Suchergebnisse

 I saw this and quickly realized it was bad faith bullshit:Unlike some of my colleagues who are recycling the same talking points, I'm willing to work across the aisle to avoid a shutdown. I'd encourage Leader Jeffries and the Democrats trying to politicize a shutdown to join me on Problem Solvers' bipartisan short-term funding bill. pic.twitter.com/eP7Nnm1Jmc— Congressman Mike Lawler (@RepMikeLawler) September 29, 2023 How do you politicize something that is so incredibly political and partisan?  The GOP is choosing to shut down government and deny services and pay to millions of Americans.  Given that politics is usually defined like this:the activities associated with the governance of a
country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among
individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. [Oxford]or this:Politics is the way that people living in groups make decisions.Refusing to pass a budget so that the government can operate is quite political--it is about group decision-making and it is about governance or denial thereof.Of course, what we really mean is making something a partisan issue--not just that it affects the public, but that the issue at hand is partisan--that the competing parties are taking sides.  Of course, again, the shutdown is inherently partisan since one party is inflicting it on the rest of us. For the Dems to point this out does not politicize the shutdown because the shutdown is already a partisan thing.I raise this because it serves as a useful illustration to correct misconceptions about some civ-mil stuff.  General Mark Milley, at his retirement ceremony, did what he has done before--speak too much.  Yes, he had a horrible job, being the Chairman at a time where the President (Trump) had no clue about nor any desire to learn the norms of civilian-military relations.  Trump did indeed try to politicize the military in the sense of making it a partisan actor.  Yes, the military is an inherently political actor and object as war is politics by other means (thanks, Claus), but it is not always an actor in American (or other) partisan competition.  Over the past twenty or so years, the US military has increasingly become a partisan actor, mostly due to the actions of the politicians and not the military, but it gets complex where even standing still can be seen as moving, as Michael Robinson argues quite well in his book (which I have raised before).  Anyhow, Milley, in his speech, reminded the military folks of their oath to the constitution, which would be somewhat fine although it would be loaded with subtext given his experiences.  And then referred to wannabe dictators, which, of course, is a reference to Trump, and thus made the speech clearly partisan.As others in this area, such as Kori Schake and Risa Brooks, have noted, this is not Milley's first time to speak too much.  He spent much of his last year or two as Chairman trying to improve his legacy by clarifying his Trump problems.  This was not doing the military or American civil-military relations, because it was putting the US military squarely in the partisan fight.  Which will lead to folks thinking that the US military is taking sides, that politicians choose senior officers based on party affiliation, and so on.  With many of the promotions of senior military leaders already frozen by an effort by Tommy (those who can't, coach) Tuberville, the politicization of ordinary military stuff is accelerating.  No need for the Chairman on his way out the door to grease the skids of this.** To be clear, having a mil to mil conversation in the middle of a crisis with Chinese senior military officers to assure them that there is no attack coming is the proper thing to do.  To take credit for it?  Much less proper.  Oh, and in the Canadian context, which seems to be months behind the US now rather than years, platforming a cranky retired general to blast the military as too woke is politicizing the Canadian military.

