Sometimes, in order to be hawkish for democracy, you need to be a bit of a dove, too. This is the case I will be making for the US to deal with the undemocratic Syrian regime. This semester, while taking a global studies class, I got to know one of my classmates whose grandmother has not had reliable access to food or medicine for years due to the on-going civil war. And after a once-in-a-century deadly earthquake earlier this year, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

After hearing stories like my classmate’s, I’m writing this op-ed to convince you that the US should normalize relations with Syria. There are two reasons why this is the case: first, it would increase stability and humanitarian conditions in the country; and second, it would moderate the Syria’s international behavior, countering the autocratic influence of states like Iran and Russia  and fostering economic growth — growth that could alleviate the current economic and humanitarian crisis in Syria.

US engagement will create incentives for the Assad regime to accept the reforms necessary for the country to access  reconstruction funding from the EU. If sanctions aren’t working to change Assad’s Behavior, maybe it is time to show what the regime can gain from cooperation. The United Nations special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, has already endorsed normalization, calling for increased engagement in a step-by-step approach. This means making various concessions to the Assad regime gradually over the course of many years in exchange for regime change.

Normalizing relations would also improve the effectiveness of humanitarian aid delivery. Currently, the UN limits the cross-border delivery of aid to just one border crossing. Normalization could alter the relationship between the US and Syria allowing for aid to cross through multiple entry points unhindered. Keeping the status quo means leaving Syrians to die as 80 percent of Syrians live below the poverty line and are at risk from starvation.

Normalization won’t be a free pass for Assad. It would  be contingent on the Assad regime’s support of UN Resolution 2254 and instituting free and fair elections. Assad would be free to run in the election following normalized relations, but this election would be a referendum on his handling of the civil war.

We must accept that, however terrible it is, the US might need to cooperate with the Assad regime for the good of the Syrian people and enduring regional stability. In the immediate future, cooperation can help the US encourage a cease-fire between the Assad regime and rebels while removing chemical weapons. As for the long-term, the US can support negotiations for the safe return of Syrian refugees, support political reform, and contain the power of regional rivals, like  Russia and Iran.

Furthermore, coordinating with Syria will help Washington regain its role as a leader in regional diplomacy. Trying to stop normalization is a losing game and the US should not be left on the sidelines. Failure to engage will undermine the US’s regional position and its position in Syria. The recent moves to pull troops out of Syria means that once they leave, Russia, China, and Iran will move in, meaning that it might be best to strike a deal now before it is too late. 

Hopefully, we can move towards a day when my classmate’s grandmother finally gets the medical care she deserves and Syria is a country where — as the World Health Organization’s envisioned in its 1946 constitution — “[T]he highest attainable standard of health [is] a fundamental right of every human being.”

The post The Case for Normalizing Relations with Syria first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

Before the law, there were thousands of black-box companies that neither the government nor banks knew anything about. These anonymous organizations were and still are used by money launderers and tax avoiders — your “drug cartels, oligarchs, despots and the global elite” — to sustain an innumerable amount of illegal activity, some of which most certainly impinge on democracy and its advocates. But even though CTA is now on the books, if the Treasury Department does not get the details right, such as making it easy for law enforcement and banks to cancel and investigate shady transactions, then that is all the Act will ever be — another stack of government paper.

Identifying the owners of shell companies is not the silver bullet that will kill financial crime writ large, but it is definitely an important first step for the United States. It is also the bare minimum, given that most other developed countries already require this level of transparency from their businesses.

Read the full ICIJ article here: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/u-s-treasury-faces-a-wave-of-criticism-over-faltering-push-to-unmask-anonymous-companies-and-track-dirty-money/

The post ICIJ Reports Treasury Department is Failing to Track Dirty Money first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

Under the rule of President Nayib Bukele, El Salvador has become increasingly authoritarian, posing a grave threat to its fragile democratic system. El Salvador has really only had a (relatively) democratic system since 1992, after its bloody 12-year civil war had ended with UN-mediated peace talks. Until 2019, the two biggest political parties were the conservative Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) and the left-wing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). While the political system was marred with accusations of corruption and incompetence, there were free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power between the two main parties. In addition, the judiciary was generally considered to be independent. However, Bukele has eviscerated judicial independence, consolidated power for himself, and systematically violated the human rights of tens of thousands of Salvadoran citizens.

In 2021, after winning a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly, Bukele’s Nuevas Ideas (NI) party removed and replaced 5 justices from the Supreme Court of El Salvador without any reasonable cause. In addition, the legislature then appointed 5 additional justices to the Supreme Court, in direct violation of Salvadoran law, which only allows each iteration of the legislature to appoint 5 justices. Unsurprisingly, the new Supreme Court, now packed with Bukele loyalists, ruled that Bukele could run for re-election, even though the Salvadoran Constitution explicitly prohibits it. Having all 3 branches of the government (executive, legislative, judicial) under his control, Bukele is getting dangerously close to bringing El Salvador to a one-party state. The 19th-century British politician Lord Acton famously wrote that: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No matter one’s opinion of Bukele’s personality, political ideology, or proposed policies, it is undemocratic to suggest that one man or even one party should have free reign over an entire country’s political system for even a short period of time. It is legitimate for the Salvadoran electorate to show their support for NI by giving them a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly and Bukele the presidency. It is odious and illiberal, however, for Bukele to pack the Supreme Court with loyalists to unconstitutionally give himself a consecutive second term. If Bukele is truly such an inspiring and popular figure, then surely he can wait a few years to run again.

