a word coined by the ancient Athenians for “rule by the people” — then join our effort to clarify its direction. After you have done that, let others know that you support the Mandate and why.

Our Mandate for Democracy is available for your review here.

Ballot-box photo by Element5 Digital via Unsplash.com.

Our discussion focused on what we can do to keep democracy viable in light of strong elements in our society that seem to be moving us closer to autocracy.
 
We discussed the idea of a Mandate for Democracy to be designed by members of the group and signed by people who back it. We considered a number of essential principles for which we might advocate.
 
Participants discussed the essential role of dialogue to identify areas upon which we agree and then build toward a consensus on broader issues. There is a need to reach agreement on actions based on common principles and to follow through on those agreements.

The focus of our July 11 discussion was Bridging the Divide. Many people fear that democracy is at an abyss. Some are trying to drag others down along with democracy itself to serve their own narrow interests. We focused on what can be done to bring those who believe in democracy together to preserve it.
 
We discussed a conflict between the “big picture” — the long-term democratic vision — versus our current battle between autocracy and democracy. Many historical figures we admire maintained that vision of respectful interaction, even with those who opposed them, including Lincoln, Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela, while engaging in a battle to restore human dignity. The words of Lincoln summarize that view: “With malice toward none with charity for all.” The issue is how to maintain the democratic view of recognizing the validity of every human being as we confront the anti-democratic elements in our society. We must keep autocracy and dysfunction from taking over as has happened in many democracies over the last quarter century.
 
We discussed ways that autocratic elements try to distract people and keep power for themselves by denigrating those who attempt to bring greater rights or equality into society. “Critical Race Theory” has been portrayed by some politicians and media as a way to make Whites feel guilty about slavery and racial inequality. A balanced view of history — especially in our schools — would include all elements of our past so that students can arrive at their own conclusions, which leads to a more democratic and equitable society. Our educational system must emphasize how to interact respectfully with others toward common solutions. This can be done by practice in the classroom. We should teach students — and encourage everyone — in how to think rather than what to think.
 
The term “Woke” has its origins in Black history when people warned each other to be alert about potential violence toward them, but now the term has become a weapon to attack those who show concern about inequality. In the 1990s, the term “Liberal” also was turned into an epithet, despite its original meaning of being open-minded. The dictionary defines “Woke” as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues.” It can be used in a complimentary or disparaging way.
 
People of all political orientations believe that our democracy needs reform, particularly in the area of voting rights, where both the left and right are concerned about unfair elections. Congress is at a 16% approval level according to a recent Gallop poll because they rarely get anything done. The filibuster, as it operates in the Senate, allows a minority to block legislation that would benefit the nation, such as supporting alternative types of energy. Perhaps those who run for office should be required to have a history of non-partisan public service and to swear an oath to abide by the results of an election. This means that elections would need to be monitored by representatives of all candidates.
 
There also must be a better way to remove government obstacles to fair treatment of people at all levels. Small businesses and well as many individuals often believe they fall between the cracks. The needs of those who live in rural areas for services, job training and infrastructure have been ignored by both political parties. This has resulted in cynicism by those who think that government never is on their side, and a belief by many in fringe ideas not based in reality.
 
Our Supreme Court is in the control of special interests. A number of recent appointees have been put in place at the behest of partisan groups, like the Heritage Foundation, that primarily serve the interests of corporations and advocate ending or privatizing many social programs.[*] The Court recently has championed the right of people to carry guns despite evidence that more guns lead to greater violence, has put the country back into the situation of fifty years ago when women who sought abortions — even for health reasons or due to rape or incest — used desperate and unsafe means to end their pregnancies, and has effectively ended the right of accused criminals to be read their rights. The Court has overturned Jefferson’s principle of Separation of Church and State by mandating that government funds be used for religious education. It also has undone protections for LGBTQ individuals who seek equal treatment by showing preference for religious beliefs over equal treatment. In 2010, the Court redefined free speech as giving businesses and unions the right to spend unlimited funds to influence elections, which was equivalent to declaring that David and Goliath are free to engage in a fair fight. Judges must be appointed to courts who respect the needs of the people, rather than corporate interests.
 
