PIERRE, S.D. – At their weekly press conference yesterday, State Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Billie Sutton of Burke and State House Democratic Leader Spence Hawley of Brookings responded to the progress made this week in their efforts to honor the will of the voters by advancing campaign finance reform and government ethics reform this Legislative Session. These efforts continue years of Democratic efforts to reform government ethics and campaign finance in South Dakota, and were made more urgent after the Republican majority in Pierre overturned Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act passed by the voters in November, without a replacement in place.
“After the majority party in Pierre repealed Initiated Measure 22 without a replacement in place, Democrats in Pierre have been doing everything we can to fulfill our moral obligation and responsibility to honor the will of the voters and pass meaningful campaign finance and government ethics reform this session,” said Hawley. “This week, we did see some significant progress on the goal of reforming government ethics. Unfortunately, there was also a big setback in the efforts to reform campaign finance laws and reign in the influence of big money on South Dakota politics.”
“The good news is that HB 1076, which creates a Government Accountability Board, passed through the full House this week. We’re pleased that this bill – very similar to bills brought in the past by Democrats which were killed by the majority party – passed the House with some strong bi-partisan support, and has bi-partisan sponsors in the Senate,” Hawley said.
Sutton said the news was not so good in the area of campaign finance reform.
“Last week, Democratic efforts to amend SB 54 to reinstate the contribution limits passed by the voters in IM22, were defeated along party lines in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Not only did the majority party defeat these efforts to respect the voters’ wishes to limit the influence of big money on South Dakota politics, they also railroaded through the committee several last-minute amendments which raised the already lax contribution limits proposed in the original bill,” Sutton said.
Sutton also noted that when Democrats tried to bring the amendment to reinstate the contribution limits of IM 22 on the Senate floor the Republicans tabled the amendment, allowing no debate.
“Democrats believe the will of the people on campaign finance deserved to have a debate on the Senate floor. I guess the majority party didn’t feel the people’s voice deserved to be heard. In its current form SB 54, doesn’t just ignore the will of the people, it opens the flood gates once again for big money to influence our elections,” said Sutton.
Despite this setback, Sutton and Hawley pledged Democrats would continue to work to respect the will of the voters and do whatever they could to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation.
“We Democrats have introduced bills to reform government ethics and campaign finance laws for years, and we will continue to make good-faith efforts to work with the majority party to make the kind of reforms in campaign finance and government ethics called for by the voters in November,” Sutton said. “We call on our friends across the aisle to do the same.”
By Mabel Berezin Professor of Sociology, Cornell University
Two days after the U.S. presidential election, Marine Le Pen – the leader of the right wing French National Front – tweeted out congratulations to Donald Trump.
During a controversial BBC interview that aired a few days later, Le Pen summed up how she believes the American election will affect her own electoral chances. She said Trump’s victory “renders possible what had been presented as impossible – that what the people want, the people can have.”
Brexit and the election of Trump have given hope not only to Le Pen, but also to her European confrères, such as leader of the Dutch nationalist right Freedom Party Geert Wilders, as they look forward to their own elections in spring 2017. As savvy politicians, they are exploiting the American election for their own purposes.
Yet, despite the temporal coincidence and surface similarities, I believe the election of Trump in the U.S. is fundamentally different from what is occurring in Europe. The Trump phenomenon is not simply an American iteration of European populism. It’s also potentially more dangerous.
As I argue in my book “Illiberal Politics in Neo-liberal Times,” populism – or extreme nationalism – began to gain ground in Europe during the 1990s as a reaction against the accelerated process of European integration. European populists sought to preserve their national institutions against encroaching Europeanization – a term they use sometimes interchangeably with globalization. Globalization is a force that has contributed to putting large numbers of people, particularly young people, out of work and facing a bleak future on both sides of the Atlantic.
In contrast, Trump questions the legitimacy of political institutions and the reality of facts in a manner that European populists do not.
Let’s consider the important ways that America and Europe differ by first turning to the European example.
An imperfect union
Le Pen has been gaining ground since the 2012 French presidential election. Recent polls place her on track to move to the final round in the 2017 presidential elections, although most analysts agree she’s unlikely to win the presidency.
For years, scholars have debated whether the lack of direct popular participation in EU governance mattered.
They got their answer beginning in 2008 when economic crisis and austerity politics proved that democracy did matter. European citizens began voting in national parliamentary elections for parties that advocated economic protectionism. For example, in 2011 the True Finns scored 19 percent of the vote. In 2010, the Swedish Democrats had their first breakthrough. In 2012, the Greek left populist party Syriza polled at 16.8 percent and is currently the main party in Greece, and the Greek neo-Nazi Golden Dawn broke through at 7 percent.
The festering European economic crisis was joined by two additional crises in 2015 – the refugee crisis and the security crisis that public terrorist attacks generated. All of this was played out in mass media and provided the final push for nationalist parties across Europe to come close to achieving political power.
An all-American election
Donald Trump is more than an Atlantic Ocean away from Marine Le Pen.
As I see it, Trump’s electoral victory is a peculiarly American product of working-class unemployment, a deep distrust of and resentment of educated elites and a celebrity culture that valorizes street smarts.
We should not forget that Trump was elected at the margins – razor-thin layers of non-college-educated voters living in rural Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania appear to have tipped the outcome of the election.