Perhaps more immediately alarming is the fact that President Bukele has ordered the arbitrary and extrajudicial arrests of tens of thousands of Salvadorans with suspected ties to organized crime. Due to the state of exception that the NI-controlled legislature approved (and has continuously renewed), police are allowed to arrest suspects without a warrant and not inform them of the reason for their arrest, as well as allowing suspects to be detained for up to 15 days without being charged. It has been alleged that police have targeted individuals for arrest based on their appearance or place of residence, with many young men from impoverished neighborhoods being arrested seemingly without reasonable cause. While being detained, suspects also do not have access to a lawyer. Bukele has also made some highly inappropriate comments regarding the alleged offenders that reflect a lack of respect for the separation of powers. He proclaimed that thousands of suspects being held at a new mega-prison would stay there for decades, even though they largely haven’t even been charged with a crime. Bukele, no criminologist himself, bizarrely tweeted that only 1 percent of arrestees were innocent, and that those “mistakes” would quickly be corrected. Putting aside the fact that unlawfully arresting someone is a serious human rights violation, not a mere “mistake,” the Bukele government has not been responsive to the demands of protestors who have called for the release of innocents, even though it has been more than a year since the start of the arrests. Distressingly, it seems that, based on anecdotal accounts, many former gang members who have turned their lives around have also been arrested. Bukele has acknowledged this, but, instead of promising their release, said that they must “face the consequences of their actions,” even though, in all likelihood, the police have no concrete involvement of their current involvement in gang activities. The human rights organization Cristosal estimated that only 30 percent of those arrested were actually gang members, further casting doubt on the effectiveness of Bukele’s strategy and his true motives behind this draconian crackdown.

While Bukele enjoys widespread support for his (likely unconstitutional) re-election, it is important to stress that the measures he has taken to ostensibly reduce crime are not only unethical, but also likely illegal under his own constitution. Article 29 of the Salvadoran constitution states that certain rights may be suspended “In cases of war, invasion of territory, rebellion, sedition, catastrophe, epidemic, or other general disaster, or serious disturbances of public order.” A 1997 decision by the Supreme Court found that an increase in crime rates did not constitute a valid reason to declare a state of exception, which should have closed the door on Bukele’s plan. However, since he has packed the court, it’s unlikely that it will find his policy unconstitutional. In addition, it should be noted that El Salvador’s state of exception is not even remotely comparable to the United States’ so-called “tough-on-crime” policies that started in the 1970s. “Tough-on-crime” meant more stringent laws, (significantly) longer prison sentences, and expanded police powers of search and seizure. It did not involve people being arrested and held without charge for extended periods of time, while being deprived of their right to legal counsel and to challenge the legality of their detention. It’s evident that Bukele does not want Salvadorans to know the truth about what is happening, as he has passed a law that criminalizes journalists for reporting on the country’s gangs. This has led to El Faro, a leading Salvadoran independent media outlet, deciding to relocate to Costa Rica for fear of government reprisal. Whenever a government wants to restrict the press from covering something of significance to the public, it’s a red flag for authoritarianism, since they are usually scared of journalists uncovering their unlawful activities.

Bukele’s authoritarian policies also directly threaten other Central American countries, bringing instability and chaos to an already-struggling region. Fearing the draconian nature of El Salvador’s crackdown, many alleged gang members have fled to neighboring countries like Guatemala, reportedly leading to an increase in crimes such as extortion. Given that Central American nations are already dealing with a substantial migration crisis, adding potentially dangerous gang members to the mix is like pouring fuel on a raging fire. Furthermore, Bukele has set a worrying precedent that other leaders in the region are emulating. President Xiomara Castro of Honduras, almost certainly copying Bukele, has also declared a state of exception and declared war against gangs. While the Honduran struggle with organized crime should not be minimized, there is ample reason to suggest that this is merely an attempt by Castro to counter criticism that she has not done enough to combat crime. While democratically-elected governments should always try to be responsive to public opinion, it is irresponsible to suspend the civil rights of certain citizens for electoral or PR purposes.

For these reasons, the United States should continue to document and call out El Salvador’s human rights violations. It is heartening that the US has already taken several steps to address the deteriorating situation in El Salvador, including condemning the law limiting reporting on gangs, speaking against Bukele’s removal of Supreme Court justices, and calling for the protection of civil and due process rights in light of the state of exception. It is unfortunate, though, that some opportunistic and ill-intentioned American lawmakers such as Marco Rubio have minimized human rights violations in El Salvador in an attempt to score domestic political points against President Biden. It might be worth mentioning to Senator Rubio that Bukele’s policies may actually exacerbate the migration crisis and diffuse Salvadoran gang members across the region (including the United States), outcomes that he surely wants to avoid. Fortunately, both the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of American States) have called for the full restoration of all rights suspended under the state of exception. However, more concrete and substantive action is required. For starters, the United States should sanction key Salvadoran government officials involved with the crackdown under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows for visa restrictions and the freezing of assets. The Act authorizes sanctions for anyone responsible for “extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” There have already been cases of torture that have been documented, and the arbitrary arrests and deprivation of civil rights surely fit the definition of “other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” In addition, the US should urge the UN Human Rights Council to investigate human rights violations in El Salvador and put pressure on the Bukele government to end its state of exception. 

Standing up to human rights abuses in El Salvador will not only send a clear message to the Bukele government, but will deter other governments in the region from going down the same path as Bukele. To be clear, the United States should not take any action in contravention of international law (such as a military intervention). In the 1960s and the 1980s, the US funded paramilitary groups as well as the Salvadoran military in an attempt to stop socialist guerilla groups. These were illegal and immoral efforts that resulted in the deaths of countless innocents. However, today, the United States is El Salvador’s main trading partner, and should use its influence to stop human rights violations rather than cause them.

The post El Salvador under Nayib Bukele: sacrificing freedom for security first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

The end of WW2 brought with it the end of all Japanese offensive military capabilities. For years, neighboring countries and the Japanese themselves were adamant on a military limited to defense and incapable of large-scale conflicts. Suggesting otherwise was taboo, but circumstances have changed. Military reform has been a contentious topic, nonetheless, gradual steps have been taken to rearm Japan. The “Defense Buildup Program” is the culmination of these efforts and the nation’s most ambitious military endeavor in recent times. According to the Japanese Ministry of Defense, the program aims to build a “Multi-Domain Defense Force” capable of operating in space, cyber, and electromagnetic fields with a particular focus on “the capabilities of our opponents and new ways of warfare.” The objective of the program is to make Japan independent in its defense within five years. To do this, defense spending has been expanded with the expenditure budget for 2023 alone amounting to ¥6,600.1 billion, an increase of 27.4 ％ compared to the previous year. By 2027, Japan expects to allocate 2% of its GDP towards defense, bringing its military spending on par with the NATO standard.

