www jiliko bet
America held a free and fair election in which the majority’s preference for Donald Trump was clearly registered and will be respected. Unlike 2016, his election is no Electoral College fluke. If democracy depends solely on majority rule, democracy was on the ballot and it won. At least for now. The Associated Press notes: “The Republican candidate won by holding onto his traditional coalition — white voters, voters without a college degree and older voters — while making crucial gains among younger voters and Black and Hispanic men.” In addition, “A majority of voters in this election did not have a college degree, and most of those non-college-educated voters backed Trump. He won 55% of voters without a college degree, compared with about 4 in 10 who chose Harris.” Voters knew what they were getting when they cast their ballots for Trump. As The New Yorker’s David Remnick explains, “Trump’s reelection, his victory over Kamala Harris, can no longer be ascribed to a failure of the collective imagination. He is the least mysterious public figure alive; he has been announcing his every disquieting tendency, relentlessly, publicly, for decades.” Leah Wright Rigueur, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University, said the democratic processes won: “The 2024 presidential election was fundamentally, as far as I understand, an example of democracy in action. Trump won the Electoral College. Trump won the popular votes.’” In the recently completed campaign, Trump did not run as an anti-democratic leader. In the past he has even said that “democracy is the most effective form of government.“ But in his run for the White House, Trump complained that this country does not “have much of a democracy right now.” He presented himself as committed to changing that by being a vehicle for an unfiltered, pure expression of popular sovereignty, impatient with the procedures and niceties of representative government and of the so-called deep state. Remember “I alone can fix it” and “I am your justice ... I am your retribution.” Or this year’s barrage of Trump ads ending: “Harris cares about they/them. Trump cares about you.” His election signals a turn to what political scientists call “plebiscitary leader-democracy” and away from “liberal democracy.” In this form, the leader “engages with the electorate in demagogic (ways) rather than the canalization of interests into party political platforms.” Liberal democracy, on the other hand, balances majority rule with representative institutions and respect for minority rights. Trump’s election suggests that the United States is “heading for a crisis of political legitimacy. In part this is because of the conflict between the modalities of direct democracy (leadership plebiscites and the use of referendums) and that of representative democracy. In plebiscitary democracy, those in government must obey ‘the will of the people’ as interpreted by the leader and his clique.” That is why Trump and his advisors are claiming that his popular vote victory “changes everything.” After the election, the president-elect crowed that “America has given (the MAGA movement) an unprecedented and powerful mandate.” As CNN reports, Trump‘s people are “arguing it gives the president-elect confidence to enact his agenda without fear of alienating a broad swath of the country. ... ’Winning the popular vote,’” said Jason Miller, one of Trump’s key campaign advisors, “’provides a mandate and a national public confidence to accomplish what he wants to do from the Oval Office.’” In plebiscitary leader-democracy, the leader governs boldly, not modestly, and is eager to impose his will as the guiding force in government. Sam Whimster, a British democracy activist, explains that “A plebiscitary leader is elected as a strong personality who will override the conventions and if necessary the constitutional rules — in order to get things done. ... The state is no longer (seen as) a rational apparatus of delivery and support of the citizen but instead cast as a burden on the preference-choosing citizen.” Trump’s commitment to a plebiscitary form of rule is echoed in the concerns of millions of his voters who embraced his form of “strong leadership.” Post-election surveys show that Trump voters, not just Harris voters, were concerned about the fate and future of American democracy. Half of all those who cast ballots “identified democracy as the single most important motivating factor for their vote.” The idea that democracy is under attack also “motivated Trump voters, but in starkly different ways. About one-third of his supporters said democracy was the most important factor for their vote. ... About 8 in 10 Trump voters felt electing Harris would bring the country closer to authoritarianism.” The Boston Globe quotes one Trump voter who said, “’I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said when people fear their government, there is tyranny. We had tyranny under the Biden-Harris machine.’” The election results showed, as Yale’s Jason Stanley observes, that “In a democracy, anyone is free to run for office, including people who are thoroughly unsuitable to lead or preside over the institutions of government.” At the same time, when the majority made their choice, they rejected America’s longstanding commitment to the version of democracy in which the power of the majority is tempered by respect for minority and individual rights. Writing in 2021, Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution captured the animating spirit of liberal democracy when he said that it depends on the willingness of citizens to “value the rights of others who are unlike you as much as you value your own.” Kagan went on to observe that “Most Trump supporters are good parents, good neighbors, and solid members of their communities. ... (T)hese are normal people.” But they bought into the Trump campaign’s invitation for them to be “zealous in defense of their own rights and freedoms” and to be “less concerned about the rights and freedoms of those who are not like them.” A majority of the voters worried more about their economic security than about what would happen to migrants, transgender people or other targets of Trump’s rage. But whatever their motives, it is well known that at the birth of the American Republic, the Founders worried about what would happen if what Alexander Hamilton called “oppressive combinations of a majority” got their way. In 2024 that is exactly what happened. And while they are mostly silent today about majority tyranny, in the recent past even Republican devotees of Donald Trump expressed concerns about the tension between majoritarian and liberal democracy. For example, in 2020, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee said, “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.” At that time Lee wrote: “The word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few.’ He added: “Government is the official use of coercive force — nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.” As the second Trump administration unfolds, Lee’s convictions will be put to the test. Time will tell if he and others like him will stand by the commitment to our “constitutional republic” and his worry about “the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few” or trade that commitment in for plebiscitary democracy now that his preferred leader has been returned to power. In the meantime, Americans will be receiving a civics lesson in the wisdom of the Founders and their commitment to liberal democracy.
