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?

​Our discussion topic for May 2 was Autocrats, Oligarchs and Strongmen. We focused on the many countries that appeared on the verge of democracy over the last twenty years that now are much closer to becoming, or have become, autocracies.
 
We started with a poem called Strongman written by Wyndy, one of our members:

​At our meeting we focused mainly on two books.
 
The first was Freezing Order, by Bill Browder, which soon after release in April appeared at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. In 1996, Brower moved to Moscow to set up a hedge fund called the Hermitage Fund. He soon found out that the way to do business in Russia was to overlook the custom of profits being siphoned by oligarchs and corrupt officials. Most people accepted this as just a “part of doing business,” but Browder and some of his colleagues, including Russians who worked for him, decided they could not look the other way as investors had funds stolen.

Those who try to bring these practices to light in countries with a history of corruption are likely to experience consequences. As Browder tells the story, the Hermitage Fund became one of the best performing funds in the world, but when he fought back he soon found himself a target of Russian law enforcement. Putin declared him a threat to national security and expelled him from the country. Browder closed his business and moved his non-Russian staff to London. In June, 2008, Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer for Hermitage Fund, noticed that the fund had been reinstated and that it claimed a false $230 million tax refund, which was paid by corrupt officials to themselves from government coffers. When they made this public, Magnitsky, Browder and others were framed as having stolen this money. Funds stolen by Russian oligarchs (and those of other countries) — totaling in the billions — often are held in Western banks after being laundered through a series of accounts in other countries to avoid detection. About half of Putin’s billions is held in the accounts of others. This exposure forced many banks to at last investigate and enforce laws against money laundering.
 
After Magnitsky was beaten to death in a Russian jail for refusing to confess to crimes he didn’t commit, Browder — with a number of colleagues — was able to trace the funds. He then went on a campaign to punish Putin and those oligarchs responsible by convincing the US Congress, and legislators in other countries, to enact Magnitsky acts to find and seize these funds. In retaliation, Putin stopped allowing Americans to adopt disabled children from Russian orphanages. According to the book, this explains the famous meeting between Russian officials and the Trump campaign in 2016 to discuss “Russian orphans,” but really to request that sanctions be overturned. Currently there are Magnitsky Acts in 34 countries; more than 500 individuals and entities have been sanctioned.

Our original focus was on the book Democracy in Chains, by Nancy MacLean, 2017. It is about the efforts of free-market economists and oligarchs to loosen restraints on the US economy and reverse many of the guarantees that most Americans take for granted, such as Social Security and public schools. 

However, we spent the first half of the meeting discussing the current war by Russia against Ukraine, and the struggle between autocratic and democratic elements in the world. Is this war an inevitable result of a conflict between those elements, or is it due to the megalomaniacal fantasies of one man? Russia has no history of democracy, except for a brief period after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, when there was an unregulated free-for-all — a democracy in name only — under Boris Yeltsin. Oligarchs seized government assets and enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else. This gave democracy a bad name in the eyes of many Russians. Vladimir Putin, a previous KGB (Secret Police) official took over the failed democracy, and after his election in 2000, immediately instituted authoritarian measures, moving the country “back to the USSR.” He has instituted more stringent measures since that time, and has just closed the country’s last independent news outlet. Those who follow his career are aware that elections are meaningless in Russia, with opponents being harassed or jailed, as is the case in other authoritarian states that were part of the Soviet Union, such as Hungary and Poland, where there still is some semblance of democracy, but elections are rigged heavily in favor of the incumbent.¹

​We discussed the authoritarian mindset of rulers who stay in power by identifying “enemies of the state” both internal and external, as did Stalin and Hitler. When information is limited — by design or choice — there seems to be a large part of the population who will back authoritarians. We now are finding out that some of the Russian soldiers committing atrocities in Ukraine may actually believe that they are eliminating Nazis. There also are those in our own country who believe that an election was stolen despite clear evidence to the contrary that was verified by judges of Republican and Democratic backgrounds. The question we might ask ourselves is: does human nature compel people to identify an enemy who we consider not quite human, that then justifies acts that we would not commit against those we consider members of our own group?
 