It would seem the dormant Japanese military has begun to awaken, but why? The 2023 Defense Programs and Budget of Japan report makes clear, “China’s current external stance, military activities, and other activities have become a matter of serious concern for Japan and the international community.” Japan is especially keen on protecting its interests from China, especially the shipping lanes providing much-needed oil and grain that cut right through the South China Sea. These vital shipping lanes are likely to be compromised should China ever take any action against Taiwan. Thus, Taiwan’s defense is Japan’s as well. More pressing is North Korea’s intensification of missile launches directly over Japan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, both of which have demonstrated the tangibility of authoritarianism in Japan’s backyard. Unsurprisingly, China has heavily criticized Japan’s build-up, and state media has seemingly undertaken a campaign warning of Japan’s return to militarism. The Global Times described the build-up as “deviating from the track of post-war peaceful development” and the China Daily echoed the pacifist sentiment of some Japanese who call the build-up “a first step toward a wartime regime.” Complementing these are reminders of Japanese atrocities during WW2, invoking not-too-distant memories in opposition. Backlash to the plan is not limited to former victim nations of Imperial Japan, some circles of Japanese society vehemently oppose the build-up; believing Japan should not stray from the constitutional restraints of Article 9.

However, taking no action to protect democracy in East Asia is folly. Japan’s military build-up serves to protect the nation’s interests and democracy in the region alike. Japan is the world’s oldest monarchy, with its imperial family tracing their lineage directly to the Japanese pantheon. But make no mistake, Japan is also a thriving democracy in the Pacific and a bastion of democratic values in East Asia. According to Freedom House, Japan scores a democratic rating of 96/100, considerably higher than the United States’ 83/100 and France’s 89/100. The nation has a multiparty parliament with free elections and protected political rights and civil liberties. These democratic values offer a strong wall of democratic resistance against authoritarianism. A wall that now more than ever is instrumental to the survival of democracy in the Pacific region. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan commended Japan saying, “Today, Japan has taken a bold and historic step to strengthen and defend the free and open Indo-Pacific.” A militarily strong Japan provides the United States with a powerful ally with similar democratic values in the region to counter authoritarian China, Russia, and North Korea. Japan also promotes democratic values in the region through its soft power and economic investments. Japan has contributed hundreds of billions in infrastructure with low interest rates to the likes of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia. By virtue of its democratic values, Japan offers a better alternative to China as a regional power that can bolster democracy in the region.

Japan’s military build-up is controversial. The nation’s past lingers as a reminder of the violent legacy of imperialism. However, the Japan of today is not the same as the Japan of a century ago. Likewise, the China and Russia of today are unrecognizable from those of a century ago, both have become authoritarian powers who have continuously proven their willingness to operate outside international norms and law. All the while, the Chinese military has continued to expand with Xi Jinping committing himself to the “reunification” of Taiwan and China. North Korean missiles have come too close for comfort, and it cannot be said they will not come closer. Amid these circumstances, Japan cannot be expected to keep its pacifist path, not only for its own protection but also for that of democracy in the region. Japan’s strong democracy necessitates an equally strong military capable of countering not only a physical invasion, but an ideological one as well. Thus, Japan must abide by the primeval truth in international relations: he who desires peace must prepare for war.

The post Protecting Democracy in the Pacific: Japan’s Military Build Up first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

BY: Spencer Merritt

Last week, American democracy was attacked  by not one rat but a whole nest of them. The rats in question are Tennessee’s House Republicans.

What happened?

Outraged by their legislature doing nothing in the wake of six people — three adults and three students — being murdered in yet another school shooting on Mar. 27, thousands of young Tennesseans marched inside the state capitol to peacefully protest. During the demonstration, three Democratic lawmakers, now being called the Tennessee Three, joined the protestors. The Democrats were Justin Person, Gloria Johnson and Justin Jones. Jones represents Nashville, where the shooting took place. As punishment for supporting the peaceful protestors, state house Republicans voted to expel the three Democrats. Tennessee’s constitution requires a two-thirds majority to expel a member. Only Gloria Johnson was not expelled, which she says is because she is white, while Jones and Person are Black. All 75 of Tennessee’s House Republicans voted to expel Jones and 69 voted to expel Person. The Democrats’ meager 25-member bloc was powerless to stop their republican tyrants. 

Let’s be clear about what happened here. Over 100,000 constituents across two districts lost political representation — the foundation of American democracy —  because Jones and Person exercised their First Amendment right. The Constitution gives Americans the right to “peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” More than a thousand young Americans peacefully assembled, demanding an end to gun violence. In response, their government fired two of the only three people actually representing them. It’s no wonder why Representative Jones said, “We don’t have a democracy in Tennessee.”

Justin Jones is right

Expelling Jones and Person is hardly the first crime against democracy committed by Tennessee’s Republican rats. In fact, data shows that Tennessee is the least democratic state in the country. Jake Grumbatch, a political science professor  at the University of Washington, created an index measuring democracy in every state, and in 2022 Tennessee came in dead last. One of Grumbatch’s metrics was the amount of state and federal-level gerrymandering. Unsurprisingly, Tennessee is the most gerrymandered state in the county. Research from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found that there is “not a single competitive seat in Tennessee”, meaning it is effectively impossible for Democrats to win a majority in Tennessee’s legislature. Thanks to Republicans, Tennessee is effectively under one-party rule, the sort of thing we associate with China and the former Soviet Union. 

Guess Who’s Back

Thankfully, democracy still lives in at least one place in Tennessee — Nashville. Nashville is in Jone’s district. Only four days after republicans expelled Jones the Nashville Metropolitan Council voted unanimously, 36-0, to send their man back to the legislature to fight another day. Within an hour of his reinstatement, Republican lawmakers had to watch Jones be sworn back into office. This resounding rebuke of this Republican act of tyranny is exactly what real representative democracy looks like. Upon his return, Representative Jones stood before the same Republicans who expelled him and said, “I want to welcome democracy back to the people’s house”  

The post The Tyrants of Tennessee  first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

Note: I throw the word fascism around a lot in this article, so if you want more context as to why I’m using it here, read this! – What even is fascism? And why you need to know.

