Democracy > elections
Shortly before an invading army replaced his regime with anarchy, Saddam Hussein was "re-elected" as the leader of Iraq. This transparent sham of an election was Saddam's attempt to demonstrate to the rest of the world his legitimacy as a duly elected, democratic ruler. The Iraqi despot -- whose surreal campaign featured as its theme song Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You"* -- won with something like 96 percent of the vote.
No one inside or outside of Iraq was fooled by this bizarre charade. No one regarded this as a free election. Saddam's margin of victory served only as a measure of the man's delusion. He apparently realized that 100 percent of the vote would make it too obvious that the game was rigged, so for the sake of "plausibility" he decreed a margin of dissent -- yet his ego couldn't bear for that margin to be larger than 4 percent. Old-school authoritarian rulers like Saddam just weren't very good at creating an impression of democratic legitimacy.
Jonathan A. Becker, in "Putin and the Dawn of the New Authoritarians," explores how Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders have become much savvier at wielding unchecked, unaccountable power while still maintaining the charade of legitimacy:
The New Authoritarians represent the antithesis of the revolutionary spirit that swept the world in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed.While they pay lip service to democratic values, and assert a rhetorical commitment to freedom of expression in domestic and international forums, these leaders undermine democracy and openness by using administrative resources and the selective application of laws to perpetuate their rule. ...
When issues of importance are at stake, particularly elections, they assert substantial control over the media and use television as a blunt instrument to prop up the regime and discredit its opponents.
To ensure control of television, the New Authoritarians use a variety of legal and regulatory mechanisms to ensure that stations are in the hands of the state or state sympathizers. Broadcast licenses can be revoked, the tax police can be called in and owners can suddenly face criminal proceedings for their business practices.
Television dominance is coupled with other actions designed to limit the activities of journalists. Journalists can find themselves the object of criminal defamation suits, even for relatively minor criticism of the regime. Their access to government officials can be restricted. They can be arrested -- or worse.
Media restrictions are often supplemented by other actions that limit public communication. Opposition protests and rallies are banned or limited. Leaders can be detained or beaten. When all else fails, the New Authoritarians will resort to voting fraud. ...
Even where leaders’ desire to retain power outweighs their commitment to the values they publicly espouse, they still wish to bask in the glow of democratic bona fides.
They would also prefer to use more subtle forms of electoral manipulation that the control of broadcast media can afford them -- rather than resorting to outright fraud or violence.
This raises a host of interesting points, the most important of which may be that genuine democracy involves much more than majority rule through elections. Without a bill of rights guaranteeing equality under the law for everyone, including minorities, elections are meaningless.
By putting elections ahead of these rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free assembly, free association, religious freedom, due process, etc. -- the Bush administration's efforts at "promoting democracy" have done more harm than good. Groups like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders emphasize the universality of such rights as a prerequisite for democratic elections -- a much more promising approach in the long run.
It's also impossible -- or at least incredible -- for the Bush administration to promote such rights abroad while undermining them at home. Bush's embrace of warrantless search and seizure, his declaration that due process and habeas corpus are conditional, and his employment of torture are all both morally wrong and illegal. But these things also subvert America's ability to promote democracy abroad.
Subvert isn't strong enough a word there. These things pervert America's efforts at democracy promotion -- they twist it into something else, something opposite. They turn America's nominal support for democracy into a buttress for authoritarians new and old.
Becker's analysis also provides a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-style checklist for authoritarianism. Here are the characteristics Becker provides for authoritarian regimes:
• Asserts substantial control over the media
• Uses television as a blunt instrument to prop up the regime and discredit its opponents
• Ensures that television stations are in the hands of the state or state sympathizers
• Subjects journalists to defamation suits for even minor criticism of the regime
• Restricts journalists' access to government officials
• Arrests journalists
• Bans or limits opposition protests or rallies
• Detains and beats opposition leaders
• Maintains power through electoral fraud
• Invokes threats to national security as a part of their general press crackdowns
• Censors the Internet
The DSM might say that a regime that presents seven of these 11 symptoms could be diagnosed as suffering from a severe case of authoritarian disorder. Presenting only five symptoms might be a case of moderate authoritarianism. In either case, the resulting clinically significant distress or impairment of democratic liberties would require immediate treatment.
Becker's key insight, I think, is that the New Authoritarians' "subtle forms of electoral manipulation" can be much more effective than the blunt instruments employed by old-school authoritarians like Saddam Hussein or the thugs now controlling Burma. At the same time, these subtler tactics provide a veneer of plausibility to their claims of democratic legitimacy. The arrest, detention and beating of journalists and opposition leaders isn't really necessary anymore. Nor is Saddam-style election rigging. If you can control what the electorate sees on TV, you'll only need the slightest tweaking of electoral outcomes at the ballot box to maintain unchecked and unending power.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
* Yes, really. Bittersweet memories. Considering that along with reports that Osama bin Laden regards Whitney as The Greatest Love of All makes me wonder if Ms. Houston might, somehow, be the key to peace in the Middle East.