Cardinals' feel-good month comes to a screeching halt after a head-scratching loss to Seahawks
The government of Israel has ordered an official boycott of an Israeli newspaper Haaretz , accusing it of supporting "enemies of the state” and of “incitement against the state of Israel”. Enemies of the state On Nov. 24, the office of Israel’s Communications Minister, Sholmo Karhi, posted on social media that the Israeli government would stop funding Haaretz . Screenshot via X The Guardian reported that this would mean that the newspaper would no longer receive government advertising, nor would any government officials or persons working for government-funded bodies interact with it. The post said that the government of Israel would not allow “a reality in which the publisher of an official newspaper” in Israel could “call for the imposition of sanctions against (the state of Israel)” and supporting “the enemies of the state in the midst of a war”. The post defended the move, claiming that Israel "advocate(s) a free press and freedom of expression" saying the government had the "freedom" to "not fund incitement against" itself. Haaretz is a notably left-wing newspaper, in contrast to Israel's current, decidedly right-wing government, and is Israel’s oldest newspaper, having been set up in 1919. It has long been critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not just in the present moment, but in most of his previous stints as PM. It has been especially critical of the current iteration of his government, and that sentiment has been maintained through the attacks by Hamas on Oct. 7. Shocken reaction This latest reaction against the newspaper is ostensibly a reaction against comments made by the Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken. Schocken recently spoke at a conference in London, and is quoted by his own paper as saying “[The Israeli government] dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.” Haaretz , reporting on the boycott of itself, said that the Israeli government’s explanation was that the boycott was a reaction to Haaretz’s editorials, and to Shocken’s remarks in specific. Shocken’s remarks, particularly the part that appeared to say “terrorists” were “freedom fighters”, were met with “widespread public outcry", according to Haaretz . That outcry included an opinion article and editorial in Haaretz itself, which rejected the notion that Hamas fighters were freedom fighters. The outcry forced the publisher to clarify that he was referring to the situation in the West Bank, which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority. As to the situation in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, he said “As for Hamas, they are not freedom fighters, as their ideology essentially states ‘It’s all ours, others should leave’. Legitimate, but disliked, efforts The situation reflects the complicated and fractured nature of Israeli politics at the moment. At the same time as being united about some topics, for example the Haaretz editorial said that the “planners and perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre must be severely punished”, there are also many points of disagreement. In the same editorial, Haaretz describes efforts, particularly by the Palestinian Authority, to encourage an international economic boycott of Israel as "legitimate", “even if many Israelis dislike them”. The replies to Karhi’s tweet highlight the divide, with some responses praising the move. Screenshot via X Still, many others accuse the government of authoritarianism, as well as complaining about the government’s failure to recover the remaining hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, taken over a year ago on Oct. 7. Screenshot via X Screenshot via X Haaretz understandably reacted unfavourably to the news, condemning the decision as an "opportunist resolution”. Such moves are usually presented to the Israeli cabinet with a legal opinion supplied by the Attorney General, but this was not done in this case, and was passed by the cabinet without “any legal review”. The paper compared the Netanyahu government with that of other leaders it considered similarly autocratic, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban. Haaretz said Israel’s government was attempting to similarly silence a “critical, independent newspaper”, but it would not “baulk and will not morph into a government pamphlet", only publishing messages approved by the government. Related story Top image via Shlomo Karhi/Facebook & Haaretz/Facebook( MENAFN - IANS) Seoul, Dec 13 (IANS) The transport Ministry said on Friday it will conduct a flight demonstration of a commercial-level air taxi model this week, as part of a government project to introduce the urban air mobility (UAM) industry in the country. The ministry will demonstrate the operation of the S-4 model built by U.S. electric