Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The Marshall Plan was created to defend democracy in 1948. We wrote a new version for 2025.

Published

on

The Marshall Plan was created to defend democracy in 1948. We wrote a new version for 2025.

It is no secret that American democracy is in crisis. From the 2020 flood of actions and disinformation that culminated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021to the repeated threats to weaponize the rule of law and fire civil servants to replace them with loyalists, we are clearly in a renewed moment of democracy crisis. We are in danger of losing our rights and freedoms unless we act boldly and swiftly. Unfortunately, too many are sleepwalking through our present moment and not understanding or doing anything about this threat to America.

Fortunately, political science research and the lived experience of other backsliding democracies — and how they reversed course — offer solutions. Our organization, the Brookings Institution, conceptualized and published the original Marshall Plan. One of its main goals was to secure democracy in Europe against autocratic threats after World War II. That legacy inspired us and our colleagues to formulate a new Marshall Plan to meet this dire moment: the Democracy Playbook.

Perhaps most important of these steps is that American elections and their outcomes must be protected.

In this document, we survey the political science data and current events landscape, pull tactics and lessons learned from global democracies — both those that are backsliding and those holding strong. Out of all that effort emerged a set of specific steps and recommendations, including seven pillars to save democracy. These pillars can be a guide for pro-democracy actors in the U.S. to prevent backsliding and, when possible, go on the offensive to strengthen democratic institutions. We pull from scholarship and practice to capture the lived experiences that are sometimes overlooked by engaging with political scientists, government officials, activists and practitioners. And we use the examples of PolandBrazil and the Czech Republicall of which successfully ousted their undemocratic regimes.

Perhaps most important of these steps is that American elections and their outcomes must be protected. That is because free, fair and transparent elections are the way out of backsliding. But that system has been pressured, as is happening right now in a state Supreme Court election in North Carolinawhere the losing candidate is currently contesting to overturn his electoral loss by citing baseless allegations of voter fraud.

Would anyone be surprised if we see moves to undermine the bedrock of our democracy this year in Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races? Or in the critical races in 2026 to determine control of Congress and other midterm-year contests that will shape how American elections are adjudicated and our nation governed going forward? Will elections continue to be free, fair and transparent, like the one that delivered Donald Trump to the White House? Or will future American elections mirror the facades of “electoral autocracy” like in Hungary?

Equally important to preserving democracy is vigorous action to protect the rule of law and guard against the dangerous erosion of checks and balances. Our research shows that the path to autocracy is paved with examples of abuse of legalism, prosecutorial and judicial capture and weaponization of the state. Using the government as a cudgel to go after political opponents is never acceptable in a thriving democracy — look at how state power is bluntly wielded against citizens in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

When undemocratic candidates gain power, sometimes through elections, there must be a fail-safe that protects against autocracy: the law. We highlight the current threat environment, including to the U.S. judiciary and its independence. Even conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who has joined numerous deeply troubling opinionshas nevertheless echoed these concerns. The American democratic framework is built to bend but not break under bouts of irresponsible governance — with critical checks and balances by way of constitutional norms that leverage courts, legislatures, civil society and media to establish anti-autocracy guardrails. But it will be tested as never before.

Protecting our democracy does not stop there. The forces that support autocracy feast on corruption and efforts to dim the lights of transparency and accountability.

Of course, there is much more than just those three steps to saving a democracy.

That is why we raised combating corruption to be the third of our seven pillars. We saw this challenge in Trump’s first administrationand America is heading further toward oligarchy. For example, Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, contributed $277 million to Donald Trump’s campaign and the races of other Republican candidates. Musk has been rewarded with a semi-official position in Trump’s government with questionable oversight or accountability. His supposed role gives him the chance to pressure or cut funding to agencies that regulate his commercial industries. With over a dozen billionaires lined up for senior positions, Trump’s second administration will be the wealthiest in American historyfeaturing secretaries in the top 0.0001% who may share a steadfast allegiance to Trump rather than to the Constitution.

Of course, there is much more than just those three steps to saving a democracy. In the Democracy Playbook, we lay out four more main pillars: reinforce civic and media space, protect pluralistic governance, counter disinformation, and make democracy deliver.