Did the Radio Times interview the other day introduce you to Becker? I didn't hear the whole thing but I found the bit I caught fascinating. I really like the idea of "authoritarian learning" and how Putin and cronies learned the most effective way to crack down on dissent from watching events unfold in Georgia and the Ukraine.
Posted by: Brad | Dec 06, 2007 at 10:42 AM
makes me wonder if Ms. Houston might, somehow, be the key to peace in the Middle East.
Only if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me) on his Ipod.
Posted by: mmack | Dec 06, 2007 at 10:50 AM
And yet Hugo Chavez lost (and he needed at least 60%, I would think, to really claim victory). Either he's a bit incompetent or his government (a "regime" is simply a government we don't like -- I refuse to use the word) isn't as bad as claimed by the 'Mercan Press. Or a bit of both?
Discuss.
Posted by: Jeff | Dec 06, 2007 at 11:08 AM
makes me wonder if Ms. Houston might, somehow, be the key to peace in the Middle East.
Maybe we can combine it with The West Wing's guide to peace in the Mid East - a series of montages... with a carefully chosen soundtrack.
Posted by: A-Diz | Dec 06, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Friday cannot come soon enough, so while we're waiting, how about a little game? Based on the 11 points above, how would you rate the U.S. at the moment? (I get 5.5/11, your mileage may vary, half-points were assigned for moderate cases of the abuse described.)
Posted by: Vince | Dec 06, 2007 at 12:46 PM
So guys, do you consider Bush or Chavez further down this road?
Posted by: Scott | Dec 06, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Oh, Scott. We all know you're less interested in an answer than in your tale of woe, so why bother asking the question?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Dec 06, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Either he's a bit incompetent or his government isn't as bad as claimed by the 'Mercan Press. Or a bit of both?
I say both.
The entire Chavez v. Bush thing is a case of grandstanding on both sides. Attacking the US in the press and at conferences is a real easy way of getting attention and Chavez was taking full advantage. On the other side, the US needed a bungling would-be socialist dictator to take some pressure of the stupidity in the Middle East and Chavez fits the bill, with the added bonus of the whole, "He has oil, oh noes!" aspect.
Chavez then got so busy being an international bigshot that he forgot to, y'know, govern his country and his popularity has begun to slip. His defeat in the vote was probably as much a case of people waking up and saying, "Wait, this isn't what we were promised," as anything else.
Posted by: Geds | Dec 06, 2007 at 12:54 PM
What's scary in Russia is how much the people at large are clamoring for authoritarianism. Russia's swift transition out of communism was largely uncontrolled, which meant that a stable oppressive oligarchy was replaced by an unstable less-oppressive oligarchy. Not exactly the flowering of peace and freedom we might've hoped for. The common Russian no longer needs to worry about scarce food rations and being killed for speaking against the government; now they can't afford any food and can expect to be killed by drug addicts or the mafia. That's an exaggeration, but the problems (and the perception) are real.
Apart from desiring order at the expense of liberty, there's a powerful nationalist trend in Russia. This is unsurprising; the relevant generatiosn grew up in a superpower sparring for global dominance. Now they live in a struggling also-ran that gets pushed around by the likes of France and snubbed by its former vassal states. That's a bitter pill for anyone to swallow, and it's fertile ground for any powerful authoritarian figure promising a return to glory.
Posted by: Raka | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Now they live in a struggling also-ran that gets pushed around by the likes of France and snubbed by its former vassal states. That's a bitter pill for anyone to swallow, and it's fertile ground for any powerful authoritarian figure promising a return to glory.
It's a bit like the Weimar Republic as Hitler was rising to power.
Of course with the massive war reparations and severe limitation of military power, the Nazis had a lot of external forces to rail against. Russia really doesn't. I think that's why they've been making a big deal out of Chechnya and trying to pick fights on the international stage. It's also probably why they've been supporting Iran.
Posted by: Geds | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:07 PM
Has it occurred to you that the Bush administration also makes use of many of these techniques? Faux News, for example, is an obvious case of a media outlet that supports one party only, and the administration has used a number of methods to browbeat opposition: denouncing opponents as traitors, the Plame outing, etc. We're not as far from Russia as we'd like to believe.
Posted by: beckya57 | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Geds: Chavez then got so busy being an international bigshot that he forgot to, y'know, govern his country and his popularity has begun to slip. His defeat in the vote was probably as much a case of people waking up and saying, "Wait, this isn't what we were promised," as anything else.
I don't agree. Chavez has done pretty well by his people as far as improving their infrastructure, quality of life, and social mobility. His critics don't give him enough credit for accomplishing great things in the face of powerful opposition. Of course, his supporters don't give him enough credit for being a power-hungry egomaniac while doing so. I don't think the election results indicate a repudiation of the man and his policies as much as they do a populace that may like him and what he's done, but not enough to appoint him king.
What I find sad is that a less bombastically insane individual probably could not have achieved the good that he did. Pre-Chavez, Venezuela was a classic IMF backwater, with a tiny privileged class enriching themselves by handing the wealth of their land and their people over to foreign profiteers. A more peaceful, reasonable leader might not have been able to push necessary reforms through against the strong-arm tactics of the aristocratic class-- a 2002 military coup and PDVSA's attempt at playing chicken come to mind. Still, national control of the media and violent suppression of dissent aren't excusable traits. I don't want Venezuela to undo his reforms, but he's definitely got to go.
Posted by: Raka | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Italics begone!
Posted by: Raka | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:33 PM
the Nazis had a lot of external forces to rail against. Russia really doesn't.
Russia has the US - if the leadership of the US were to do something so stupid as to, say, propose planting missiles in their backyard. Good thing we'd never have someone so dumb in office that would give Putin something external to direct his people's nationalism and anger at their domestic problems towards, isn't it?
Anyway, the one problem I have with your article here Fred is your definition "democracy > elections". This is true, but that isn't the gist of your post. Your post is conflating two different things: A liberal, Western, post-Enlightenment society that insists that all people have some level of "rights" that cannot be violated by the State AND the fundamental process of governance by which a people govern themselves. These are two different things - you certainly can have a functioning democracy without it upholding the values of a liberal, Western, post-Enlightenment society - do you think that the Romans during the time of the Republic had the same kind of ideas of freedom of speech or freedom of religion that we value in Western society? Or the Greeks during the time of the city-states? They had functioning democracies or republics but if we were dropped back in time to those periods we'd be appalled at the lack of rights for their citizens. (And that's just among the folks who were considered "citizens" - we'd be even more appalled at the treatment of women and slaves).
This is a problem for us in the US - the lazily constructed "High School History" classes have convinced a good chunk of people that "democracy == freedom" and that just isn't true. Democracy without an acceptance of the idea of inviolate human rights can be just as oppressive as any totalitarian regime. Perhaps even moreso, as the "will of the people" legitimizes the oppression that the State inflicts on the minority who refuse to/are unable to conform to the majority's vote.
Posted by: NonyNony | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Geds:...the Nazis had a lot of external forces to rail against. Russia really doesn't.
True, but you don't really need external forces genuinely causing hardship (though it does make things easier). As long as there's hardship (or even perceived hardship), it's rarely difficult to find an enemy that people will happily blame in defiance of all evidence. See also Nazis v. Jews, 1938.
Posted by: Raka | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Russia has the US - if the leadership of the US were to do something so stupid as to, say, propose planting missiles in their backyard. Good thing we'd never have someone so dumb in office that would give Putin something external to direct his people's nationalism and anger at their domestic problems towards, isn't it?
...Yeah...I love American foreign policy.
In drawing the Putin's Russia/Weimar Republic comparison, the effect that I was looking at was in post WWI diplomacy Germany was humiliated. Yes, on some level they deserved it (although, really, WWI was just a massive collection of really stupid things happening to cause a pointless war with no real cut and dry villain, just a winning and a losing side) and that's generally how the post war period works.
Russia wasn't ground down and humiliated at the hands of any particular external enemy. The USSR came apart as the result of political processes, rebellions and coups. It's not impossible but it requires a lot more work for Putin to point at the United States and say, "It's their fault," than it was for the Nazis to do the same.
Which, again, is why I think that Russia has been finding ways to pick fights. If you want to get attention and kick off an incident that will get your own population riled up, there's really no easier target to aim at than George W. Bush. Especially now that the United States Army is mostly pinned in Iraq and recruitment is down.
Although if an actual hot war with Russia kicks off, that's going to change real fast...
Posted by: Geds | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:50 PM
it's rarely difficult to find an enemy that people will happily blame in defiance of all evidence. See also Nazis v. Jews, 1938.
Agreed. However, an internal enemy like that will only take you so far. It also creates the danger of mob action and unchecked pogroms, rather than a sense of national discipline. It's the threat from without that really brings unity and order.
Posted by: Geds | Dec 06, 2007 at 01:52 PM
The arrest, detention and beating of journalists and opposition leaders isn't really necessary anymore. Nor is Saddam-style election rigging.
Of course, unnecessary though they may be, it's plausible Putin has been doing both.
Posted by: mcc | Dec 06, 2007 at 03:32 PM
Without disagreeing with the main point, my memory (and a cursory Google search) suggests that Saddam actually was even stupider & more monomaniacal than you remember, and he did actually claim a 100% victory in his last election.