aircraft manufacturer Joby Aviation Inc. at the Korea Aerospace Research Institute's aviation center in Goheung, about 330 kilometers south of Seoul, on Saturday. The demonstration is part of the K-UAM Grand Challenge, a government-led demonstration program that will test UAM vehicle safety and traffic management capabilities for commercial services, reports Yonhap news agency. The deployment of the S-4, capable of carrying a pilot and up to four passengers, will mark the first use of a commercial-level UAM aircraft in the country. The demonstration will include testing with UAM operational technologies, such as those involving flight management and air traffic, developed by a consortium formed by SK Telecom Co., Korea Airports Corp. and Hanwha Systems Co. Meanwhile, the government has pledged comprehensive support toward a pilot program for a commercial air taxi service on the southern resort island of Jeju. The Jeju Special Self-Governing Province aims to launch the pilot programme on Jeju Island in 2025 in partnership with an urban air mobility (UAM) consortium comprised of public and private firms, including SK Telecom and Hanwha Systems. The government and the province plan to establish vertiports for air taxi takeoffs and landings initially in three locations: Jeju International Airport, Seongsan Port in Seogwipo and the Jungmun Tourist Complex. The pilot operation will focus on verifying the safety and commercial viability of UAM routes based at these locations. Jeju plans to apply for the designation of UAM pilot operation zones in 2025. -IANS na/ MENAFN12122024000231011071ID1108988680 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
CEO killer suspect: golden boy who soured on US health systemTech tip: How to get started with Bluesky
How DNA technology solved a 48-year-old Oklahoma murder caseNone
Vancouver Island First Nation whose ancestors met explorer Capt. Cook sue provinceNoneTinubu makes key appointments in NUC, NEPAD others to strengthen educational and devt. institutions
Source: Mizzou's Nwaneri to transfer to HuskersBroncos defensive Zach Allen is questionable to play in Sunday’s road matchup against the Raiders due to a heel injury. Allen was a limited participant on Wednesday due to rest. He practiced fully on Thursday and was once again limited on Friday because of the injury. If Allen is unable to play, that would be a significant loss to Denver’s defense, which ranks first in sacks (39) and second in pressures (164). Allen, who hasn’t missed a game since 2022 as a member of the Cardinals, has been one of the top defensive linemen in the league this season. He has five sacks and 46 pressures — tied for seventh in the league. In other injury news, safety Brandon Jones is expected to suit up for Denver’s divisional matchup after missing last week’s victory over the Falcons due to an abdominal injury. He was a full participant at practice for the last two days after being limited on Wednesday. Left guard Ben Powers (shoulder) should be good to go, as well. Even though Powers was sidelined on Wednesday and limited on Thursday, he was a full participant in Denver’s final practice before traveling to Las Vegas. Linebacker Drew Sanders (Achilles) and wide receiver Josh Reynolds (finger) were both ruled out and will not be activated from injured reserve. Reynolds was placed on the injured reserve last month after undergoing minor finger surgery. The veteran wide receiver was also shot in an incident that occurred around 3 a.m. Oct. 18 in Denver, The shooting happened after he and two other men were followed upon leaving Shotgun Willies, a strip club in Glendale, according to the affidavit. Broncos head coach Sean Payton said the offense has spent an extensive amount of time on the protection plan in preparation for Raiders star edge rusher Maxx Crosby. “Are we sliding this way? Are we nudging?” Payton said. “That requires some (time).” Crosby has caused problems for the Broncos throughout his career. He has totaled 15.5 sacks in 11 games against Denver. Crosby racked up two in the previous matchup between both teams in Week 5. “One thing about him is his motor never stops,” quarterback Bo Nix said. “He plays every snap really hard, and he tries to get in everyone’s head...He’s really good. One of the best in the league.” The Raiders offense is in flux due to changes in the coaching staff. And their secondary is pretty banged up, with cornerbacks Jakorian Bennett (shoulder) and Nate Hobbs (ankle) ruled out for Sunday’s contest. But one thing the Broncos can count on is Crosby being a game-wrecker on the edge. “I know there’s two important numbers, 98 (Crosby) and 89 (tight end Brock Bowers),” Payton said.
New ancient pyramid found at the side of a road part of settlment around 14,000 years old
Analysis-Legal hurdles ahead for Google's forced sale of Chrome
- Previous: jiliko world
- Next: 60 jili