 Last night, a friend informed me that my favorite retired Canadian military officer, Lt. General (ret) Michel Maisonneuve is going to speak at the Conservative Party of Canada's convention.  This gave me a case of deja vu, as the 2016 US campaign had dueling generals at the conventions--Michael (how many foreign payrolls am I on?) Flynn for Trump and the Republicans and John Allen for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.  I have been meaning to write about Michael Robinson's book, Dangerous Instrument, Politicial Polarization and US Civil-Military Relations, for some time,* but the CDSN Summer Institute and a mad dash to finish the Steve/Dave/Phil book got in the way, but this news has pushed Robinson's book to the front of my mind.* One of my sabbatical goals is to catch up and write about the latest civ-mil work (and some older stuff).  Robinson's book was at the top of the pile.  Now I am working on Jason Dempsey's book about whether the US Army was "Conservative" or partisan in the early 2000s. Robinson does an amazing job of taking a variety of surveys and survey experiments (where some respondents read or listen to one vignette/treatment and others get exposed to different ones to see what primes people) to assess a variety of dynamics surrounding the US military: what shapes people's views, what shapes their media consumption, what shapes media coverage, and ultimately what shapes the standing of the US military in the public.  Oh, and how thoroughly screwed the US military is.The basic idea is that there are different ways to politicize a military.  The military can politicize itself by directly getting engaged in politics or by doing things that resonate beyond the military.  But the book is really a story of affective politicization--that how people see the military depends not just on what the military is doing, but what the other actors in the system are doing that makes it appear as if the military is becoming closer or farther politically.  This is all very important because most modern militaries in most democracies seek to be non-partisan institutions--that they were taught the key to both civilian control of the military and relative autonomy was to stay out of politics.  Indeed, because most militaries are not seen as partisan, they tend to have higher popularity ratings--that most other institutions are seen as belonging to one side or another and thus at least a chunk of the political spectrum is pissed off.  I have delighted in our CDSN surveys showing that only academic folks have higher trust ratings than the military.In the US, there was an arms race between the Democrats and Republicans amassing endorsements from retired generals and admirals, as each sought to be seen as the party of national security.  This was bad for the military, as it may be that the public sees retired officers as the voices of the active service since the latter are largely restricting from speaking in a partisan fashion.  This culminated in Flynn chanting "Lock Her Up" at the 2016 convention, which is more than a smidge ironic or hypocritical given that Flynn was a far greater danger to releasing classified information than Clinton's email.  Anyhow, things got worse once Trump got into office as he kept referring to his generals, kept making partisan statements to and in front of the military (including announcing the Muslim ban at the Pentagon).Robinson, in his book, shows that views towards the military have become increasingly partisan--that views of the military now go up and down depending on who is president--that Republicans, traditionally strong supporters of the military, are less enthusiastic when a Dem is president. The key dynamic driving much of this is confirmation bias (woot?)--that partisans will notice only that which agrees with their preconceptions and discount that which does not agree.  As Americans become increasingly partisan--with their identities tied to parties, this gets worse, especially for those who consume only from a very biased portion of the media (you know who).  What I like about this book is that it uses a word I hate, polarization, quite well.  Polarization generally implies that all parties are spinning away from the center, when studies show that the GOP is becoming radicalized, but the Dems are mostly staying where they were, sliding a smidge to the left.  But what is abundantly true is that all sides are increasingly tied to their partisan id.  Robinson goes on to show that that consumption of Fox is not good, and so on.  And the military is utterly screwed because if they push back at, say, charges of wokeness, they only make things worse.  The results also show that despite all the talk of norms of civil-military relations, the public is not really aware of them, nor that concerned about them.  So, it is up to the politicians to refrain and for the military to ... hope (and hope is not a plan).  So, it is a great book, with terrific social science, important implications for civil-military relations, and, yeah, we are kind of fucked.   And now it applies to Canada, damn it.  The Conservatives are bringing Mr. Cancelled to their convention, imitating the GOP, so he can rail against the Liberals and the wokeness of the Canadian Armed Forces.  The Liberals have dipped into this as they had Andrew Leslie, another retired LTG, in a prominent place when they ran in 2015.  The key difference is that they were just trying to use his credibility and stature to buttress their own, they were not using him to attack the military, nor did he speak out that much in any way that was particularly controversial.  Maisonneuve, on the other hand, used  his Vimy speech and then a regular spot at a national paper, to blast the Liberals, the woke media, the military for daring to make itself more inclusive, and pretty much anyone else he felt spurned by [I am still waiting for some media outlet to note that Maisonneuve was part of the military's abuse of power crisis].  The Conservatives are embracing some of the GOP's efforts to mobilize populist resentment as they now apparently seek to tear down many Canadian institutions.  When I say this will endanger Canadian civil-military relations, I don't mean there will be a coup.  But it will mean that the public and politicians will view the military as a partisan actor, that appointments and decisions will be viewed through partisan lenses, and then the Canadian military will be fucked, because its efforts to defend itself as an inclusive institution, desperately needed during a personnel crisis, will be seen as partisan.  "Hey, we don't discriminate against x" will be seen by CPC partisans as being too woke. Which will make it harder to recruit and retain, deepening the spiral that may make it very hard to send a ship to the Pacific or sustain the commitment to Latvia.  In short, the Conservatives are starting a process that is going to be bad for the military, despite their bad faith assertions that they care more about the CAF than the Liberals do.  [No, Trudeau does not care much about the CAF, but the CPC does not either].So, here's a song that goes with all of this.

  Note: A shorter version of this article first appeared on the blog Insight from the Journal of Common Market Studies. 'Nationalism becomes predominantly a popular cause, […]. Internationalism, at …
Continue reading "Handmaids of transnational democracy? EU politicization and citizens' initiatives by trade unions"
The post Handmaids of transnational democracy? EU politicization and citizens' initiatives by trade unions appeared first on Orders Beyond Borders.