A specter is haunting America, a specter of fascism. In 2016, I would have found a statement like that to be silly and over the top, but today, I write it with complete sincerity and dire urgency. I never liked Donald Trump, but when he was first elected and liberals on Twitter were calling themselves “The Resistance,” and CNN was decrying him as a threat to the free press, I considered it all overly dramatic. But that was all before thousands of Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol with the intent to assassinate the Vice President of the United States and prevent Joe Biden, who was legitimately elected by the American people, from becoming president. Those who stormed the Capitol on behalf of Donald Trump were affiliated with right-wing hate groups and/or terrorist organizations such as the Oath Keepers, QAnon, the Atomwaffen Division, the Proud Boys, the Patriot Movement, the Neo-Confederates and Holocaust deniers. 

Make no mistake, this was one of the single most pivotal and darkest moments in American history. It should be remembered with the same infamy as Pearl Harbor or 9/11. And yet it has not had the same impact as either of these events. September 11th brought the nation to a halt and Pearl Harbor sprung Americans into action; January 6th has not. This is not to say there has been no impact, since more than 1,000 insurrectionists have been charged, the DOJ has launched an investigation into Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, and, most importantly, Trump-backed election-denying candidates performed very poorly in the 2022 midterm elections. It seems Trumpism has left a bitter taste in the mouths of most Americans. But frankly, this is not nearly enough.  I know we, as a nation, have grown desensitized to chaos and tragedy. We have spent the last 3 years in a pandemic and we have spent the last decade with multiple mass shootings a year, but we must not allow ourselves to ignore this threat. Despite everything we have been through, most Americans, thankfully, do not know how bad things can get, but if we do not exorcize this specter of fascism soon, we will learn just how bad bad can really be. 

Yes, these people are a danger to your physical safety.

The same terrorists who tried to overthrow our government have not been idle since January 6th.  If the lights in your house suddenly went off while you were reading this, would you start preparing for a race war? As absurd as this sounds, that is exactly what many right-wing terrorists in this country hope you will do, and they may be planning to attack your city right now to make that happen. 

Earlier this year the FBI warned utility providers of imminent attacks against energy infrastructure by white supremacists. Since then there have been 9 attacks against power stations across three different states which have left thousands without power. Last month the FBI arrested Brandon Russel, the founder of the neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen (one of the groups present on January 6th), and his girlfriend Sarah Clendaniel for attempting to destroy five power stations in Baltimore Maryland. Clendaniel even said she hoped the attack would “destroy the whole city.” According to the FBI,  power grid attacks like those planned by these fascist lovebirds are to accelerate the coming race war. The idea that turning people’s lights off will lead to a race war may be the type of idea so stupid that only a Nazi could think of it, but its ridiculousness should not make it less frightening. Anyone who has spent winter in Michigan or Wisconsin knows how dangerous losing electricity can be. Anyone who works with hospital patients on life support knows that losing power is a matter of life and death.

But in case having your lights go off is not scary enough, let’s not forget about all the deaths and injuries directly caused by right-wing terrorism in this country. Only a few weeks before January 6th, several people were injured when armed members of the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and QAnon breached the Oregon state capitol after they were led inside by Republican state representative Mike Nearman. Some of those involved in the attack were allowed to go free and went on to participate in the January 6th insurrection. In May and June of 2020 two police officers were killed in Oakland and Ben Lomond California by extremists affiliated with the right-wing Boogaloo group, which is preparing for a second civil war. In March of 2020, the FBI prevented the attempted bombing of a hospital by a white supremacist affiliated once again with Atomwaffen in Belton, Missouri.  These are just a few of the hundreds of cases that fly under the radar of national media because the casualties are relatively light.  Less than five months ago, five people were killed and 25 injured at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs by a man who followed a virulent anti-LGBTQ TikTok account called ‘Libs of TikTok’. A few months before that, a self-described ethnonationalist murdered ten Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York in order to (according to him) “prevent the elimination of the  white race.”

Large and small, this incomplete list of right-wing terrorism is only from the 2020s, a decade that is only three years old.  Between 2010 and 2019, more than 75% of terrorism-related killings in the United States were carried out by right-wing extremists. In 2019, the FBI told Congress that a “significant majority” of the terrorism cases they were pursuing were related to white supremacist extremists. If I were to include all the incidents of right-wing terrorism in the 2010s this article would be 40 pages long. I will, however, remind you of the 9 Black churchgoers who were murdered by Dylan Roof in 2015, and of the peaceful protestors who were run over in Charlottesville in 2017. Charlottesville was made even more egregious by the fact that instead of condemning the terrorists, the President of the United States chose to say there were “very fine people on both sides.” And that brings us to the second reason why you should be scared.

Yes, the Republican party is enabling terrorism 

The photo above was taken at C-PAC, the largest annual convention of conservatives in the United States. This is not some fringe group of backwoods militia men or a couple of misfit Nazi lovers…this is C-PAC, a convention attended by thousands and sponsored by some of the top contributors to Republican campaigns. The speakers at C-PAC include Republican elected officials and media figures like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro who millions of people watch. I need you to think about all this when I tell you that at the first C-PAC convention after January 6th, when members of known neo-Nazi and other right-wing terrorist organizations tried to kill the Vice President and override the democratic will of the American people, the Republican organizers of C-PAC chose to put “we are all domestic terrorists” up on stage for the whole world to see. And the Republican party has done more than offer lip service to right-wing terrorists in this country, the GOP has offered them protection from the law and is actively passing laws that are in line with the ideology of these terrorists.

By protection, I refer to when conservative officials either legitimize extremists through normalizing rhetoric, such as when Donald Trump referred to Neo-Nazis as good people, or, more disturbingly, when Republican officials shield extremist actions from legal consequences. The lie of the 2020 election being stolen led to several instances of voter intimidation during the 2022 midterm elections. Under the auspices of “protecting” the election several visibly armed Trump supporters positioned themselves outside of early voting drop boxes in Arizona. Several voters reported being followed and harassed by these men. Let us be clear, no matter what they thought they were doing, these men were armed thugs infringing on the right of Americans to cast their vote. But despite this obvious truth, a Trump-appointed federal judge, Michael Liburdi, protected the thugs by ruling that their harassment of voters was an exercise of free speech. 

The most high-profile extremist to be protected by the Republican Party is former president Trump himself. Though Trump’s lawyers no doubt advised him not to directly call for an attack on the US capitol, we all know he was ultimately responsible. While the mob was chanting “hang Mike Pence,” Donald Trump tweeted “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” Even before the January 6th Committee had established how close Trump was to the planning of the insurrection, it was clear from months of election denial and inflammatory statements that Trump had laid the groundwork for the attack. Despite this, 43 Republican senators voted to acquit Trump during his second impeachment trial, and, as a result, a man who tried to overthrow the U.S. government will be allowed to run for president of the United States again. With powerful figures like Senators and Federal judges willing to protect acts of violence and extremism, it’s no wonder why fascist agitators are becoming bolder and more active.

The second way the Republican Party enables fascism is through the promotion of authoritarian ideas. In a previous article, I explained that fascism is openly hostile to facts; well, it’s hard to get less factual than the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. Later this month, some of the biggest names in right-wing so-called news like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are set to testify in court because of the lies they told to their millions of viewers. Fox News has long been criticized for spreading false information, but in 2020 they jumped the shark with wall-to-wall coverage supporting Donald Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was rigged against him, a claim which was the direct cause of the January 6th insurrection. This propaganda campaign got so out of hand that Fox News is now facing a 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems. With the possible exception of Tucker Carlson I don’t believe the hosts of Fox News are fascists, they’re just rich hacks who profit from spreading ideas that push people toward fascism.

As if having a $16 billion media company and an endless clown car of chauvinist podcasters spreading misinformation to millions of people weren’t bad enough, we also have fascists and fascist enablers in elected office stripping away rights from Americans every day. Ever since the supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Republican state legislatures have been restricting voting rights, predominantly from people of color and low income people. But in the wake of Donald Trump’s big lie about the election, 56 new voting restrictions have been passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in 20 different states. Most of it is all old hat: closing polling stations in areas less likely to vote Republican, voter ID laws, making it harder to vote by mail and such. But there are some new and vile additions this time, such as voter purges where people are un-registered to vote without their knowledge, or the 291 election deniers who ran for secretary of state in various states who indicated that they would invalidate election results if Democrats won. But lest you think that Americans will only be oppressed on election day, think again.

You have probably heard about Tennessee’s law that bans drag performances. Did you know that it says you can spend up to 6 years in prison for performing in a drag show? I am going to say that again, in Tennessee, you can go to prison for six years for being a man in heels singing in front of people. Now, this law has been blocked by a judge for being unconstitutional, but they will rewrite it and pass it again, and there are 14 other states working to pass similar laws. Then, there are all the efforts to censor teachers and deprive children of the truth. 

There is a reason why literal Nazis are showing support for Florida governor Ron DeSantis: it is because he is doing things that they like. For example, forcing schools to rewrite textbooks so that no mention of race is made when teaching about the Civil Rights movement, forcing teachers to not teach about LGBTQ issues, or canceling history courses because they make students feel  “discomfort.” Side note, does anyone remember when conservatives were calling liberals “snowflakes” for wanting safe spaces? Now it’s illegal to make a white kid feel uncomfortable in Florida. Anyway, laws like these are red meat for the sort of people who believe that liberals are conspiring to steal elections, indoctrinate their kids, and ruin America…the sort of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol, the sort of people who fly swastikas in front of passing families at Disney World.

Oh yeah, and then there is this gem:

This tweet is from Rebekah Jones. When she was working for the Florida Department of Health, she was ordered to manipulate data on COVID-19 cases; she refused to lie to the public and became a whistleblower. In response to this, state police raided Ms. Jones’ home at gunpoint. I’ll say that again, an American citizen had her house raided by police because she pissed off the governor. Oh, but it gets worse folks. Since her case was dismissed due to having absolutely no grounds, DeSantis decided to go after her family. At the time I am writing this Jones’ 13 year old son is being detained by Florida State Police for sharing this meme:

Yep. A 13-year-old boy is in police custody for a meme. But it’s not really for the meme, it’s because his mom is a whistleblower. This is the sort of story you see in Russia or China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran…but it’s in Florida, in the United States of America.

This is bad. One of our two major parties is in league with Neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, and a whole assortment of other terrorists. Some, like Marjorie Taylor Green and Ron DeSantis, are pretty clearly true believers in this new American fascism. Others, like Mitch McConnell and Rupert Murdoch, are just cynically using fascism for personal gain.  But regardless of whether Republican lawmakers are supporting fascists because they agree with them or if they are just doing it to get votes, at the end of the day they are still supporting fascists. I could write a whole other article about how conservative German leaders who didn’t even really like the Nazis helped the Nazis come to power in the 1930s…and I will write that article, but you get the point. Fascists don’t need the undying support of a political establishment to win, they just need the establishment’s complicity…and right now they absolutely have it.

Martin Niemoller put it better than I could in his famous poem First They Came, so I encourage you to reread that. But for now, I will say that life will not be fun for anyone in America under the vision that these people are pushing. Even if you’re not trans, even if you’re not gay, even if you’re not black, even if you’re not Latino, even if you can’t imagine that you’ll be haunted by the specter of fascism, you can be and you will be.

So what do we do?

First thing is to vote like your life depends on it. If the Republican cynics see that supporting fascism is a losing strategy, they will back away from it. Second, we need federal legislation to protect voting rights, civil liberties, and academic freedom. Third, we need federal legislation to step up counter-terrorism efforts, including prohibiting anyone associated with extremist groups from running for office or holding a government job, especially in law enforcement. Fourth, we need to address the socioeconomic issues that led to this (I’ll have to get to that topic another time). Finally, in case all that fails, if you are from a marginalized group, I’d advise you to take steps to defend yourself and, if possible, make sure that your passport is up-to-date.

Benjamin Franklin was once asked what kind of government he had created for the American people; he answered: “A Republic if you can keep it.” The time is fast approaching when we will have to see if we can keep our republic.

“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln

The post Yes, you should be scared: The Rise of Fascism in America first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

Note: The purpose of this article is to define fascism to give you context for this article where I argue why fascism is a threat to America right now! So if you find this interesting, read this next: Yes, you should be scared. 