Posted by: Todd Larason | Dec 06, 2007 at 04:29 PM
The end of America : letter of warning to a young patriot by Naomi Wolf
Summary:
Posted by: decasm | Dec 06, 2007 at 05:47 PM
“By putting elections ahead of these rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free assembly, free association, religious freedom, due process, etc.”
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not quite the same.
Religious freedom is a wild card. It's hard to imagine any civil government being able to avoid infringing on "religious freedom". Even trivial public health measures will immediately put you in conflict with people who believe as a matter of religious faith that our understanding of medicine is wrong. Every policy you have, every law you pass, every budget you make will conflict with someone who believes something crazy. In reality then, religious freedom is effectively a political sop, if your "religious" group has enough political power they get to make special exceptions to the rules, effectively undermining democracy. So "religious freedom", to the extent that it means any more than recognising the fact that the government can't change people's beliefs, is actually anti-democratic.
Posted by: Jon | Dec 06, 2007 at 06:07 PM
I think that this video at YouTube is related to the point that decasm is making with the quote that he/she posted.
Posted by: Spherical Time | Dec 06, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Still, national control of the media and violent suppression of dissent aren't excusable traits.
Fortunately, we haven't seen either yet. We have seen the license to broadcast over the public airwaves revoked for a network that actively participated in an attempted military overthrow of the government; I doubt that would be much of a surprise anywhere. (Can you imagine a hard-line anti-Bush network even being allowed to maintain a cable or satellite presence after supporting an attempted coup against Dubya?)
Posted by: M Groesbeck | Dec 06, 2007 at 06:27 PM
The other thing Americans screw up, under influence of the misguided writings of their forefathers, is that you don't guarantee these freedoms with a piece of paper. No written law can give you freedom of speech, or the right to assemble and petition the government, or the right to a fair trial. These things must be imbued in the hearts of men. In a free country the reason you can't be imprisoned for six months with no due process is that anyone who hears of it would demand your release, and if they got no satisfactory response, they would storm the prison and release you. Your jailers themselves would release you rather than permit such an injustice.
Concentrating on what it says on a slightly moldy document is a grave mistake. Many of the men who wrote the document had actually lived by their principles, but down the years the principles have been forgotten in favour of arguing about the interpretation of the document. Hey, this is a familiar discussion Fred, haven't you said something like that about the teachings of Jesus ?
Ask yourself about your high school classmates. Imagine them as prison staff at a US government facility holding people thought "too dangerous to stand trial". How many of them would even realise that their ethical duty was to free these men ? How many would act on that duty ? How many would even blow the whistle on the facility to the general public ? How many would stay silent, believing that Freedom is someone else's fight, that if they elect a guy with a nice smile it'll all work itself out somehow ?
Posted by: Jon | Dec 06, 2007 at 06:32 PM
We're not as far from Russia as we'd like to believe.
We are still pretty far off though. Bush is not nearly as popular as Putin, and the Republicans have far less control over media outlets and opposing political campaigns than United Russia does (not for a lack of trying though). People underestimate the effect of civic culture in building a democratic society; in my view it is one of the main reasons why the UK and the US did not become dictatorships during the Depression-era (and why they aren't dictatorships now) while the governments of Russia and Germany fell (well, Germany fell, Russia pretty much stayed the same) to dictatorship. It's also the reason why Iraq and Afghanistan are the way they are, and why most of the newly-formed nation-states in Africa ended up developing the way they are. People there do not believe that they can work within the system to get what they need, so they listen to extremist groups who promise decisive action to change the system more to their liking.
Posted by: Drak Pope | Dec 06, 2007 at 06:35 PM
The New Authoritarians really aren't all that New. Lee Kuan Yew perfected their methods forty years ago.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Dec 06, 2007 at 07:28 PM
I count four, although I'm not using half measures:
Fox News aside, the administration has little real control over the media that isn't covered by other criteria, and its attempts to exercise that kind of control (i.e., over PBS) have been firmly rebuffed.
Still, that's a lot better than other regimes; China does all of them (with the possible exception of electoral fraud).
Posted by: Turcano | Dec 06, 2007 at 07:32 PM
Every policy you have, every law you pass, every budget you make will conflict with someone who believes something crazy.
And a good portion of those people are going to be secular anyway, particularly in the modern day when many people explicitly disavow the supernatural for cultural rather than rational reasons.
Why is this believed to be some particular special crazy with religion? It isn't remotely.
Posted by: not someone else | Dec 06, 2007 at 07:39 PM
I agree that democracy > elections.
We know its possible to have elections without democracy. Is it possible to have democracy without elections?
Posted by: nieciedo | Dec 06, 2007 at 07:45 PM
@ Jon
The other thing Americans screw up, under influence of the misguided writings of their forefathers, is that you don't guarantee these freedoms with a piece of paper. No written law can give you freedom of speech, or the right to assemble and petition the government, or the right to a fair trial. These things must be imbued in the hearts of men. In a free country the reason you can't be imprisoned for six months with no due process is that anyone who hears of it would demand your release, and if they got no satisfactory response, they would storm the prison and release you. Your jailers themselves would release you rather than permit such an injustice.
This is very true. This is why we should not be surprised by the political situation in Russia -- they have had no tradition or long-term familiarity with democracy. Ever.
It's also one of the main reasons why the Weimar Republic fell.
It's also why there's no hope for a democratic Iraq -- or really democracy anywhere in the Middle East for a long, long, long time to come. It's no surprise why the only genuine democracy in the Middle East is admittedly a European import.
Posted by: nieciedo | Dec 06, 2007 at 07:51 PM
I say both.
That sounds about right.
Can you imagine a hard-line anti-Bush network even being allowed to maintain a cable or satellite presence
No, I can't, even without the rest of that sentence.
its attempts to exercise that kind of control (i.e., over PBS) have been firmly rebuffed
And yet Dinesh D'sousa and mouthpieces of The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are given air time as though they weren't proven liars and slander-mongers.
Posted by: Jeff | Dec 06, 2007 at 08:42 PM
Why is this believed to be some particular special crazy with religion? It isn't remotely.
Assuming for a moment we accept that you're right, it only reinforces the argument. I don't want to give any crazy people special rights. In fact, let me be perfectly clear here, even if I didn't think we were all a little bit crazy, I'd want that applied to everyone anyway. If some people get to make their own rules, then everyone should get to make their own rules, and if everyone makes their own rules, that's no sort of democracy I'm familiar with.
I understand that when Fred thinks "religious freedom" he's thinking tolerance, policemen not running about in a mosque in muddy shoes, preachers not being arrested for telling others what their God promises for them in the next life, that sort of thing. But you don't need religious freedom for that, there's no reason why religion needs to come into it at all. The police shouldn't be running about with muddy shoes in an art gallery. They oughtn't to arrest people for telling others about Communism and what will happen after the revolution, and so on. Religious freedom is a red herring, and a dangerous one.
Posted by: Jon | Dec 06, 2007 at 10:22 PM
"Based on the 11 points above, how would you rate the U.S. at the moment?"
Wow, you guys are so lenient.
• Asserts substantial control over the media: -Yes.
FOX of course, but also to a lesser degree MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Hearst Newspapers, and even "independently owned" major metro newspapers such as my hometown Seattle Times. I say this because in addition to providing a constant platform for the Krauthammers, O'Reilly's, Pat Robertsons, Ollie Norths, Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world (with the occasional liberal thrown in so they can defend themselves against bias charges), these agencies routinely decide what NOT to print as news. We don't hear follow-ups to the 9-11 report. We don't see coffins coming home from the war, we don't hear about arrested journalists, cases such as Jena six get skimpy time, we don't hear about NPSD 51 (handing over complete control of the government in the case of a "catastrophic emergency" to the President and VP).
Fortunately we have smaller entities that are still allowed to dissent, but it's clear that there are limits on what big media can put out as news, and how much dissent is allowed, and it's clear that those limits are set by a ruling elite. The internet got out from under them, but they are working on reigning it (us) in. Imagine if the internet explosion didn't happen, and we still had only the MSM. The control is unmistakable.
• Uses television as a blunt instrument to prop up the regime and discredit its opponents - Yes.
Again, same culprits. The director of programming for PBS is the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Are you seriously going to say that had nothing to do with her job appointment? I stopped listening to NPR after the umpteenth instance of "All Things Considered" was "seriously" discussing Intelligent Design, and running special segments on "faith-based initiatives" in the schools. Puh-leeeze.
• Ensures that television stations are in the hands of the state or state sympathizers - yes
Actually 1,2,and 3 here are all one thing, so this gets a Yes too. Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, etc...
• Subjects journalists to defamation suits for even minor criticism of the regime - so far they've used arrests and character assassination.
• Restricts journalists' access to government officials - yes
Scripted White House press conferences, anyone?
• Arrests journalists - yes
Read over at Democracy now "Imprisoned Journalist Josh Wolf Released After Record 225 Days in Jail". He had participated with a group of protesters and wrote about it. He spent time in jail for refusing to hand over the protesters identities to the authorittes. None of the protesters had committed any crimes, and none had any warrants out for them.
• Bans or limits opposition protests or rallies - Yes
For example, trying to establish "protest zones" well away from events (and for the last GOP convention, actually fencing off the whole "protest zone"). Downplay or omission of reporting protests and the protest viewpoint, even if the demonstration is massive.
• Detains and beats opposition leaders - so far just using softer techniques such as shutting candidates like Nader, Kucinich, and Paul out of debates because they are seen as "non-mainstream". However, there are those pesky assassinations that just never seem to be satisfactorily solved....1/2 here.
• Maintains power through electoral fraud -yes
Diebold, anyone? Florida 2000? Ohio 2004?
• Invokes threats to national security as a part of their general press crackdowns - yes
9-11, 9-11,9-11,9-11,9-11,9-119-11,9-11,9-11,etc..Fight'em over there...etc...Iran, Iran, Chavez, OBL (choose any one) are grave threats...etc...
• Censors the Internet - 1/2
From the Truthout site:
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing
Delivery of Truthout Communications
UPDATE: 09.20.07:12:noon:pdt
This maybe gets one-half, because they are trying hard, but we're beating them back just barely with last-minute letter-writing and protest campaigns.
They call it "consolidation". We call it "control". Upshot: less stations, less diversity of opinion, less citizen participation.
I'm calling it 9 out of 11. Or "9/11", if you prefer.
Posted by: | Dec 06, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Regarding the concept of religious freedom, I think it's part and parcel of the separation of church and state. Religions are not entirely free to act, in the same way that personal "freedom" in the United States is not anarchic lack of constraint: "the right to swing your fist ends at the point of another person's nose," as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. puts it. In the same way, although people are considered free to worship, they cannot impose religious constraints on others by, for instance, refusing to allow evolution to be taught in the public schools. (Private evangelical schools can refuse to teach evolution if they see fit, with the understanding that colleges may not accept their science course credits as a result of that choice.)
In other words, religion is free the same way that speech is free. Claiming that religious freedom allows groups who feel that their religion is opposed to, for instance, gay marriage or the teaching of evolution to demand that such things not exist is somewhat equivalent to claiming that free speech should allow anyone who feels that no one should disagree with their opinion to legislate the silence of their opponents. But religious freedom, in the sense that people should not be punished by the government for personal religious practices, is as valid and important a concept as freedom of speech, in the sense that people should not be punished by the government for voicing an unpopular opinion. ...basically, what I'm trying to say is that freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, is for you AND the people with whom you disagree. The misuse of the term doesn't make it useless.
(I'll pass on the eleven-point checklist. It's a bit too subjective, and I've been out of the country for a few years.)
Posted by: jetkestrel | Dec 06, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Assuming for a moment we accept that you're right,
That was my main point, so that's up to you. :3
it only reinforces the argument. I don't want to give any crazy people special rights.
It's not special rights. Freedom of religion is freedom of belief, not freedom of Those People Over There with a specific kind of belief that allows for crazy. Much like what jetkestrel said: like freedom of speech, if you allow someone to pick and choose who gets it, it isn't freedom any longer.
In fact, let me be perfectly clear here, even if I didn't think we were all a little bit crazy, I'd want that applied to everyone anyway. If some people get to make their own rules, then everyone should get to make their own rules, and if everyone makes their own rules, that's no sort of democracy I'm familiar with.
So where would you draw the line at "crazy people's beliefs", and why? To whom would you give the ability to do that, and why?
The problem you're talking about seems to be that people acting on their beliefs can theoretically be actions that threaten social harmony. I still don't see why that specifically has anything to do with religion, or even weird beliefs; on the regulation end, that's what just about every political position accuses every other political position of; on the practical end, rarely is religious freedom interpreted, even by people who strongly believe in it, to extend to things like human sacrifice or even reasonably-avoidable negligence.
Freedom of assembly usually doesn't extend to packing thousands of people in a place that can only hold a couple hundred, either.
I understand that when Fred thinks "religious freedom" he's thinking tolerance, policemen not running about in a mosque in muddy shoes, preachers not being arrested for telling others what their God promises for them in the next life, that sort of thing. But you don't need religious freedom for that, there's no reason why religion needs to come into it at all. The police shouldn't be running about with muddy shoes in an art gallery. They oughtn't to arrest people for telling others about Communism and what will happen after the revolution, and so on.
All right, it could potentially be subsumed under the other freedoms. That probably works. Can you elaborate on that?
For that matter, if it could be subsumed under the other freedoms, what's the problem?
Religious freedom is a red herring, and a dangerous one.
And why is it dangerous?
Posted by: not someone else | Dec 07, 2007 at 12:13 AM
'So "religious freedom", to the extent that it means any more than recognising the fact that the government can't change people's beliefs, is actually anti-democratic.'
You have a strange understanding of 'religious freedom' - probably because the term 'freedom of conscience' is not in favor in anyone's discussion.
A society has laws, its member follow those laws, or work to change them. For example, black Amish horse carts must have reflectors for night travel in Pennsylvania. When an Amish man with a very narrow interpretation was ticketed repeatedly on the public roads at night, and then jailed, he was not forced to wear an orange jumper. He followed his beliefs, to the potential harm of others. He was free to follow his conscience, and society had its responsibilities to enforce rules for its members in general. However, his religious beliefs were taken into account while jailed, because there is an awareness that freedom of conscience is something to respect, when sincerely believed and not merely used as justification for acts that benefit the person performing them. A certain Cassius Clay comes to mind, or John Milton, to show two very different ideas of people paying for their beliefs without buckling their principles.
Sadly, we seem to have lost all appreciation for the idea that freedom is not free, along with the truth that no force on Earth can stop a person from praying privately, or among others who share that belief.
Posted by: not_scottbot | Dec 07, 2007 at 02:00 AM
Well, some of us prefer to go by independently confirmed incidents instead of hearsay, conspiracy theory, and misappropriated blame. To each his own, I guess.
Posted by: Turcano | Dec 07, 2007 at 02:27 AM
Still, national control of the media and violent suppression of dissent aren't excusable traits.
Fortunately, we haven't seen either yet [in Venezuela]. We have seen the license to broadcast over the public airwaves revoked for a network that actively participated in an attempted military overthrow of the government; I doubt that would be much of a surprise anywhere.
Chavez's failed referendum package contained some seriously fishy items related to media control.
Posted by: mcc | Dec 07, 2007 at 02:38 AM
the administration has little real control over the media that isn't covered by other criteria, and its attempts to exercise that kind of control (i.e., over PBS) have been firmly rebuffed.
I somewhat doubt that Bill Moyers, for example, would altogether agree with that interpretation of the Bush Administration's relationship to PBS.
Posted by: mcc | Dec 07, 2007 at 02:48 AM
Tomlinson was taken to task for his shenanigans; I don't know enough about Feree or Halpern to form an opinion on their work, so I could be wrong on that count.
Posted by: Turcano | Dec 07, 2007 at 03:12 AM
Religious freedom means that you can establish a religious community and practice religion. In most cases, a religious community is about the same as any assemblage of citizens. In some cases however, the religious quality of the assembly might require the state making special allowances to certain rules so as not to hinder anyone's worship. For example, can a 14-year-old drink wine when celebrating Holy Communion? Obviously, this is against the usual practice of limiting alcohol consumption to persons over 21 or 18 years of age. A person can truly believe that it's his salvation we are talking about. In this case, you usually allow the underage drinking, provided that it takes place under the conditions of worship, sacramentally. (Not likely to cause a hazard to public health and safety.)
Religious ideas are usually crazy, if you don't belong to the religion supporting them. You can't rationalize them to other people. That is why you must make some special allowances for people who belong to different religions, allowances that exceed the boudaries of usual freedom of assembly. Of course, the question is: what is a religion? In Finland, we deem that a religious community may be founded by 20 full-aged persons who submit a founding charter to the Ministry of Education. After that, the religious community is required to report its all members to the national population database, for the purpose of making sure that no one belongs to two religions at the same time (unless both communities allow it). In addition, the religious community may have a less democratic governance than a usual non-profit organization. (E.g. voting rights invested solely in male members.) Then, a religious community enjoys full support of the state. E.g it is a crime punishable with a three-month prison sentence to openly blaspheme against anything that a religious community holds sacred.
Posted by: Lurker | Dec 07, 2007 at 04:21 AM
All right, it could potentially be subsumed under the other freedoms. That probably works. Can you elaborate on that?
Anything that religious people desire to be able to do, is either acceptable, in which case you can permit everyone to do it regardless of religion, or it is prohibited, in which case why should it matter that you believe a man was crucified and then resurrected ? It is common for governments to regulate drinking alcohol, playing amplified music, and even dancing. But in a democracy a church can obtain a license for these things just as easily as a tavern or a hotel event space can.
The practise of granting special exceptions to churches or other religious organisations (or religious people) creates a division in the community, and this division serves no legitimate purpose of the state. Historically it comes about because the Church was very powerful. But a historical precedent is not evidence of a compelling need.
Meanwhile, thank you, Lurker for making my point...
A person can truly believe that it's his salvation we are talking about. In this case, you usually allow the underage drinking, provided that it takes place under the conditions of worship, sacramentally.
Summary: Religious people don't have to obey the rules, they're special.
Want to let your teenage son's friends have a glass of champagne each at New Year while you watch the fireworks? Prison for you. But your neighbours, who favour a goat-horned God, get to pass round the wine to neighbourhood kids every Thursday evening under protection of the state because it's a religious rite for them. What's fair about that? What you'd want from a democracy is a more rational framework in the first place. If it's OK to give 14 year olds wine under adult supervision then it's OK regardless of where it happens. If you instead make a special exception whether it's for "Sports clubs" or "Religious organisations" you are making your society less fair, rather than more fair.
Then, a religious community enjoys full support of the state. E.g it is a crime punishable with a three-month prison sentence to openly blaspheme against anything that a religious community holds sacred.
So, now, because I said something that other people don't agree with, and they remembered to say the magic word "sacred". I go to jail. This is why I described religious freedom as dangerous. It's not about freedom for one group, it's about oppression for absolutely everyone else. Blasphemy laws are very real, although the degree of enforcement and the types of punishment varies.
It's not enough that I can say "The President is a Crook", and print posters that say "Ban Gay Sex", I must also be able to say "Mohammad lied to you", and print a pamphlet called "Christians: The Conspiracy". In a democracy I am not guaranteed anyone will print my pamphlets, so I might have to buy my own printing press and I am certainly not guaranteed anyone will read them. But I must be allowed to say what I believe, to anyone who will listen, without being imprisoned for it or beaten up. Regardless of whether it's about Heroes or Kings, about Judges or Popes, about Gods or Demons.
Posted by: Jon | Dec 07, 2007 at 08:17 AM
Well, some of us prefer to go by independently confirmed incidents instead of hearsay, conspiracy theory, and misappropriated blame. To each his own, I guess.
So I was correct in assuming I could smell the crazy through the computer monitor on that one. I just skipped it as soon as I got the scent. Awesome.
But your neighbours, who favour a goat-horned God, get to pass round the wine to neighbourhood kids every Thursday evening under protection of the state because it's a religious rite for them.
Um, handing out wine to kids just because they happen to live in the same neighborhood isn't so much legal. In the US we do have a concept of the difference between "religious freedom" and "letting religious people get away with murder."
Taking that quote to its logical extent would result in abortion clinic bombers getting off scott-free because they were doing it out of religious conviction. That has not happened in the past and will not begin happening in the forseeable future.
Posted by: Geds | Dec 07, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Well, some of us prefer to go by independently confirmed incidents instead of hearsay, conspiracy theory, and misappropriated blame. To each his own, I guess.
So I was correct in assuming I could smell the crazy through the computer monitor on that one. I just skipped it as soon as I got the scent. Awesome.
But your neighbours, who favour a goat-horned God, get to pass round the wine to neighbourhood kids every Thursday evening under protection of the state because it's a religious rite for them.
Um, handing out wine to kids just because they happen to live in the same neighborhood isn't so much legal. In the US we do have a concept of the difference between "religious freedom" and "letting religious people get away with murder."
Taking that quote to its logical extent would result in abortion clinic bombers getting off scott-free because they were doing it out of religious conviction. That has not happened in the past and will not begin happening in the forseeable future.
Posted by: Geds | Dec 07, 2007 at 09:52 AM
The claims of Russia's "authoritarianism" are nonsense. They come because Russia doesn't do as Westerners order her to do, as she did during the 1990s- at devastating cost to average Russians. The OSCE withdrew from monitoring Russia's elections not becuas ethey were unfair, but because they were *fair* and the "bad guy" was going to win in a rout.
Beckya57 is right- the shrub has at least as strong a claim to "authoritarianism" as Putin (and Putin has repeatedly noted this). The difference between Putin and Bush is that Putin has governed effectively, while even our conservative media couldn't protect the shrub from his own disinterest in governing.
Posted by: Brian J. | Dec 07, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Freudian slip, no?
Posted by: Turcano | Dec 07, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Geds: Um, handing out wine to kids just because they happen to live in the same neighborhood isn't so much legal. In the US we do have a concept of the difference between "religious freedom" and "letting religious people get away with murder."
Um, handing out wine to kids is perfectly legal even in the US so long as it's done as part of a religious ritual. First Communion in the Anglican Church involves taking a small drink of wine from the common cup, and as I understand it, children can take First Communion as young as ten. Are there any known instances of Anglican priests being prosecuted for giving Holy Communion to Americans under the age of 21?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Dec 08, 2007 at 05:38 AM
"...Joe Biden is now the third best bet for the nomination. I'm hearing a lot of buzz about him from people who pay attention."
- Chris Matthews, MSNBC (12/10/07)
The Biden for President Campaign would like YOU to go to IOWA. This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity would allow you to see a caucus and presidential campaign first-hand in the earliest voting state. We need your help, so please join us as we strive to get Senator Biden elected the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Dates: Anytime between December 14, 2007 - January 4th, 2008
Accommodations: Provided by the campaign. (Contact for more details)
Please join us for this INCREDIBLE opportunity. If you would like to find out more information, please e-mail our campaign: Becky McAndrews at Becky@joebiden.com or Josh Kagan at Joshua@joebiden.com with the subject line: IOWA. You may also call the campaign at (302) 574-2008!
Thank you and we hope to see you out in IOWA!
- The Biden for President Team
Posted by: STEW | Dec 14, 2007 at 03:30 PM