The Supreme Court.

Contemporary Greek politics is typically characterized by polarization, not only during pre-electoral periods, like the current one leading to the parliamentary elections of 21 May 2023, but also in-between elections. A war-like political climate reflects decades of ideological conflict, party-led politicization of the state administration and interest groups, and widening socioeconomic inequalities. Yet, Greece has … Continued

By Sana Tannoury-Karam, with translations by Fatima Kassem Moussa. In 1918, Omar el-Zeenni looked around him and declared "The world is madness". Indeed, by the end of the First World War, el-Zeenni's world was turning upside down. Born in Beirut in 1895, Omar el-Zeenni belonged to the "last Ottoman generation" that had come of age in the last few years of the Ottoman empire's existence and whose politicization occurred during the First World War.

Adam Kovacevich, Founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, shares his trade association’s goals for progressive advocacy in the tech sector. We discuss the politicization of ‘Big Tech’ and recent opinion polls about Midterm voters’ attitudes towards tech regulation. We also discuss how First Amendment rights apply to tech companies, misperceptions of the techlash, and...
The post #158: Progressive Big Tech Regulation and Advocacy, with Adam Kovacevich appeared first on Social Media and Politics.

In Slovakia, we are witnessing something truly extraordinary. Within the first hundred days of the new administration, Slovakia has experienced a paradigmatic change in the penal codes, an attack on civil society organizations, an abolishment of the Special Prosecutor's Office, a bill for a limitation of the whistleblower protection, and politicization of independent institutions. Accordingly, I argue that Slovakia faces a much faster democratic backsliding than what was happening in Hungary and Poland. Based on the pace of the initial steps, we can expect a radical shift in Slovakia's democratic character and its position in international relations.

A longtime Republican operative, Marc Short served as both White House director of legislative affairs and chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence during the Trump administration. He joined David to share his take on the administration, his relationship with Pence, the politicization of Covid-19, his first-hand account of the events that transpired on January 6th, and his thoughts on the role of the federal government.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Charlie Sykes is a longtime conservative commentator and the founder and editor-at-large of The Bulwark. He joins David to talk about his father's roots in Democratic politics, the growing politicization of the media over the course of his career, why he no longer considers himself a member of the Republican Party, and his assessment of the state of play in his home state of Wisconsin ahead of the November election.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mary Kay Henry is the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), an organization of more than 2 million union members in health care, the public sector, and beyond. She joins David to talk about the many SEIU members who are on the front lines fighting COVID-19, her concerns about the politicization of the federal pandemic response, her assessment of union members' attitudes towards President Trump, and more.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The rule of law crisis in Poland consists of several elements – undermining the independence of courts, politicization of disciplinary proceedings against judges, and lack of legal certainty. None of them, however, raises so many doubts and concerns as the status of judges appointed or promoted upon the request of the politically captured National Council of Judiciary (NCJ).
In this blog post, we analyse the diverse composition of the group of judges appointed or promoted upon the motion of the NCJ from 2018. We also discuss the relevant jurisprudence of national and international courts and the current state of debate concerning this problem and possible solutions.

One morning in 2017, journalist Frank Bruni woke up to altered vision— he had lost sight in his right eye during the night. As he grappled with this new reality, he began reevaluating his expectations, priorities, and outlook on life. He joined David to talk about how his lost eyesight taught him to approach others with empathy and savor meaningful moments, his thoughts on the politicization of Covid-19 and how President Biden is doing so far, and his new book, "The Beauty of Dusk: On Vision Lost and Found."
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sen. Chris Murphy caught the political bug early; he was first elected to the Connecticut state legislature at age 25 while still in law school. He eventually served three terms as a US Congressman before being elected to the US Senate in 2012. Shortly before his term began, he became an outspoken advocate for gun reform after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at his district's Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Sen. Murphy joined David to talk about how Sandy Hook refocused his political career, the new gun safety legislation he helped usher through Congress, what he sees as the politicization of the Supreme Court, why he hopes voters begin paying attention to Senate procedure, and his belief that Sen. Mitch McConnell wants to be part of the paradigm shift on preventing gun violence.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Opposition to
changing governance of Louisiana's indigent defense from an appointed board
to a gubernatorial designee generated more heat than light and shouldn't derail
an improvement to a system as yet never quite fixed.

SB 8 by
Republican state Sen. Mike Reese
may end up the most controversial bill of the Legislature's Second Extraordinary
Session of 2024. Its initial hearing dragged on for hours with support voiced
for it by State Public Defender Remy Starns and a few others, but most of the time
was taken by opponents, many connected to public defense.

The bill would remove the Louisiana Public
Defender Board from policy-making, leaving only an advisory role, transferring
that to the public defender. Rather than he be an appointee of the Board, the governor
with Senate confirmation would make the appointment, for two years. This would
put contracting and chief district defender hiring solely in the hands of the
public defender, among other things, rather than by the Board which currently
has five gubernatorial appointees (from each appellate district), four from the
chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court, and one each from the leaders of
each state legislative chamber, serving overlapping four-year terms.

(Not that the Board has done itself favors with new
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry,
who backs the bill. Chock full of appointees of his predecessor and a chief justice
whose views haven't shown much affinity with Landry's, in the Board's latest
annual report that has a wish list of policy preferences it would like to
see enacted these don't exactly mesh with Landry's.)

Opponents raised two common objections. One holds
no water and people versed in the study of government and law should know
better: that somehow gubernatorial appointment violates separation of powers. It's
an ironic complaint, because if anything the charge would stick better if
applied to the current board having policy-making authority, as the state
judiciary in whose courts defenders will argue appoints four board members. As
well, just as is the governor, the Board is part of the executive branch

But the governor has no power over the state's
judiciary and no involvement with it; the elected executive branch official
with that is the attorney general. Plus, the governor's appointive power is
checked by the state Senate through the confirmation process. And, among the
states that have any statewide authority over public defense, a gubernatorial
appointee is the second-most common method of picking a statewide public defense
policy-maker, in ten states while the commission form at present in Louisiana
is most common in thirteen. Simply, there's nothing remotely unconstitutional
about this arrangement.

Ringing less hollow of a complaint is that the
shift will increase politicization of the office, despite a study
of differing governing structures which doesn't see a real performance difference
between gubernatorial appointee governance or board governance in terms of quality
that would be hampered by politicization. How exactly greater politicization would
occur wasn't covered by defenders of the current system, even as the recent
performance of the Board if not displaying politicization has exhibited a degree
of dysfunction that proponents of the bill like Starns argue would be less likely
to occur under the change.

For example, one recent board member (who died in
office), a private defense attorney holding no contracts with the 26th
District, created controversy when he crashed
Republican 26th District Attorney Schuyler Marvin's official vehicle
into a Bossier Parish bayou. Arriving at the scene, Bossier deputies found numerous
floating beer cans and later tracked down the driver, who had no authorization to
operate the taxpayer-owned vehicle but whom Marvin later said had been "borrowed."
The late driver in 2021 faced only a charge in Marvin's district of failure to
report an accident, to which helped guilty and paid a $100 fine.

The Board also last year removed two chief
defenders. One,
in the 25th, a Legislative Auditor report determined while in office
had issued unauthorized student loan assistance payments (including to
herself), information she shielded from the Board. Another,
in the 19th, it removed apparently at the behest of a state legislator
for personnel problems who was accused
of being hired for political reasons involving both the Board and Starns.

An argument made by Starns and legislative bill
supporters is the Board, including in its previous incarnation prior to 2007,
has a history like this because of its nature as an avenue for political
patronage and is institutionally less capable of holding local defenders
accountable. They say making one person responsible will reduce these problems.

They also noted that because of this history the
Legislature is too reluctant to increase indigent defense funding. Louisiana's
schizophrenic funding mechanism that relies far too heavily on local revenue generation
out of the hands of public defense which then hopes the Board can entice the
Legislature to provide enough money to make up for it that it then hopefully distributes
in an equitable fashion has produced chronic shortages in certain districts.
Bill proponents claim the Legislature will have more confidence with a system like
the one proposed to jack up the money allocated to indigent defense, with a
better structure to oversee district financing and contracting less prone to
parochial and special interest pressures.

Systems like the one proposed work in other states, which historically have
worked better than Louisiana's has, regardless of a recent spate of action by
the Board trying to address dysfunction and questionable decision-making that seems
belated and in a mode of trying to salvage its position. Best of all, the bill's
alterations create greater incentive for a governor and Legislature to get it
right with picking a quality appointee than under the current diffuse lines of
accountability. It's a change that only can improve matters, meriting the bill's
passage.