According to Democracy in Chains, James Buchanan spearheaded much of the libertarian movement in the US starting around the time of the 1954 Supreme Court Brown v Board of Education decision that ordered the desegregation of schools in the South. Much of his work helped to lend legitimacy to “states rights” efforts by setting up shop in southern universities — first at U of Virginia and then at George Mason University. Eventually his work was funded by the Koch Brothers, and led to the formation of so-called libertarian “think tanks,” such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, which have had considerable influence on American legislators and justices.
 
The book states that, because of our expanding welfare state, libertarians consider the foundations of the US to have failed, including the Constitution. In their view no restraints on free enterprise are justified, and government must be stripped to its most basic functions such as roads, military and police, to allow Americans to experience the type of freedom they advocate. (Page xxviii)

​The main economists that promote these views are those of The Chicago School, including Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Hayek, in his 1947 book The Road to Serfdom, promoted the idea that all social planning is socialism, a view that probably comes out of his experience in Austria during the Second World War, when the two largest dictatorial powers, Germany and the Soviet Union, had the word socialism as part of their titles.² Many of Hayek’s promoters, however, seem unaware that he also advocated basic social supports — a contradiction of pure libertarian dogma. Friedman was the most famous of the free market economists, and his view was that any restraints on markets interfere with human freedoms.
 
The author states: “One only has to read Charles Dickens to grasp the reality of unregulated capitalism: the unchecked economic power of some enables the domination of others.” (Page 97) Taking that further, as we discussed in the group, democracy itself was the reaction to the unfettered freedom of some that impedes that of others. Economic inequality grows everywhere unless democratic guarantees are put in place. This goes back to the foundation of democracy in Athens, and began in modern times by the rebellion of thirteen colonies who believed themselves economically smothered under the British colonial system. The actual workings of a libertarian economy were on display in Chile under Pinochet, under a system that Buchanan and other libertarian economists helped to establish which was one of the world’s most unequal economies (but Chile now is in the process of revising its libertarian constitution).
 
Corporate donors to the Koch-sponsored “Institute for Contemporary Studies,” have included Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Texaco, Ford, IBM, Chase, US Steel and General Motors. Even the relatively radical views of the conservative economists mentioned above was not adequate for Charles Koch. He referred to them as “‘sellouts to the system.’ Why? Because they sought ‘to make government work more efficiently when the true libertarian should be tearing it out at the root.’” (Page 135)
 
To cite a few of the effects of these efforts, “In 2014, only 7 of 278 members of Congress were willing to acknowledge that man-made climate change was real. … Scott Walker’s administration (in Wisconsin) imposed a gag order in 2015 to prohibit employees … from discussing climate change. Rather than admit their ideological commitment to ending public education, Koch-based libertarians claim that the problems in today’s schools are the result of teachers’ unions having too much power.” (Page 217)
 
This only is a part of the larger issue of whether government should be shrunk to allow unfettered freedom — whatever its result — or if it is the role of government to regulate market forces. We can hear the echo of Ronald Reagan saying that “government is the problem.” But the razor he attempted to apply to government was not even radical enough for our current libertarian pundits — the deficit actually ballooned under Reagan. Perhaps it is fair to say that democracies work best when there is a balance between the forces of freedom and regulation that protects and promotes the rights of the vulnerable, which at one time or another is most of us.

​Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org

Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.

Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, and Truth & Democracy.
​
Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.

​Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site: renewingdemocracy.org

At our February 7 meeting, Curtis Estes presented a summary and discussion of his new book, The Bitter and the Sweet: The Saga of a Black Family in America. 

Curtis is 87 years old and has spent about half his life in the Jim Crow South. His book is a compilation of memoirs and research done over a 20-year period into the history of his family and suppression of Blacks in the US going back before the Civil War.

His great-grandfather came over as a crew member on a slave ship in 1835 and fought under Sam Houston in Texas, after which he was given a land grant. One of his young slaves bore a child who became Curtis’s grandfather. This property remained in the family for many years.

Curtis’s presentation included stories of growing up based on an impressive memory, including some charming anecdotes, such as the time he helped gather wood for the fireplace in his little elementary school and how, when he was 17, he and a friend watched adults going into a jazz club, then scraped together enough to buy suits, and held their breath to see if they would be admitted.

​Curtis also discussed blatant cases of discrimination he lived through. In his elementary school, which was segregated, the class was given random books cast off from White schools, many with pages torn and covers missing. When working in a hospital as a teenager transporting patients, he had to go back and forth bringing them from the Black section to the White section for surgery. After his army service in the 1950s he was expected to work in the Houston Army recruiting office, but when he walked in, he noticed it was entirely staffed by Whites. Not long afterwards he received his discharge papers in the mail.

He eventually moved to California, where he became a teacher and then a gardener.

One of the more poignant parts of the book describes “The Condition of the Slave Ships.”

Our discussion centered around publications by two colleagues at The Atlantic Magazine. They are among many who are warning about the possible collapse of democracy in our time.

Twilight of Democracy is a 2020 book by Anne Applebaum that chronicles her personal experience with fledgling democracies following the fall of the Soviet Union, beginning with Poland where she lived. Her book goes on to discuss the decline of numerous democracies.
​
“Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun” is an article in the December, 2021, edition of The Atlantic by Barton Gellman about how states dominated by the Republican Party are changing rules to ensure their victory in future elections despite the shift toward more Democratic voters.

Anne Applebaum was present near the dawn of democracy in Poland. She held a party at which many friends, some of them in government and most of them young, celebrated the good times they expected to come under the new government. But since then much has gone wrong with democracy in Poland and many other countries: “Poland is now one of the most polarized societies in Europe, and we have found ourselves on opposite sides of a profound divide, one that runs through not only what used to be the Polish right, but the old Hungarian right, the Spanish right, the French right, the Italian right, and with some differences, the British and American right. … Some of my friends now support a nativist party called Law and Justice. … Many of its supporters and promoters slowly came to embrace a different set of ideas, not just xenophobic and paranoid, but openly authoritarian.”
 
She goes on to state that among those who have succumbed to authoritarian views many “have been educated in the best universities.” She provides a view about what is happening in many countries: “Given the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy.”
 
She discusses how, of the US founders, Hamilton in particular “was one of the many in colonial America who read over and over again the history of Greece and Rome [places where democracy failed], trying to learn how to prevent a new democracy from becoming a tyranny.” She quotes Hannah Arendt’s description of how an “authoritarian personality … derives his sense of having a place in the world only from belonging to a movement. … Authoritarianism,” she tells us, “appeals to people who cannot tolerate complexity. … It is suspicious of people with different ideas. … Authoritarians need the people who will promote the riot or launch the coup. But they also need people who can use sophisticated legal language, people who can argue that breaking the constitution or twisting the law is the right thing to do.”
 
As to the future of democracy, particularly in the US? “Modern Americans have long been convinced that liberal democracy, one achieved, was impossible to reverse. The founders themselves were not so certain: Their beloved classical authors taught them that history was circular, that human nature was flawed, and that special measures were needed to prevent democracy from sliding back into tyranny. They sought to create a system, stuffed with checks and balances, that would encourage people to behave.”
 
Applebaum doesn’t have clear solutions to our democratic dilemma. What she offers is: “Because all authoritarians divide, polarize and separate people into warring camps, the fight against them requires new coalitions.”

Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.

Some key quotes:

1. The prospect of this democratic collapse is not remote. People with the motive to make it happen are manufacturing the means. Given the opportunity, they will act. They are acting already.
   
   
2. For more than a year now, with tacit and explicit support from their party’s national leaders, state Republican operatives have been building an apparatus of election theft.
   
   
3. Who or what will safeguard our constitutional order is not apparent today. It is not even apparent who will try. Democrats, big and small D, are not behaving as if they believe the threat is real. Some of them, including President Joe Biden, have taken passing rhetorical notice, but their attention wanders. They are making a huge mistake.
   
   
4. The strategic objective of nearly every move by the Trump team after the networks called the election for Joe Biden on November 7 was to induce Republican legislatures in states that Biden won to seize control of the results and appoint Trump electors instead.

 
Our group discussed the importance of not becoming so cynical that we are unable to act. Our country has been through many crises, including the Civil War, the Second World War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In all of these situations it seemed that democracy, if not the world as we know it, could end. But we were able to eventually move past them, although their residue may still remain.
 
Some ideas that came up in the group:

1. We can donate time and/or money to aid get-out-the-vote efforts and pro-democracy candidates as a means of countering measures aimed at voter suppression.
   
   
2. We can make an effort to get people involved in greater self-governance, particularly those in rural and poor urban environments and then build on their suggestions.
   
   
3. Many people who express discontent are not experiencing the benefits of democracy and feel neglected. Perhaps this could be remedied by providing new career opportunities to strengthen their lives and confidence. This could include supporting the economy in rural areas via light industry, rural electrification, or even supporting family farms to return a sense of purpose to those who may have lost it. (Some of this actually is happening in Illinois.)

 
Currently, about 40% of this country is dominated by the illusion that the 2020 election was stolen and thus that their world is threatened.
 
But democracy can be awakened. Once people allow autocracy to take place they often regret it as nearly everyone loses their freedoms. There are some countries where people have determined they no longer will accept a government that ignores their needs. There currently is a rebellion in Kazakhstan, and newly elected liberal leaders in Italy and Chile.
 
We want to hear from you about what you think the solutions to our democratic dilemma might be. If we are stuck in fear or blame we will be unable to identify a light on the horizon or move toward that light. Let us know your ideas about how we can focus our efforts to preserve democracy. This is a time when all hands are needed on deck.
 
You are invited to offer public comments below, or write to us directly via our Contact page.

The focus of our October discussion was two books by economist James Galbraith, Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis (2012) and his latest book, Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know (2016).

Going back to ancient times such as Greece — and even in the Bible* — there is mention of how those in need often became dependent on the wealthy in hard times. If debts continue to be unpaid, debtors have gone to prison or had themselves and families perpetually indentured to the lender.
 
Inequality leads to discontent among those at the lower end of the scale, which result in insurrection or revolution as has happened throughout history in countries including the US, France, Russia, and China. Economic discontent is more frequently expressed via elections in nations that are considered democratic.
 
In countries considered democratic, however, there also is growing inequality that began in the 1980s and continues into our day. According to Galbraith: “Increasing inequality is a sign that something has gone wrong.” (Page 13) By all measures - both within and between countries — inequality is increasing.
 
Galbraith doesn’t agree that democracy automatically leads to an egalitarian society. In his view: “the result holds only for a subclass of democracy, namely social democracies that have been stable for a long period of time.” (Page 15) Most of those are located in Western Europe, but Eastern European countries on the whole have the lowest level of inequality.
 
In the US, “states with higher inequality tend to have lower turnout of potentially eligible voters in presidential elections — a result consistent with the idea that in high-inequality states the wealthier voters have a strong interest in restricting access to the ballot among the poor.” (Page 16) This is exactly the pattern we’re seeing at present in a number of southern states.
 
Different from what some might expect, countries with less wage inequality have lower unemployment rates. (Page 17) American states that are highly polarized, with a strong divide between rural and urban areas, tend to vote Democratic.
 
Since the 2008 crash, inequality is largely due to the division between those who do and don’t have stocks, since the stock market rallied within a couple years of the crash.
 
Income and pay inequality were largely reduced after World War II, but now continues to shoot up. (Page 72) Globalization — goods being produced overseas more cheaply — have played a major role in that trend. (Page 97) Reductions in inequality generally take place over a long time as the result of changes in public policy.
 
Reduction of inequality can be a driver for people to become more active and increase their tendency to vote if they don’t become lethargic. (Page 152) One factor that reduces inequality is more equal pay structures — i.e., not having a huge difference between those at the top and bottom of the pay scale. Strong social structures, like excellent medical and retirement benefits — also tend to reduce inequality.
 
The 2008 crash — which should serve as a warning for our own day — was caused in large part by overly easy credit availability due to too much money in the system looking to be lent out, which in turn was the result of interest rates held artificially low. These trends followed the elimination of Depression-era regulations, such as Glass-Steagall, that prohibited banks from speculating in investments with client funds. (Page 293)

​The main reason for the increase in inequality was an increase in investment income at the very top of the economic ladder, rather than increasing inequality of wages and salaries. The growth of tech spearheaded this trend. In the 1970s and 80s “the top technologists in the big corporations realized that they would be far better off if they set off on their own, incorporated themselves as independent technology firms, and then sold their output back to the companies for which they had formally worked in salaried jobs. In that way, technologists could become owners, taking advantage of venture finance, and could, in effect, upset the previous structure of American corporate valuation.” (Page 86) This trend was furthered by tax changes during the Reagan administration encouraging greater corporate executive salaries, paid in large part in stock options. “Now top incomes are no longer fixed salaries but instead closely track the stock market.” (Page 118) Deregulation and changes in the business culture also contributed to “corporate looting, rapid corporate growth, stock market valuations, too good to be true business plans and reporting, and vast accumulations of personal wealth by insiders.” (Page 132)
 
A few other possible reasons for increasing inequality in the U.S.:

1. Trade agreements that shifted manufacturing from North to South, e.g., to Mexico or China, definitely had an effect on the manufacturing sector in the US. Good paying manufacturing jobs shrank, from about 15% to now about 8% of the national economy, while the lower paying service sector expanded.
2.  The decline in private sector union membership.
3.  The reorganization of the family to create greater numbers of families headed by single, low income women.

​
Galbraith does not put much stock in the theory, popular among some economists and politicians, that a major factor in US inequality is the rise of technology that put a premium on education and put those without education at a greater disadvantage. This theory is not well supported by available evidence.
 
Why Do We Care about Economic Equality?
 
“It should be possible for an egalitarian society to be entirely composed of the poor. [But] there seems to exist no such society in the world. Egalitarian states are almost all rich; poor countries are all highly unequal,” with Cuba as the possible exception. (Page 126) There is also considerable evidence that egalitarian societies do better in terms of health care, mortality, life expectancy, and other factors.
 
Policies That Reduce Inequality
 
“There is little doubt that countries with strong unions and high minimum wage laws — in relation to the average productivity of the country — have less inequality than those in the opposite position.” (Page 140) Other policies: Making income tax more progressive, Earned Income Tax Credit, Social Insurance Programs.
 
One of our members stated that the economies — just like the environments — of all countries are interrelated. Thus the leading democracies must press for universal reforms to preserve our economies which are tied to basic rights for everyone.

Your comments and thoughts always are welcome. Also, don’t forget to look at our blog site renewingdemocracy.org

The book distinguishes between what the author calls Discrimination I, an ability to discern differences in qualities of people, and Discrimination II, treating people negatively based on animosity to those of a particular sex or race. He agrees that Discrimination II is destructive to democratic society, but argues that Discrimination I is inevitable and actually beneficial. Beneficial discrimination would include the reality that employers hire those who they see as best meeting job qualifications, or that children who meet college entrance requirements are most likely to succeed.

He justifies what he calls Discrimination IB, where an employer would hire based on the general characteristic of a racial or other demographic group to avoid having to examine the background of every applicant. He claims that this type of discrimination is cost effective because it eliminates needing to consider people whose backgrounds make them unlikely to succeed. Several people in our group called into question the distinction between Discrimination IB and Discrimination II, because both were based on stereotypes, were unfair to individuals and costly to individuals and society. Contrary to Sowell, these critics believed it was legitimate to legislate to prohibit Discrimination IB to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc.

Sowell states that people tend to sort themselves by race and ethnic background. Thus he denies that segregation is major factor in housing discrimination. Even within communities of every background (Sowell is African-American), he claims that groups sort themselves based on identification with their subgroup, as did, for example, those of Irish from English from Italian populations in America at one point, and as did established blacks from poor recent arrivals in the North. He claims that this type of segregation is entirely natural, normal, and justified. He doesn’t account for the fact that whereas segregation among white ethnic groups usually disappear within a generation or two after immigration, segregation against blacks has persisted across generations.

He points to the landmark 1954 Supreme Court Decision, Brown v. Board of Education that ordered integration of schools, as one that may have been well-intended, but ultimately did not meet its goal of equal educational opportunities. This is because, he claims, educational advancement for blacks did not result. Instead, he points to schools designed for particular groups, such as charter schools, as providing educational excellence. A member of our group pointed to contrary studies, for example ones showing significant gains in lifetime earnings for blacks who had attended integrated schools.

He also devotes a chapter to the idea that words and statistics can be used to prove the point of those who already have made up their minds, and then use arguments and math to justify their previously determined positions. Words like “diversity” and “social injustice,” he claims, are used to justify government override of “millions of peoples mutually agreed transaction terms.” i.e. a society in which markets predominate free of government interference. Many in the group found this familiar conservative formulation unpersuasive.

In the realm of taxes, he devotes a lot of energy to praising tax cuts and decrying tax raises, stating that national revenues actually have risen during times of tax cuts. He criticizes those who would denigrate “tax cuts for the rich,” another abuse of language. He cites examples of when tax cuts for the rich led to increased government revenue because the wealthy had less incentive to shelter their income, but does not cite many counterexamples where such tax cuts resulted in revenue decline, such as the 2017 tax cuts.

Most of us probably would agree with his idea that one of the key factors of success is motivation. Those who work hard to succeed are most likely to do so. But what about those from backgrounds where they were provided minimal stimulation or were neglected? Should we just say “tough luck” to those people? Sowell makes a claim that many people, and/or families, don’t stay in poverty for long, but his view is countered by, among others, Thomas Piketty, who wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a book we have reviewed, that has reams of statistics showing how inequality increases in families over time. Michael Sandel’s 2020 book The Tyranny of Merit cites studies suggesting that social mobility in the US is significantly less than commonly thought, with only about 4–7 percent of those born in the bottom fifth if the income distribution making it to the top fifth. Most in the group did not believe that Sowell had successfully made the case against government intervention to help those who struggle in today’s economy, although it could be acknowledged that not all past interventions have been successful.

Perhaps this is the most relevant question we might ask ourselves: “What is government for in a democracy?” The answer would be different if we ask: “What is government for in an autocracy?” The promise of democracy that emerged around the world earlier in this century is largely unfulfilled, with many democratic-leaning states now leaning backwards. The reason is that the governments of those nations have been repurposed to serve the narrower needs of a portion of the population rather the population as a whole. Democracy is a Greek term for “government by the people,” and all governments serve some of the people. Governments that serve the needs of the largest amount of people are the most democratic. Those who would have their governments serve mainly themselves, or those like them, ultimately are compromising the lives and rights of everyone.

Every attempt at democracy has been based on restoring rights to a segment of people who believed themselves overlooked, including those who founded the US, where we have gradually moved in the direction of greater human rights with perhaps three steps forward and two back. But once that vision is lost by those who serve themselves or their leaders rather than democratic principles, the slide toward autocracy begins. The purpose of government in democracy is to continually return us to that balance.