You might well ask, why only seven? Part of the challenge of dealing with autocracy is autocrats take a flood-the-zone approach that shocks people and quickly overwhelms the system. It is therefore important to not only be reactive, but also to be proactive to figure out what actions pose the greatest risks to democracy — and vigorously respond to them. Responding to flood-the-zone tactics in this fashion is among the reasons that Polandthe Czech Republic and Brazil restored democracy while Hungary did not.

Where do we go from here? Every sector of American life must get its act together, and fast, if democracy is to be saved. Media can’t engage in false equivalences or burnish dangerous disinformation. Civic society needs to activate. Big tent coalitions will be necessary, as was the case in those countries where backslide was reversed. Labor has an essential and foundational role to play, as does business, including the tech and media sectors.

But above all, it’s up to the American people. Across party lines, the majority of Americans agree democracy is the best form of government. While Trump and his supporters insist the election was a sweeping mandate, it was an extremely close contest in which the opposition of many Americans to deeply controversial plans associated with Donald Trump’s campaign contributed to him receiving less than 50% of votes cast.

Since the time of the Marshall Plan, America has succeeded in meeting enormous challenges. We are at another one of those moments in which the outcome of our actions will have a generational impact. As we point out in our playbook, those who count America out prematurely have learned from their mistakes, and we certainly do not believe the American people are prepared to abandon freedoms.

Using the Democracy Playbook as a guide, we envision a modern version of a Marshall Plan that can restore democracy to the country that has been, in the words of former President Ronald Reagan, a “shining city on a hill” for over two centuries — but only if we all work together.

Norman L. Eisen

Ambassador Norman Eisen (ret.) is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and an expert on law, ethics, and anti-corruption.

Jonathan Katz

Jonathan Katz is the senior irector of the Anti-Corruption, Democracy, and Security (ACDS) project at the Brookings Institution.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Energy chief says coal plant orders helped during winter storm

Published

on

Energy chief says coal plant orders helped during winter storm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration said Friday that its use of emergency orders to keep aging coal-fired plants operating helped prevent a major blackout from power shortages during the brutally frigid weather that has gripped most of America for the past two weeks.

Scattered outages occurred because of ice accumulation that felled local power lines, leaving hundreds of thousands without power, at least briefly. But the nation’s regional power grids generally maintained reliable electricity service, with natural gas and coal leading the way, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials said.

“The big picture story is where we actually got energy from during this storm,” Wright said at a news conference at the Energy Department. “In fact, we had times where our existing capacity couldn’t deliver anything and the lights would have gone out if not for emergency orders.’’

Critics said Wright’s comments understated the role that wind and solar power played during the storm, adding that the administration’s orders over the past nine months to keep some oil and coal-fired plants open past their planned retirement dates could cost U.S. utility customers billions of dollars over the next few years.

In the lead-up to the storm and cold temperatures, Wright also excused utilities from pollution limits on fossil fuel-fired plants and ordered that backup generators at data centers and other large facilities be available to grid operators and utilities to supply emergency power.

Trump administration’s ‘way of doing business’

Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly drew a contrast with the grid performance during a similar severe storm in 2021, calling the Trump administration’s approach a “new way of doing business” during power emergencies.

“The bottom line here is that we managed to ensure that there was sufficient capacity,” Danly said. “Not one area had a blackout or a forced outage due to loss of capacity.”

There were nearly 1 million outages during the storm’s peak, but most were not long-lasting, Danly said. Nearly 55,000 customers were without power as of Friday, including more than 17,000 in Mississippi and 7,000 in Texas, according to the outage tracking website poweroutage.us.

Wright cited statistics showing that natural gas — long the nation’s leading source of electricity — provided 43% of electric power at peak generation during the storm, followed by coal at 24% and nuclear at 15%. Renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower provided a combined 14%, Wright said.

Wright and President Donald Trump have frequently made the case for their fossil fuel-friendly orders, blaming the Biden administration and Democratic-leaning states for policies they say threaten the reliability of the nation’s electric grid and drive up electricity bills.