Trump tapped into what Richard Hofstadter identified in 1966 as “anti-intellectualism” in American life in a way that his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton never could.
Trump’s 3 a.m. tweets exploited social media. His tweets and retweets generated many more millions of followers than traditional media. In a popular cultural world where “Dancing with the Stars” and “American Idol” tell their audience anyone can be a “star,” Trump reigned supreme. On his reality television show “Celebrity Apprentice,” he was the uber-successful billionaire and alpha male who lived in a golden tower – an image that is arguably more accessible to the average person than the closeted world of Hamptons cocktail parties that Clinton was portrayed as inhabiting.
Trump exploited the fears, feelings of neglect and fantasies of his voters. He deployed rhetoric that combined a cadence of danger with megadoses of emotional empathy. Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention invoked law and order and was replete with descriptions of violent acts that victimized ordinary Americans – particularly those who live in inner cities. Trump claimed that he was the “only one” who could save ordinary Americans. He would be their “champion.” He would “fight” for them. He would “win” for them.
A different reality in Europe
In contrast to Trump, European populists are committed conservative nationalists. They are responding to a crisis of management on many levels in EU governance – debt, migration and security. Many are experienced politicians who have held office and have thought out policy positions – no matter how one feels about those positions.
The media often emphasize the anti-immigrant positions of European populists. But these politicians are more than single-issue xenophobes. When European populists say they want to express the will of the people, they have some specific issues in mind. They want to exit the European Union and reestablish national governance. They want to return to the “social Europe” that began to crumble in the 1970s.
An American rootlessness
Trump has tapped into what sociologist Emile Durkheim identified as anomie – a state of profound rootlessness and dislocation that occurs when institutions such as family and work break down. The salesman in Trump seemed to have grasped this instinctively. He was willing to say what perhaps others were thinking and to shatter verbal taboos.
Mussolini inspects athletes at a stadium in Rome on Oct. 31, 1927.AP Photo
Pundits have also compared Trump to another European figure I’ve studied – Benito Mussolini. Some see similarities in the men’s physical appearance, personal style and authoritarian ways.
This may be a more apt comparison.
The motto of the Italian fascist party was “Believe, Obey, Fight!” – an injunction to action without a defined object – a command to do anything that the leader requires. In other words, style without content.
“Make America Great Again” is a similar slogan. It opens the door to virtually anything. So far it has encouraged white nationalists to justify public attacks on Americans of color which have risen since the election.
It is a rare event when citizens turn their back on things that even basic civics teaches about good governance – such as the legitimacy of political institutions, the free press and the electoral system. This, to my mind, is the true American exceptionalism, and it is profoundly dangerous. Europeans have some idea what the populist script will be; Americans do not.
Mabel Berezin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
National Women’s Political Caucus Endorses Hawks for U.S. House
Sioux Falls, SD(July 20, 2016)-
The National Women’s Political Caucus endorsed Paula Hawks today for U.S. House based on her strong advocacy for women and families across South Dakota.
“I will be a strong advocate for women and families. We need a Congresswoman who will work to ensure equal pay for equal work, protect reproductive health and fight for issues that affect the family like the cost of college education and emergency family leave.”
Paula Owen Willmarth, NWPC Vice President for Political Planning said, “In her four years in the South Dakota Legislature, Paula has shown commitment to her community and has served as a wonderful representative of her district. Her election would finally give the women of South Dakota someone to advocate for their rights in Congress.”
Jay Williams, South Dakota’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, is calling for Senator John Thune to debate him. In past years, Dakotafest in Mitchell has been the unofficial kickoff to the political debate season. This year, Senator Thune has told Dakotafest sponsor IDEAg Group that he has no plans to debate this year. Mr. Williams is calling for Senator Thune to change his position and agree to a series of debates.
Mr. Williams issued the following statement calling for Senator Thune to debate him:
“There are major issues challenging the United States and South Dakota. Senator Thune has a responsibility to debate me and tell the voters of South Dakota his views on these issues. The voters of South Dakota deserve to hear how the incumbent Senator and his challenger stand on the issues. Senator Thune has voted repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This in spite of the fact that the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), the cornerstone legal authority for the provision of health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives, was made permanent as part of the Affordable Care Act. This is just one of several issues where Senator Thune and I disagree. We differ on how to address the income inequality in our country and on the importance of eliminating fossil fuels as our source of energy. Senator Thune needs to explain why he endorses the racist, self professed greedy real estate mogul, Donald Trump for President. Let’s have a series of debates to discuss these and other issues important to South Dakota voters.“
Washington, DC – June 12, 2016 – On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I want to congratulate the people of the Philippines as you celebrate the anniversary of your nation’s independence this June 12.
The United States and the Philippines share a deep commitment to democratic values, and the national elections you held last month are testament to the strength of your enduring institutions and traditions. I thank President Aquino for being a strong ally and a faithful friend for the United States over the last six years. As our two nations continue our work to strengthen regional peace and security, combat climate change, stamp out terrorism, and fight transnational crime, we look forward to the leadership of president-elect Duterte and another era of strong cooperation.
Please accept my best wishes for your continued peace and prosperity.
Custer Free Press - HFR DESIGN STUDIO 