Perhaps the biggest concern of our group is that millions of Americans have been duped into believing that a former president was on their side when he continually denigrated democratic principles, ultimately by trying to stay in office when voted out. Our long-term problem is that many Americans believe what politicians tell them rather than thinking for themselves. Instead of focusing on building up democracies and those who live in them, some leaders build on prejudices while championing the majority against an imagined threat from a minority. Studies have shown that, by far, most members of minorities — and immigrants — contribute to society and pay their own way, as did our own forebears.
 
Congress already has the power to revamp democracy. It is up to us to elect representatives who advocate democratic principles based on valuing all of We the People. Current issues include the violent use of guns, reproductive rights, climate change, voting rights, and needs of non-urban areas. Congress can put gun controls into place, codify a woman’s right to make her own health decision with her doctor, protect the environment by resolving our urgent need for alternative energy, guarantee equal voting rights for persons of all backgrounds, and work to support rural citizens. Congress also can limit the areas that courts can deal with. Corporations must not be allowed to spend to overturn the welfare of the people.
 
A battle is justified to overcome autocracy. But it is important to remember that our battle is against autocracy itself, not individuals. Those who advocate autocracy ultimately are working against their own best interests. We become like them when we denigrate others. Thus the democratic value of universal respect. If we lose ourselves in hatred of others, we are in danger of becoming what we hate.
 
We discussed how to defeat forces that are actively trying to overcome democracy by violent means or by changing laws to skew elections in favor of those making the laws, as is the case in many states. If we are outraged by the dismantling of years of settled law by our courts in favor of undemocratic and corporate views, how do we channel that into effective action?
 
The struggle between autocratic and democratic elements always has been — and always will be — with us. Overcoming autocracy is only an intermediate goal. Communication toward long-term solutions that serve everyone ultimately must be part of the everyday function of our society. We need to advocate for legislative candidates who represent these values. The issue is not about who is good or bad, but what works to best serve everyone. Revolutions that overthrow autocracy often do not lead to democracy, as did happen in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Failure to prescribe a clear path forward is why many revolutions have failed.
 
Our fight must be not only to win but to establish an equitable society which best serves us all. We must keep in mind the humanity of the other, or we de-humanize those on both sides of the conflict. Perhaps new terms are needed to combat anti-democratic slogans. If we only are engaged in anger, we may eliminate what we don’t want, but we can move toward what we do want only if we continue to clarify it and commit ourselves to actions to bring about the world we envision.
 
It is becoming clear to many Americans on the left and right that our two-party system — as now constituted — does not adequately serve the needs of the people. Perhaps an alternative system or emphasis is needed. Your thoughts are welcome.
 
Also, we were honored to have Rob Katz, our resident songwriter, perform his relevant new composition: “We’ve Got a Lot in Common.” Click here to listen to it.

On June 6, we discussed Madeleine Albright’s book Fascism: A Warning (2018).
 
We focused on her book largely due to her recent death, but the book was a revelation, with its insights into the history of fascism as well as the minds of intolerant leaders and those who follow them. Early in the book she tells us: “Fascism takes hold where there are no social anchors and when the perception grows that everybody lies, steals, and cares only about him- or herself…. The wise response to intolerance is not more intolerance or self-righteousness; it is coming together across the ideological spectrum of people who want to make democracies more effective.”
 
Where people have lost their sense of trust and community, they still seek solutions to their emotional and economic malaise — real or imagined. Pointing fingers and telling people they are wrong only makes them more entrenched. Instead, we should emphasize the advantages of democracy when it is operating according to its ideals of fairness and equal rights.
 
Those of an autocratic mind are intolerant of views outside of a narrow range. That usually includes the view that some people are superior to others.
 