The proportion of coal and natural gas power rose substantially during the storm, while the proportion of wind power used during the storm dropped by 40%, Wright said. Solar stayed flat at a fraction of the amount of coal and natural gas power.

Wright dismissed solar as “meaningless” during a severe storm in certain regions and said, “It’s not an all-weather power source.”

Pushback on orders to keep coal plants running

Some state and utility officials have chafed at Wright’s orders to keep plants operating, saying they’re not necessary for emergency power and are simply raising electric bills for regular ratepayers to keep relatively expensive plants operating.

Preventing the nation’s coal plants from retiring over the next three years could cost consumers at least $3 billion per year, according to a report from Grid Strategies, a consulting firm.

“A lot of these plants were retiring because they’re no longer economic to operate,” said Michael Goggin, an executive vice president at Grid Strategies. “It’s expensive to keep them going.”

Opponents have challenged the coal orders in court, arguing that Congress intended for emergency powers to be used only in rare, temporary cases.

The nonprofit owners of the Craig Generating Station in Colorado, the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Platte River Power Authority, last week filed a protest with the Energy Department seeking to reverse Wright’s order to keep its Unit 1 operating. The Dec. 30 order came one day before it was to shut down.

In its request for a rehearing, the nonprofits said its members and communities were unfairly being forced to pay to keep a costly and unreliable plant operating and that the department didn’t even comply with the law requiring it to show why this was the best alternative. They also said the department’s order unfairly punished them for the mistakes of other utilities.

Wright brushed off the criticism, saying there would be “far larger costs from blackouts.”

Solar and wind said to save consumers ‘billions’

Clean energy advocates said that renewable sources saved consumers billions during the storm and helped ensure the lights stayed on, especially in regions that have significant investments in wind, solar, and energy storage.

In Texas, wind, solar and storage provided about 25% of power for the grid’s 27 million customers — a major increase over 2021 and a key reason blackouts were largely avoided, said John Hensley, a senior vice president at the American Clean Power Association, an industry group.

Wind and solar also accounted for significant power in the Midwest and Southwest, Hensley said. In the mid-Atlantic region served by grid operator PJM, only 5% of power came from wind and solar generation, a fact Hensley blamed on lack of investment in renewables in the region, as well as hostility by the Trump administration to new wind and solar power.

Blaming renewables for not performing during the storm “is like trying to blame someone on the bench for losing the game,” Hensley said. “They didn’t get a chance” to play.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Facing high Trump tariffs, South Africa signs framework agreement for trade deal with China

Published

on

Facing high Trump tariffs, South Africa signs framework agreement for trade deal with China

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — China and South Africa signed a framework agreement for a new trade deal on Friday as Africa’s leading economy looks to other options following the high import tariffs imposed on it by the U.S. and its diplomatic fallout with the Trump administration.

South Africa’s Ministry of Trade and Industry said the agreement would start negotiations over a deal that would give some South African goods, such as fruit, duty-free access to the Chinese market. The ministry said it expected the trade deal to be finalized by the end of March.

In return, the trade ministry said China will get enhanced investment opportunities in South Africa, where its car sales have seen rapid growth.

The U.S. slapped 30% duties on some South African goods under U.S. President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs policy — one of the higher rates applied across the world. South Africa has said it is still negotiating with the U.S. for a better deal.

The China-South Africa deal follows others looking for alternatives to U.S. partnership in the face of Trump’s aggressive trade policies.

The announcement on the negotiations between China and South Africa came days after Trump issued a short-term renewal of a longstanding free-trade agreement between the U.S. and African nations. The U.S. extended the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which South Africa is a major beneficiary of, just until the end of the year and indicated it would be modified to fit the administration’s America First policy.

China is already South Africa’s largest trade partner for both imports and exports, while Chinese economic influence across the African continent continues to grow and it dominates in the extraction of Africa’s critical minerals that are key components for new high-tech products.

“South Africa looks forward to working with China in a friendly, pragmatic and flexible manner,” the trade ministry said.

Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau, who traveled to China to sign the agreement, said the deal would benefit South Africa’s mining, agriculture, renewable energy and technology sectors.