When you hear the word fascism you probably think of the Nazis, and if you’re a normal sensible person, you know that these were the worst humans to exist. So when you hear someone accuse someone else of being a fascist you might think that it’s very over the top and for the most part you’re probably right. Fascism, like socialism, gets thrown around a lot as an insult by people who likely don’t know what the word actually means. However, I am here to tell you with no exaggeration that right now, fascism is the most pressing danger that Americans face. Which is why we all need to know: What even is fascism?

Fascism is an ideological spectrum of reactionary identity politics that is illiberal, anti-left, and anti-empirical. Now, that definition is word soup and I know it. Unfortunately, fascism is purposely vague and contradictory, so a simple definition is difficult to make. However, I assure you that every ingredient of this word soup does mean something, and it’s actually pretty straightforward when you break it down.

1. Identity Politics

Identity politics is when someone bases their political opinions and activity off of things like their race, religion, sexuality, gender, or nationality, in other words.  In recent years, most of the national attention on identity politics has been on left-wing and liberal identity politics. Its the “check your privilege” crowd. The type of person you see on TikTok saying that classical music is bad because it was written by white men. Making fun of or fear-mongering about left-wing and liberal identity politics is the bread and butter of many right wing media personalities, like when Tucker Carlson complained that M&Ms has gone woke because the green M&M isn’t sexy anymore. But of course, the irony is that the right is full of identity politics as well. And while left-wing identity politics’ most frequent sin is being cringe, the sins of right-wing identity politics include lynchings, state repression, and atrocities like the holocaust. 

The man who drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protestors in Charlottesville in 2017 was shouting “you will not replace us.” His comments refer to a common talking point in far-right identity politics called “great replacement theory.” The basic idea is that liberals and Jews want to bring non-white immigrants into the country to replace white people. This is hardly new. In the 1920s, when KKK membership reached 8 million, one of their main focuses was on the threat of immigrants. Of course, people like the Charlottesville terrorist and the neo-Nazis on 8chan are, thankfully, a pretty small group of extremists.But the problem is that millions of Americans are at least somewhat sympathetic to these extremists. The Institute of Family Studies surveyed over three thousand white Americans and found that 5% of them held a “strong sense of white identity,” a feeling of “solidarity with other whites” and most troublingly felt that white people were being discriminated against. If these results are representative of the population, that means that around 9 million white Americans have a persecution complex and feel that something needs to be done. While most would no doubt stop short of terrorism, this white identity politics leads to harmful reactionary policies. 

2. Reactionary

Reactionary politics gets its name because it is all about strong negative reactions to social change. Stop me if you’ve heard this one, “Transgenders are child grooming pedophiles.” That is a reactionary statement. Though trans people have obviously always existed,  widespread mainstream attention on them is relatively new. We have something new that challenges our traditional ideas about masculinity and femininity; those who find this threatening or even disgusting are being reactionary. Now, is a guy who rolls his eyes at someone for changing their pronouns a fascist? No, of course not. Is a guy who gets elected on a platform about how gender ideology will lead to your kids wanting to mutilate themselves and then writing a law that sends men to prison for wearing makeup a fascist….well it’s certainly a lot closer. 

Florida’s laws that ban teachers from teaching about racial segregation and LGBTQ people are textbook examples of reactionary politics. Increased visibility of LGBTQ people makes reactionaries uncomfortable, so others aren’t allowed to talk about it. Reactionaries are tired of talking about race so now other people aren’t allowed to talk about it either. Because change is part of life, any reactionary measure taken to prevent or undo said change will always be authoritarian. That’s why fascism, the most reactionary of all ideologies, is also the most authoritarian and totalitarian of all of them. And this is why for one to be fascist, one must also be illiberal.

3. Illiberal

You may think this has already been covered by the reactionary section. After all, liberalism is about promoting social change right? Well, not in this context. Typically when Americans hear “liberal” we think of a person who drives a hybrid car, votes for Democrats and has a Black Lives Matter poster in their window. While fascists certainly hate this type of liberal, they also hate the founding father type of liberal.

I know it sounds weird, but I’m not talking about blue-haired liberals, I’m talking about powdered-wig liberals.

Think about it, who wrote that all men have unalienable “rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? The founding fathers were primarily inspired by the work of 17th-century philosopher John Locke, who in his essays “Two Treatises of Civil Government” wrote that all men are born with a right to life, liberty, and property. Locke argued that humans create government for the purpose of protecting their life, liberty, and property. Google “liberal thinkers,” and you won’t find people with pronouns in their Instagram bios, you’ll find people who look and sound a lot like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

To the founding fathers, the entire point of government was to protect the liberty/freedom of the people, even from the government itself. This is why they drafted a constitution that is more powerful than any politician or party, and it’s why they created three equal branches of government with the ability to keep one another in check. Rule of law, checks and balances, all the things you learned in civics class, that’s liberalism. It’s liberalism because its point is to protect your liberty.

Here is what the original fascist Benito Mussolini had to say about this liberalism:

“Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism^”1 

There are many reasons why fascism hates this old-school liberalism, and they all relate back to its reactionary nature. As I said before, you can not prevent or reverse social change without an authoritarian government. Freedom means being free to change and to be different. To a reactionary, to a fascist, that is simply unacceptable. Individual rights just get in the way of whatever greater good the fascist thinks he represents.

But if what I have just said is true, why is it most of the examples I gave are of Republicans, the people who seem to worship the founding fathers? Well, the short answer is because America is weird. Modern liberals tend to be more critical of the liberals who founded our country while the GOP, whose actions are antithetical to the liberalism of the founding fathers, talk about the founders like they are gods. And yes, I am saying that the Republican party has become fascist or has at least become beholden to fascists. This was not always the case, but I do go into more detail to justify this claim here.  In any case, this bizarre situation is not all that surprising because fascism is anti-empirical.

4. Anti-empirical

I’ve had arguments with people who I would consider on or near the fascist spectrum where I attempted to give them the same spiel about liberalism that I just gave you and the response usually goes something like, “Shut the f*ck up liberal, you’re brainwashed lmao”

….Yeah.

Historically fascism has always been more about feelings than facts. The fascist writers of the 19th and 20th centuries pushed the idea that their movement was one of passion and gut feeling rather than silly liberal rationality or Jewish science². This is why fascism is reactionary politics in its purest form. After all, reactionism is what happens when one commits fully to a negative knee-jerk reaction and ignores evidence to the contrary. But despite rejecting empiricism, fascists have historically gone to great lengths to seem scientific and logical. One could even say they go looking for their own alternative facts.

The Nazis were the ur-example of these alternative fact-finding missions. Hitler believed in a lost advanced civilization of ancient Germans which demonstrated German racial superiority. Not a shred of evidence was found beforehand to give him or anyone else this idea, but he just felt it was true and sent his “scientists” to find evidence. Unfortunately for Hitler, the evidence that his archeologists did find showed that ancient Germans were living in “mud huts”³ when their supposed racial lessers in Italy, the Middle East and Africa were already building grand cities.

Flash forward to today’s American reactionaries and we can see a similar pattern: a rejection and a disdain for science and evidence while claiming to be the rational ones with science on their side. For instance the American Medical Association⁴, the American Association of Pediatrics⁵, The Endocrine Society⁶ and the American Psychiatric Association⁷ all recommend hormone therapy (within specified guidelines) as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Years of rigorous peer-reviewed studies have found that this treatment leads to mental health benefits for those who suffer from gender dysphoria and that the effects of said hormone therapy can be easily reversed if needed. Despite this, Republican-controlled states like Arkansas have made it illegal for doctors to administer this care to anyone under 18. The evidence is irrelevant, it’s about the vibe, it’s about their reaction to the social change this treatment represents. 

Since the evidence flies in the face of their reactionary goals many right-wingers accuse “big science” of being “too woke.” Is this as bad as the Nazis calling physics Jew science? No. But is it the same mentality? Evidence I don’t like is just made up by my enemies? Yes, yes it is. But of course, it wouldn’t be complete without a heaping dose of irony. The very people who dismiss scientific facts as “woke garbage” have the audacity to make “facts don’t care about your feelings” into a catchphrase. Long story short, fascists are not fans of facts.

5. Anti-left

Fascism has always been a sworn enemy of leftism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and whatever other left-wing ideology you can name. Now just to preempt the point, yes the Nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but they never claimed to be left-wing socialists. Socialists were the first people that the Nazis sent to concentration camps all the way back in 1933, eight years before the holocaust began. Hitler himself said ”The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.”⁸ In Italy, Mussolini’s Blackshirts were hired by landowners to attack and kill socialists who had won local elections. Moreover, Mussolini explicitly wrote “Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.”⁹ With that out of the way, why does fascism hate the left?

Once again, this goes back to reactionary politics. Left-wing ideologies are revolutionary, the literal opposite of reactionary. They seek to radically restructure society, in fact they seek to do away with the old society and put a new one in its place, which is a reactionary’s worst nightmare. What’s more, and this will get me in trouble with certain leftists, far-left politics is really just taking liberalism a few steps further. The left-wing critique of liberalism is that liberalism claims to promote a society of freedom and equality, yet produces capitalism, a system which depends on inequality and suppresses the freedom of billions of poor people. Socialism’s aim is to make the world liberalism claims to aspire to a material reality. On the other hand, fascism embraces subjugation to hierarchy (I’m getting this from Mussolini by the way)¹⁰. So, if fascism does not like liberalism because of liberalism’s love of liberty and tolerance of change, then socialism’s militant demand for radical change is the actual boogie man that fascism is afraid of.

In some ways, this is even more true in the modern American context, where liberal and socialist are often lumped together or even used interchangeably by many on the right. It’s the liberals and socialists who want to replace white people by bringing immigrants into the country, it’s the liberals and socialists who want to turn our all-American boys into pink-haired hermaphrodites, it’s the liberals and socialists who want white people to be ashamed…so says the American fascist and their conservative enablers.

Why you need to know

You may have noticed that most of my examples of the components of fascism did not come from 1930s/40s Italy and Germany, but from contemporary America. At this point I could understand if you still feel that this is overly dramatic. I will go into greater detail as to why I believe the threat posed by the current Republican Party is fascist in nature but for now, look at this:

And look at this:

And look at this:

That last photo was taken at CPAC, the largest annual convention of conservatives in the United States. It is not some fringe group of backwoods militiamen or people on the Donald Trump subreddit, this is CPAC, a convention sponsored by some of the top contributors to Republican campaigns. CPAC is attended by Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. At the first CPAC convention since January 6th, when domestic terrorists (including members of neo-Nazi organizations) tried to kill the vice president and overturn a democratic election, they chose to put “we are all domestic terrorists” up on the stage for all the world to see. These people are courting evil, and we must see them for what they are. If you are a Republican who believes in freedom and small government, this is not your party anymore and, as hard as this may be to swallow, you may need to vote Democrat to get them to change. If you are a Democrat you can not treat this issue with kid gloves,  it will take more than a Change.org petition to defeat this. If you are an American with a conscience, you have to know fascism when you see it and fight back. We have to be vigilant…because they are certainly being vigilant.

Still not convinced that we’re dealing with fascism? Read this for my in-depth case: Yes, you should be scared 

Note: Some believe that fascism is not just reactionary but also revolutionary because of how many changes they wanted to make to society in Germany and Italy in the 20th century. In regards to that, I’ll say this: All those changes were basically just taking social conditions that already existed, militarism, nationalism, hierarchy, and ethnic division and rigidly enforcing them through the state. So it was taking how society used to be (be it real or imagined) and dialing it up to 100. Not what I’d call revolutionary. 

References

1.“The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) by Benito Mussolini

2.  Is Fascism irrational? – Earlham Sociology and Politics Pages

3. https://www.historynet.com/heinrich-himmler-the-nazi-leaders-master-plan/?f

4. AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender children | American Medical Association

5. Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents | Pediatrics

6. Gender Dysphoria/Gender Incongruence Guideline Resources | Endocrine Society

7. Position Statement on Treatment of Transgender (Trans) and Gender Diverse Youth

8. 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler

9. “The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) by Benito Mussolini

10. Mussolini, “Doctrine of Fascism” (1932)

The post What even is fascism? And why you need to know first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

 

Córdova, despite being a nonpartisan official, has not backed away from calling out  López Obrador’s attacks on the INE for what they are, “a very clear political strategy, to sell the INE as a biased, partial authority […] If we say nothing, publicly, we are validating the president’s statements.”

 

Appointed in 2014, Córdova has led the agency for the past eight years, ensuring Mexican elections run as smooth as possible, an important responsibility for a country that has only been a democracy since 2000. However, his term expires this April. But he is not the only one pushing back against Plan B.

Rallying in el Zócalo, Mexico City’s central square, thousands of protestors gathered in late February to oppose the recently passed bill. Carrying pink and white flags  — the colors of INE — and chanting “El INE no se toca” and “Mi voto no se toca” (“Don’t mess with the INE” and “Don’t mess with my vote), demonstrators made sure López Obrador and his party, MORENA, got the message: the Mexican people will not let their democracy falter without a fight. 

If you are interested in supporting or learning more about pro-democracy organizations in Mexico, below are some groups worth checking out:

1. 1. DataCívica — DataCívica is a feminist, data-science organization that uses scientific methods, databases, and detailed reports to track important issues, like political intimidation, crime, and violence against women.

2. 2. Laboratorio de Litigio Estructural — Founded in 2017, this impact litigation group is dedicated to pursuing court cases that protect the country’s democracy and civil society.

3. 3. Control Tu Gobierno — Focused on strategic partnerships, Controla Tu Gobierno support civic and governmental organizations across the country on a myriad of issues, including water sanitation, anti-corruption efforts, and gender equity.

The post Lorenzo Córdova and Mexican People Stand Up to AMLO first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

Recently, the government of the People’s Republic of China released a 12-point position paper that outlines their “peace plan” for the Russia-Ukraine war. While there’s nothing in the text of the plan that is directly objectionable or outrageous, there’s no reason to believe that peace is coming soon. Put simply, China’s plan is vague and noncommittal, and the Chinese government does not show any signs that it is willing to take any concrete action in order to be a meaningful broker of peace. To its credit, the plan calls for the upholding of the territorial integrity of all countries but does not apply that abstract principle of international law to the situation in Ukraine. Does China affirm that Ukraine should regain control of Crimea, as per its internationally-recognized borders? Does China believe that Russia should withdraw its forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, which it unlawfully annexed after the invasion? These are all questions that remain unanswered, and for which an answer is required if China wishes to actually start the process of peace negotiations. 

President Zelensky of Ukraine, for his part, has greeted China’s plan with cautious optimism, though noting his disagreement with certain portions of it. He also expressed a desire to meet with President Xi Jinping of China to discuss the plan in further detail. Healthy skepticism is certainly prudent in this situation, given China’s unclear stance on the war in the past. While President Xi issued a veiled condemnation of Putin’s reckless nuclear threats in November of last year, China also firmly rejected Western sanctions on Russia soon after the war started and has not amended its positions on sanctions since. Just days ago, China also refused to condemn Russia’s aggression during a G20 summit in India and has repeatedly abstained on UN resolutions demanding Russia’s withdrawal from Ukrainian soil. Therefore, it is difficult to fault Western leaders like Joe Biden for having a dismissive attitude toward China’s proposal. While China’s position as a major world power with close ties to Russia shouldn’t be ignored when considering its potential role as a peacemaker, it’s hard to imagine China not being at least a little biased toward its longtime partner in economic and security matters (Russia). It would be very difficult to negotiate a settlement that satisfies Ukraine’s substantial demands for territory and reparations while also keeping Putin from losing too much. Putin initiated his invasion with the goal of winning both a military and a geopolitical victory; any negotiated settlement would mean admitting at least a partial defeat, and it’s not clear if he would accept that. 

If China wishes Ukraine and its allies to take its peace plan seriously, then it should be prepared to back up its words with action. In the meantime, the United States, Europe, and other partners should keep providing Ukraine with armaments, humanitarian aid, and economic assistance. Providing military aid does not mean the rejection of peace; ensuring continued victories on the battlefield will put Ukraine in a better position to negotiate whenever peace talks do begin. 

The post The Elusive Nature of Peace first appeared on Democracy Hawks.

On Sunday, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Mexico to express their anger at President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposed “reforms” to the National Electoral Institute (INE), which is the agency in charge of overseeing Mexico’s federal elections. López Obrador, also known by his initials, AMLO, intends to strip INE of much of its funding, reduce its staffing, and close many of its offices. Many critics have called this move anti-democratic, claiming that AMLO wants to interfere in the electoral process to ensure his party’s victory in the next election. Unfortunately, they are right. These unneeded and unwanted changes are dangerous for Mexico’s young democracy, which only came into existence in 2000 with the end of one-party rule. One of the integral parts of a healthy democracy is the acceptance by all political parties that they won’t govern forever; invariably, their opponents will succeed in an election and hold power for some amount of time. AMLO and his party (known as MORENA) don’t seem content with this. He has relentlessly attacked those opposed to his “reforms” as elitist, racist, and classist. These claims are, of course, absurd, since free and fair elections benefit all people, regardless of race, class, or social status. A system in which one party is dominant would, in fact, harm marginalized groups the most since the government, insulated from electoral consequences, would not have any incentive to attend to their interests. 

What all this means is that we must be vigilant of anti-democratic behavior both from the right and the left. Just because you might agree with some of AMLO’s policies doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize him when he’s making an objectively unwise decision. It would certainly be most unfortunate if left-of-center politics in Mexico were to be tarnished by the authoritarian actions of one man. The term “illiberalism” may lead one to believe that it is associated with a certain ideology or set of policies, but it is more about the rejection of liberal democratic principles. Just as Vladimir Putin (a distinctly right-wing figure) is illiberal, so, too, can left-wing leaders exhibit the same behaviors. While I certainly would not put AMLO in the same category as Putin, it’s important for those who value democracy to call out his anti-democratic behavior so that he does not continue down a perilous path that might see Mexico extinguish the democratic institutions that its people fought so hard to build.

The post Illiberalism comes in multiple flavors first appeared on Democracy Hawks.