The author tells us that “heads of government with autocratic bent have won reelection in Russia, Hungary, Egypt, Venezuela, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cambodia. In each case, the field of competition was tilted heavily in favor of the incumbent.” Genuinely democratic countries are becoming fewer over the last twenty years. Once elected leaders gain power, some of them rig the system to keep themselves in charge. Alternative candidates often are arrested or harassed, and opposition parties are outlawed. Autocrats learn these oppressive methods from each other.
 
Not too long ago, democracy seemed to be on the ascent. “In June, 1989, the demands of dockworkers and the inspiration of a pope born in Poland brought democratic governance to Poland. That October, Hungary became a democratic republic, and in early November the Berlin Wall was breached…. In Prague’s historic Wenceslas Square, a crown of 300,000 joyously rattled keys to emulate bells tolling the end of Communist rule.” Now, “We must ask what happened to that uplifting vision; why does it seem to be fading instead of becoming more clear? Why is democracy ‘under assault and retreat’ according to Freedom House?”
 
Albright emphasized the importance of democracies supporting each other. The common enemy is authoritarianism. There have been many cases of democracies allowing incidents of aggression to go unaddressed, such as the invasion of Crimea by Russia, and Syria using poison gas against its own people. The apparent message of democracies, when we don’t provide clear consequences, often is that this is permissible.
 
Fascism dangles “the prospect of renewal or by vowing to take back what was stolen” for the population. But it is not only dependent on those who feel they have fallen behind to succeed. It also depends on a segment of the community that is wealthy and convinced to support the fascist leader to stay in power.
 
In our day, “technology has made it possible for extremist organizations to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theories, false narratives, and ignorant views on race.” This appeals to the “near-universal desire to be part of a meaningful quest.”
 
Mussolini, who coined the term fascism, “warned workers that the elite classes would never relinquish their privileges without a fight and that no parliament would take their side against the bourgeoisie…. Revolution was essential.” Once in power, he engaged in the behavior that leads to the downfall of many authoritarian rulers. He stopped listening to his advisors because he believed his instincts always were right. But the Italians never were ready to fight a large-scale war. He picked a conflict with an easy target, Ethiopia, instead. Mussolini eventually admitted that dictators “lose any sense of balance as they pursue their obsessive ambitions.”
 
In 1933, Hitler sought approval from the legislature to ignore the constitution and rule by decree. “He assured his listeners that they had nothing to worry about; his party had no intention of undermining German institutions.” We all know how that worked out. Much of his success was the result of castigating mainstream politicians for ignoring the needs of the people. He knew that most people desired to have faith in something, and stated that for most people, it made no difference what that was. The army was required to swear allegiance to him alone, and by implication to Germany’s superiority. Beginning in 1934, Hitler, like Stalin, ordered the murder of many of his followers who did not show adequate obeisance.
 
The 1938 Munich Pact was a cowardly concession for “lasting peace” by France and Great Britain to award a third of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, who signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin, only to then invaded the USSR in 1941.
 
The Spanish Civil war of 1936 posed the rebels of Franco’s army against the newly elected Republic. It cost over three million lives. After Franco took over, he ruled with an iron hand, executing more than 100,000 of his political enemies.
 
The appeal of Communism was that it would address the vast inequalities that existed in capitalist societies; many believed they would be eliminated by closing the gap. Many people who backed Stalin refused to believe his abuses and murder of millions because they were seduced by the gospel of Communism.
 
Tribal loyalty within us can become extreme to the point where we no longer see others as truly human. According to Harry Truman (1945), “Fascism did not die with Mussolini. … Hitler is finished, but the seeds spread by his disordered mind have firm roots in too many fanatical brains. It is easier to remove tyrants and destroy concentration camps than to kill the ideas that gave them birth.”
 
At times — particularly during the Cold War — the US has supported governments that have seriously violated human rights. Examples include South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Zaire, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil, and most of Central America.
 
The Nuremberg trials after World War II (as well as the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann) established the principle that neither “obeying the law” nor “following orders” is a sufficient legal defense for those accused of violating basic standards of civilization.
 
Human-rights violations can be imposed by both right- and left-leaning leaders. Juan Peron (Argentina, 1946–55) confiscated much property and imposed restraints on the press by use of a heavy-handed police force, although the average person’s income did gain under his leadership. Hugo Chavez (Venezuela, 1999–2013] had considerable popular support, but used his brand of populism to ignore democratic norms. He picked his own judiciary, removed non-compliant public servants, and suppressed free speech.
 
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became president after serving eleven years as prime minister. He originally campaigned as a socially conservative leader who sought to continue alliances with Western nations. Foreign investment lifted the Turkish economy, renovated the infrastructure, and modernized the country, while greatly improving wages. Erdoğan then used his popularity to clamp down on dissent and move the country in a more fundamental Muslim direction. He now has become a polarizing figure, challenging gay rights, and opposing secularism, liberal values, and women’s equal treatment. After an attempted coup in 2016, his hand was strengthened to suspend civil rights and assume nearly total power.
 
People may wonder why Russia has twice been unable to create an equitable society: after the Russian Revolution and after the fall of the USSR. Albright participated in a survey of Russian attitudes in 1991. The people had little idea about what democracy was. They had relied on the state for jobs, housing, medical care, and everything else, and didn’t know about entrepreneurship. After the collapse of the USSR, people still were not able to create a viable state, which led to hunger, so they welcomed a return to stability and relative prosperity under Putin in 2000. His view is that “his government isn’t doing anything the West hasn’t already done: invade countries, meddle in elections, exert economic leverage, and plant false stories in the media.”
 
Russia today lacks any political competition, and the last independent news media was recently closed. Its politics includes only shadow parties that actually have no power or ability to compete. Putin is able to capitalize on nationalism to gain support from the Russian people. His attacks on Ukraine and the Crimea were met with weak responses from the West that encouraged further aggression.
 
In areas once part of the Soviet Union, democracy seemed like a real possibility that now has been largely crushed. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary have become largely autocratic, with opposition parties, parliaments, and the judiciary largely controlled by the executive. Immigrants and minorities generally are maligned to help keep the controlling coalition in power.
 
On the subject of immigration, Albright says: “The movement of people from their homes does not occur without good cause.” Whenever possible, we should work with countries where people are tempted to leave to make their lives easier.
 
After WWII, Korea seemed on the verge of democracy Then the Soviet army made incursions from the north. The result is a dictatorial regime with no formal peace and continual threats. According to Albright, she was making peace overtures to North Korea, and actually visited there before George W. Bush became US President and declared it part of an “axis of evil,” which destroyed all possibility of a peace agreement. In North Korea, a person accused of a crime may be executed, in public, without trial, as may his or her family.
 
In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, who has been in power since 2016, uses the police to kill suspected drug dealers and has ignored the rule of law. (Recently, a new president has been elected, so we will see if human rights abuses continue.)
 
The book expressed concern that fascistic thinking could emerge in the US or other Western countries. If leaders become elected because of those they denigrate — rather than building toward a country where the needs of all are addressed — there always are those who will support such a leader. There are billionaires in many countries who support candidates who attempt to disrupt an emphasis on the common good for policies that favor the privileged few.
 
The author is concerned about countries — particularly the US, lately — acting unilaterally. She believes that the only real way to solve international problems is via cooperative efforts on the part of a coalition of nations to arrive at real and lasting treaties.
 
In a real democracy, the will of the majority is respected, but the rights of the minority always are protected.
 
When considering prospective leaders, Albright believes we should ask:

• Do they cater to our prejudices by suggesting that we treat people outside our ethnicity, race, creed, or party as unworthy of dignity or respect?

• Do they want us to nurture our anger toward those we believe have done us wrong, and set our sights on revenge?

• Do they encourage us to have contempt for our governing institutions and the electoral process?

• Do they seek to destroy our faith in essential contributors to democracy, such as an independent press and a professional judiciary?

• If defeated at the polls, will they accept the verdict, or insist without evidence that they have won?