U.S.-South Africa diplomatic ties have plunged to their worst point in decades after the Trump administration accused South Africa of pursuing an anti-American foreign policy and allowing the violent persecution of a white minority group at home. South Africa’s government has denied allegations that white Afrikaner farmers are being killed in a widespread effort to seize their land as baseless.

Trump has also barred South Africa from taking part in meetings of the Group of 20 rich and developing nations this year in the U.S.

South Africa’s biggest exports to China are gold, iron ore and platinum-group metals, while Chinese cars have quickly grown their market share in South Africa. Industry groups estimate Chinese brands have grown from around 2.8% of the South African market in 2020 to between 11% and 15% last year.

China’s BYD overtook Elon Musk’s Tesla in 2025 as the world’s biggest electric vehicle maker.

___

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Treasury Secretary Bessent’s testimony descends into shouting matches

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Bessent’s testimony descends into shouting matches

WASHINGTON (AP) — A hearing about oversight of the U.S. financial system devolved into insults several times Wednesday as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clashed with Democratic lawmakers over fiscal policy, the business dealings of the Trump family and other issues.

Appearances by treasury secretaries on Capitol Hill are more typically known for staid exchanges over economic policy than for political theater, but Wednesday’s hearing of the House Financial Services Committee hearing featured several fiery exchanges between the Republican Cabinet member and Democrats, with Bessent even lobbing insults back to the lawmakers.

Bessent called Rep. Sylvia Garcia “confused” when she questioned how undocumented immigrants could affect housing affordability across the country, prompting the Texas Democrat to snap back, “Don’t be demeaning to me, alright?”

Bessent later mocked a question from Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., about shuttered investigations into cryptocurrency firms. Lynch expressed frustration with Bessent’s interruptions, saying, “Mister Chairman, the answers have to be responsive if we are going to have a serious hearing.”

Bessent replied, “Well, the questions have to be serious.”

After a back-and-forth over whether tariffs cause inflation or one-time price increases for consumers, California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters asked committee leaders to intervene with Bessent: “Can someone shut him up?”

And in a fiery exchange with Rep. Gregory Meeks over the Abu Dhabi royal family’s investment into the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency firm last year, the New York Democrat dropped an F-bomb as he shouted at Bessent: “Stop covering for the president! Stop being a flunky!”

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the fireworks.

Bessent’s performance was “not a role you typically see a treasury secretary play,” said Graham Steele, a former assistant secretary for financial institutions under Biden-era Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. The department has traditionally “been removed from some of the day-to-day, hand-to-hand political combat,” Steele said in an interview.

He recalled his former boss having tense exchanges over climate change and policy issues with Republican lawmakers during committee hearings, but the exchanges were not personal, he said, noting treasury secretaries have to strike a “delicate balance” of working with the White House while safeguarding the “economic stature” of the country internationally.

In recent months, Bessent has ratcheted up his insults when it comes to Democratic leaders.

He has called California Gov. Gavin Newsom “economically illiterate,” compared him to the fictional serial killer Patrick Bateman, and called him “a brontosaurus with a brain the size of a walnut.” He has on several occasions called Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren an “American Peronist” after she told American financial institutions not to finance the Trump administration’s massive support package for Argentina.

Bessent’s combativeness is, in part, a sign of the times, said David Lublin, chair of the Department of Government at American University’s School of Public Affairs.

“President Trump has shown he likes belligerence and he likes nominees and others who defend him vociferously,” Lublin told The Associated Press.

“It’s hard to say that this is unusual for this political environment. What used to be the normal modicum of respect for Congress has frayed to the point of vanishing,” Lublin said.

What was unusual, in Lublin’s view, was for Bessent to reveal his thoughts on monetary policy — normally the purview of the Federal Reserve — and his insistence that Trump has the right to interfere with the decision-making of the central bank. “You have a cabinet secretary defending the president’s efforts to erode institutions,” Lublin said.

On Thursday, Bessent will get another opportunity to spar with lawmakers. He is scheduled to appear before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on the same topic: the annual report by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which Bessent leads.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending