American democracy is now a facade, and Canadians should be worried

The gravitational pull of American politics—especially as the US drifts toward oligarchic authoritarianism—has begun reshaping Canada’s political landscape in profound ways. 

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

American democracy, as many scholars and observers argue, no longer functions as a genuine democracy. What remains is a symbolic shell — a façade masking a political infrastructure that has been hollowed out by decades of hyper‑partisanship, corporate capture, institutional decay, and authoritarian drift. The United States today resembles a late‑stage empire coasting on historical momentum, much like Rome after the Crisis of the Third Century, where imperial institutions still existed but meaningful governance of the Empire had collapsed under the combined pressures of political instability, extreme inflation, foreign wars and foreign invasions, and the plague.

The American decline did not begin with the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency. His rise was a symptom of a system already damaged and in freefall. But his open admiration for authoritarian rulers, his willingness to subvert democratic norms, and his consolidation of power among billionaire oligarchs and right wing extremist networks (the MAGA movement) accelerated a process that had been underway for years. And for Canadians, the implications are profound. When the largest democracy in the Western alliance collapses into full‑blown authoritarianism, Canada will not be insulated. It will be engulfed — politically, economically, and culturally.

The long decline of American democracy

Political scientists have documented the erosion of US democratic norms for decades, but particularly in the 21st century. A 2023 study by the Brookings Institution describes the United States as experiencing early‑stage democratic decline, marked by weakened judicial constraints, executive overreach, and partisan sabotage of accountability institutions. This is fuelled by the fact that since 2010, state legislatures instituted laws intended to reduce voters’ access to the ballot, politicize election administration, and foreclose electoral competition via extreme gerrymandering of electoral districts. The United States also saw substantial expansions of executive power and serious efforts to erode the independence of the civil service.

Added to this is the issue of political polarization, which is central to this decline. Pew Research Center reports that partisan animosity in the US has reached historic highs, with majorities in both parties viewing the other as immoral, dishonest, unpatriotic and a threat to the nation. This is not merely cultural hostility—it is structural. When political actors no longer value democracy for its own sake, institutions become weapons to hammer opponents.

The Republican Party’s radicalization is well‑documented. Numerous analyses and studies since the 2020 presidential election have warned that the GOP’s refusal to acknowledge Joe Biden’s legitimate election and its abandonment of peaceful power transfer norms pose an “existential threat” to US democracy.

Democrats, meanwhile, have often failed to defend democratic norms with sufficient force. Their technocratic instincts—described in political‑science literature as “managerial liberalism”—have led them to prioritize bureaucratic stability over structural reform. They have not been the “adults in the room” they claim to be. They have been caretakers of a decaying system.

The American Empire’s unraveling: The Iraq War and beyond

The decline of American democracy is inseparable from the decline of American global hegemony.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq exposed the limits of US military power and shattered international trust. The 2008 financial crisis further undermined global confidence in the American economic model, revealing deep structural vulnerabilities and accelerating domestic polarization. Political economists have shown that when institutions fail to deliver shared prosperity, anti‑pluralist movements gain legitimacy. A 2026 review in the Journal of Economic Literature argues that institutional failure and identity‑driven polarization interact to erode democratic guardrails.

After 2010, the collapse accelerated with extreme partisan gerrymandering entrenching minority rule; Citizens United unleashing unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns; and Congressional gridlock becoming permanent.

Freedom House marks 2016 as the beginning of a measurable decline in US political rights and civil liberties.

The fascist drift: Symbols without substance

Today, the United States still displays the outward symbols of democracy — elections, courts, legislatures, and the ceremonial rituals of democratic governance — yet the substance beneath these institutions has been steadily hollowed out. The country increasingly resembles a political system where democratic forms persist but democratic norms have eroded. This erosion is visible in the conduct of its leadership, its security apparatus, its militaristic posture, and the overwhelming influence of corporate oligarchs—patterns that echo the situation in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

The most visible and troubling example is the country’s political leadership—Donald Trump.  He has repeatedly expressed admiration for authoritarian rulers, praising figures such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un, and others. This is not a trivial matter of rhetorical excess but a signal that Trump sees democratic constraints as weaknesses rather than safeguards. At the same time, American militarism has become a defining feature of national identity. Since 2001, the United States has engaged in continuous warfare across multiple regions, attacking eight countries in Asia and Africa, projecting force abroad while failing to maintain democratic resilience at home.

Domestically, the internal security apparatus has also drifted toward authoritarian practices. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) has been documented committing hundreds of abuses and human rights violations, including: engaging in abusive detention practices, wrongfully detaining US citizens, and deaths of civilians and detainees, including dozens who have died in ICE detention facilities. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a system where accountability has weakened and state power is increasingly exercised without restraint.

Overlaying all of this is the immense influence of corporate and billionaire oligarchs. Unlimited campaign spending — enabled by decisions such as Citizens United — has allowed billionaires and corporations to shape political outcomes, policy agendas, and legislative priorities in ways that serve elite interests rather than democratic ones. The result is a political system where wealth, not citizenship, determines access to power. These developments are hallmarks of a state drifting toward authoritarianism, even if the democratic façade remains intact.

Canada’s drift toward authoritarianism and its US roots

Canada is not immune to these trends. In fact, Canada’s democratic erosion is increasingly linked to US oligarchic and political influence. The gravitational pull of American politics—especially as the US drifts toward oligarchic authoritarianism—has begun reshaping Canada’s political landscape in profound ways.

The Canadian Conservative Party has adopted strategies and narratives that closely mirror those of the US Republican Party. Culture‑war rhetoric, attacks on independent media, hostility toward climate science, and alignment with US billionaire‑funded think tanks have become increasingly common. Research shows that Canadian conservative messaging now mirrors US Republican narratives, amplified by cross‑border political networks and shared donors. This is not simply ideological convergence, it is a structural importation of American political tactics into Canada’s political culture.

Yet the Liberals are not innocent in this drift. Under Mark Carney—a former global finance executive deeply embedded in elite economic networks—the party has moved toward a technocratic centrism aligned with corporate and billionaire interests. Canadian political scientists have documented the Liberals’ close ties to Bay Street finance, the influence of multinational corporations on policy formation, and a weakening commitment to climate action and human rights. They also note an increasing reliance on private‑sector advisory groups, which further entrenches elite influence over public policy. A campaign launched by Democracy Watch warns that both major parties are increasingly shaped by elite economic actors whose interests diverge from those of the general population.

This bipartisan drift toward elite capture is reinforced by US oligarchic networks that exert direct influence on Canadian politics. American tech billionaires have shaped Canadian digital policy debates; cross‑border fossil‑fuel lobbying has influenced Canadian climate legislation; American political consultants have advised Canadian political campaigns; and US dark‑money networks have funded Canadian advocacy groups. A 2023 investigation by The Narwhal documented US oil‑industry funding of Canadian political organizations opposing climate regulation. These developments are not accidental. They are structural consequences of Canada’s proximity to a superpower undergoing democratic collapse.

Why Canadians should be alarmed

Canada’s fate is tied to the United States in ways that make American democratic decline a direct threat to Canadian stability. Economically, Canada is deeply integrated with the US, and any authoritarian instability south of the border would produce immediate and severe economic shockwaves in Canada, as we have seen with Trump’s tariff war. Politically, US authoritarian narratives spread easily across the border, influencing Canadian discourse and reshaping partisan identities. Corporate capture is also a shared phenomenon, where US oligarchs influence Canadian policy through cross‑border investments and multinational corporate structures.

Security risks are equally significant. A destabilized United States—politically, socially, or institutionally—poses direct threats to Canadian sovereignty, border stability, and national security. And beyond bilateral concerns, the collapse of the United States would destabilize the entire Western democratic alliance. If the US falls, the democratic world loses its keystone.

Canada is drifting toward authoritarianism not only because of domestic political choices, but because it is tethered to a superpower undergoing democratic collapse. The erosion of democracy in the United States is not a distant problem. It is a direct and immediate threat to Canadian political stability, democratic norms, and national sovereignty.

American democracy is no longer a functioning system. It is a veneer—a symbolic shell covering a political infrastructure that has been rotting for decades. Hyper‑partisanship, corporate capture, institutional decay, and authoritarian drift have transformed the United States into a nation where democratic norms are optional.

Canada is drifting in the same direction albeit at a slower pace—not only because of domestic political failures, but because US oligarchic and political networks exert enormous influence over Canadian politics.

If the largest democratic domino falls, Canada will not remain standing. The veneer is cracking, and Canadians must pay attention and prepare before it shatters.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting casts a shadow over American democracy

The path forward demands more than condemnation. It requires bipartisan and societal rejection of political violence and the political rhetoric that feeds it.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

On the evening of April 25, 2026, the glittering annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton—long a ritual of Washington’s political and media elite—was shattered by the sharp crack of gunfire. President Donald Trump, attending the event for the first time as a sitting president in his second term, was seated at the head table alongside his wife, Vice President J.D. Vance, and senior cabinet officials when chaos erupted around 8:40 p.m. EDT. A 31-year-old man from Torrance, California, identified as Cole Tomas Allen, a former tutoring teacher and registered hotel guest, rushed a Secret Service checkpoint near the main screening area just outside the ballroom.

Armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives, Allen fired at least six shots in a frenzied 25-second assault. Secret Service agents and local police tackled him immediately, preventing him from reaching the ballroom where some 2,600 guests—including journalists, lawmakers, and dignitaries—had ducked under tables or fled. One Secret Service officer was struck in his bullet-resistant vest but sustained no serious injury and was reported in “great shape.” No other casualties occurred.

Trump was swiftly evacuated by agents shouting “shots fired,” while the ballroom fell into stunned silence. The president returned to the White House for a press conference where he used measured language in his statement and responses to reporters’ questions. He described the attacker as a “lone wolf” and a “sick person,” praised the “very brave members” of the Secret Service for their rapid response, and confirmed that the dinner would be rescheduled within 30 days rather than cancelled outright. The shooter was taken into custody, treated at Howard University Hospital for injuries sustained when he was taken down by police, and preliminarily charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer. Law enforcement, including the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department spokespersons, described him as a lone actor with no immediate evidence of broader conspiracy; his motive remains under investigation.

This incident did not occur in isolation. It arrives amid a years-long surge in documented cases of political violence in the United States. The list is grimly familiar: a 2024 assassination attempt on then-candidate Trump at a Pennsylvania rally; the 2022 hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice that gravely wounded Republican Whip Steve Scalise and injured others; the 2011 attempted assassination of Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, which killed six and wounded 13, and the 2025 assassination of Minnesota state Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband. Add to these the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot, where there were threats against then Vice President Mike Pence, and election officials, and sporadic attacks on state capitols and judges, and you have a devolution of political culture in the US. These events span the ideological spectrum—left-wing extremists, right-wing militias, and seemingly apolitical disturbed individuals—yet share a common thread, namely the targetting of elected leaders, their families, or the democratic process itself.

To find a comparable wave of high-profile political assassinations and attempts, one must look back more than half a century to the turbulent 1960s. The assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King Jr. (1968), and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (1968) convulsed the nation and fuelled national soul-searching about violence, race, and governance. Those killings occurred against a backdrop of civil rights struggles, Vietnam War protests, and cultural upheaval. Today’s violence, by contrast, unfolds in an era of relative peace abroad but hyper-partisan political polarization in the US, amplified by social media, cable news, right wing media voices, and algorithmic outrage.

This incident raises an important question: Is the shooting at the Correspondents’ Dinner merely the latest symptom of a democracy in decline, an ominous signal that American politics risks devolving into the unstable, violence-plagued model common in many developing countries—where coups, assassinations, and strongman rule have supplanted peaceful transfers of power—or is it a natural reaction to Trump’s aggressive and bombastic political style?

The evidence of political erosion is hard to dismiss. Political scientists have tracked a measurable rise in “affective polarization”—the visceral hatred of the opposing party—since the 1990s. Threats against members of Congress have skyrocketed, the Capitol Police reported over 9,600 threats in 2023 alone, more than triple the figure from a decade earlier. Public trust in institutions—Congress, the press, even the courts—hovers at historic lows. When a sitting president must be rushed from a black-tie media event by armed agents, the symbolism is inescapable—the norms that once insulated democratic rituals from physical danger have frayed.

In developing democratic nations—from Latin America’s repeated presidential assassinations to South Asia’s dynastic feuds or Africa’s post-election violence—such incidents often mark the point where electoral competition gives way to personal vendettas and institutional collapse. The United States has not crossed that threshold (yet), but repeated near-misses invite uncomfortable comparisons.

Who is to blame? The reflexive partisan answer would be to blame the other side, a response which only deepens the rot. Trump’s own rhetoric has at times glorified strength over restraint and labelled opponents “vermin” or “enemies of the people.” However, Democratic leaders and media figures have also trafficked in inflammatory language at times, framing Trump as an existential threat to democracy itself, a framing that some individuals appear to have taken literally. The 2024 attempt on Trump’s life came after years of legal battles and heated campaign discourse. The attack on Paul Pelosi followed months of conspiracy-laden attacks on his wife. Both sides have normalized aggressive framing, with one side (justifiably) warning of “fascism,” while the other of pushes narratives of “communism” or “deep state” plots.

Social media platforms, while not the sole culprit, pour fuel on the fire, funneling grievance and conspiracy into echo chambers where lone actors radicalize. Mental health failures, easy access to firearms, and a cultural glorification of vigilante justice compound the problem. Responsibility is diffuse—cultural, institutional, and individual—rather than the monopoly of any single party or leader.

What does this portend for the future of American politics?

In the short term, expect heightened security at all events where politicians are featured, where future political events, from rallies to state dinners, resembling armed camps. The Correspondents’ Dinner itself, already criticized as an elitist spectacle, may face calls for abolition or even a permanent virtual format. Public reaction, already fracturing along predictable partisan lines, will likely follow suit. Trump supporters will see confirmation of a “rigged system” or media complicity while critics will point to the president’s past statements as incitement. Polls in the immediate aftermath will show a brief spike in national unity—much as after prior attempts—followed by renewed recrimination once the 24-hour news cycle moves on.

Trump’s initial response was notably restrained, crediting law enforcement and avoiding immediate finger-pointing. Yet his history suggests a he will return to form within days. Expect Truth Social posts and statements decrying the “radical left” or “fake news” as the causes for this shooting, potentially framing the incident as evidence that only he can restore order.

The longer-term implications are potentially more ominous. Could this incident provide ammunition for extraordinary measures, such as delaying or cancelling midterm elections under a declared national emergency? Legally and constitutionally, the prospect is remote given that the U.S. Constitution vests election administration primarily in the states, and federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to suspend voting even amid crises far graver than a foiled hotel shooting. No president—Republican or Democrat—has successfully overridden this framework. Yet the mere discussion of such ideas, once fringe, now enters mainstream conservative discourse amid repeated threats.

More plausibly, the event will fuel demands for stricter vetting for those who attend such events, expanded Secret Service protection for candidates and elected officials, and perhaps new federal legislation on domestic terrorism—measures that themselves risk civil-liberties trade-offs.

Ultimately, the shooting should force a reckoning about how political opponents are framed by their critics. American democracy retains extraordinary resilience—free elections, independent judiciary, vibrant (if polarized) press—but its guardrails are under unprecedented stress. The 1960s assassinations did not end the republic, and did eventually lead to national healing. Today’s violence, however, occurs in a fragmented media landscape where healing narratives struggle to compete with social media outrage. If leaders on both sides continue to treat opponents as irredeemable adversaries rather than fellow citizens, the risk grows that political competition devolves from debate into political violence against opponents.

Developing nations that lost their democratic moorings did so not in a single cataclysm but through accumulated erosion—impunity for violence, eroded trust, and strongman appeals that pit “us” against “them.” The United States is not there yet, but nights like April 25th reminds us how fragile that line can be.

The path forward demands more than condemnation. It requires bipartisan and societal rejection of political violence and the political rhetoric that feeds it. This includes a firm rejection of the kind of dehumanizing language that has become normalized in recent years—rhetoric that brands the media as “the enemy of the people,” political opponents as “vermin,” “scum,” or “radical left thugs,” and anyone critical of Donald Trump as disloyal traitors or “fake news” peddlers. It also requires an investment in civic education that teaches citizens that political opponents can disagree without dehumanizing each other. It needs a cultural recommitment to the peaceful transfer of power as sacred and political leadership that returns to the norms of responsible political dialogue rather than framing opponents as existential enemies.

Whether America heeds that call—or allows another generation of leaders and journalists to be stalked by gunfire—will determine if this incident marks a low point or the beginning of a steeper decline.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

On the Road to Darkness: Thoughts on the Fascist Disease Infecting Western Society

Most people who live in Western democracies believe that we live in societies that value freedom, liberty and tolerance – principles and values that were purchased with human blood (during World War II) and at an immense cost to the national treasuries of most Western democracies (during both World War II and the Cold War).  In the former conflict Allied soldiers fought against nations whose leaders were committed to political ideologies that plunged the world into madness and resulted in the death of more than 63 million people (a number slightly less than the current population of the United Kingdom).

The architects of those ideologies and the war they instigated died almost seven decades ago.  However, people who believe in many aspects of those ideologies, and want to see governments based on them, continue to exist and have managed to influence politics in many Western democracies, particularly over the past two decades.  The ideology to which I refer is fascism – a word that comes with all kinds of historical baggage, a word that most people are unlikely to use when referring to some present-day Western leaders and politicians.  But despite the reticence of the mainstream media or political commentators to use that term, the truth is that many of the policies being implemented by governments, in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other Western democracies have their roots in an ideology that millions shed their blood to defeat.

Present day fascism is an ideology that comes in many forms, an ideology where one size does not fit all. It manifests itself in The West by the actions of political, financial and corporate elites who desire to maintain and grow the existing infrastructure of wealth and power that favours their interests – that is, preserve the existing hierarchical and imbalanced socio-economic culture using the tools built into the globalized, corporation dominated economic order that has developed over the past 20 years.

The classical definition of fascism revolves around a joining of government and private corporations to exploit all available resources in pursuit of private profit, regardless of whether that profit is achieved by the exploitation and suffering of the vast majority of society, or even if it undermines the democratic underpinnings of that society.

The fascism of the 20th Century was a reactionary ideology primarily in response to the advance of communism, and it was expressed through the following characteristics:

• protection and enhancement of the power of industrial / corporate elites;
• control of the mass media;
• rampant cronyism and political corruption;
• election fraud and voter manipulation / suppression;
• contempt for decisions and policies based on sound research;
• identifying and targeting so-called “enemies” or scapegoating as a unifying cause;
• fixation on national security, crime and punishment, and "order" in society; 
• political rhetoric emphasizing and elevating the place of police and the military in society;
• historical revisionism;
• disdain for civil liberties, human rights and social justice;
• suppression of and attacks on legal political dissent and political opponents;
• tolerance for sexism and misogyny;
• support and advancement of ethnic and / or cultural nationalism; and
• attacks on and suppression of organized labour.

If we examine the way that governments in most Western democracies, through their policies and actions, have evolved during the past two decades then we would see that many if not all of the characteristics that define fascism are present in the political cultures of The West.

If the allied soldiers who gave their lives for democracy, free speech, human rights and the other things that define a truly free and democratic society were alive today they would be appalled at what has transpired.  Because what has happened is the creation of a political culture and societal attitude, shaped by governments and corporations following a neo-liberal / neo-conservative ideology, which has copied many aspects of the fascist ideology that Allied nations fought against in World War II, and the authoritarian ideology they continued to fight during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  And while what exists in western democracies lacks many of the more horrific and ethno-nationalist aspects of 20th Century fascism, in many of its major characteristics the political culture that has evolved in The West is proto-fascist if not actually fascist.

Related: 
* Chris Hedges NPR Interview: On The Right Wing "Proto-Fascist Movement" in The U.S. 
* Allan Gregg Speech Slams Tories’ Orwellian ‛Assault On Reason’ 
* Violence, USA: The Warfare State and the Brutalizing of Everyday Life

This is has not gone unobserved by journalists, academics and political pundits.  It is something that has been noted by Canadian pollster and political commentator Allan Gregg among others.  In a speech given on September 5, 2012 at Carleton University he compared what has happened to politics in Canada under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the dystopian George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four – an analysis that is noteworthy because of Gregg’s historical connections to the predecessor of the Conservative Party of Canada.  While the world we live in may not mirror what Orwell described in his novel, there are disturbing parallels between what is happening to politics and the democratic process in Canada and elements of Orwell’s novel.

In his remarks Gregg outlined the various policy changes that Harper has implemented at the federal level.  By presenting the facts Gregg asks his audience to put together the pieces of the puzzle and conclude for themselves that Canada is well down the road to fascism courtesy of the Harper government.  He then observes that despite how Canada has been transformed during Harper’s tenure as prime minister, there is no hue and cry from Canadians in protest.  And yet there is much that Canadians and citizens of Western democracies should be protesting.

Another critic of the fascist political culture that has evolved in The West over the past two decades is Prof. Henry Giroux, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University.  In many of his writings Giroux provides analysis and insight into the state of modern society / culture in the U.S. and asks U.S. citizens to do what is necessary to challenge a culture and political mindset where the views of the majority of citizens / voters are relegated to the bottom of the list of interests that politicians cater to while the interests of corporations and elites are addressed with little thought as to the harmful effects they may have on society at large.

In a recent article, Intellectualism in the Age of Mass Surveillance, Giroux states that “[corporate] media are mostly engaged in what Noam Chomsky called ‘manufactured consent’, producing spectacles of [inanity and] violence, and pushing celebrity culture that becomes the ultimate model of a [debilitating] mode of consumption.  He goes on to say that “loyalty to fame, money, and authority is far more important than the truth, a sense of social responsibility, or a passion and commitment to a more just world.”

Through their commentary People like Gregg, Giroux, Chomsky and others are trying to open the eyes of the masses, trying to raise awareness that we are living in a time where those who have the courage to hold authority accountable are treated like criminals or terrorists (i.e. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning) while those who use the power and authority of the state and mega corporations to commit horrendous crimes are treated as patriots and held up as models of leadership.

Giroux’s articles and critiques, as well as those of Allan Gregg, Noam Chomsky and others like them, should be heeded and used as inspirations for the changes that must be implemented if The West’s political culture (and by extension Western society) is to be prevented from stepping into an era of political and social darkness.

Please note that all links in this article were current and working at the time of posting.  If any links no longer work please post a note in the comments section and I will post a link that works.

~ Fareed Khan

Related Articles & Links: 

*  Edward J. Snowden and the Exposure of Voyeuristic Fascism 
*  Toward a Definition of Fascism 

*  The Origins of the Neoliberal War on the Poor: Welfare  Reform and an Ever-Expanding Police State 

*  Understanding Harper’s Evangelical Mission

*  Feds threatening journalist independence of CBC

*  Is Stephen Harper displaying fascist-like tendencies?
*  Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America 
*  Blueprint for Dictatorship
*  The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy 
*  The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism 
*  Brown Skin/Yellow Star: Turning the Corner Toward Fascism in the US
*  High Plains Grifter: The Life and Crimes of George W. Bush: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
*  Is America ‘Yearning for Fascism’? 
*  The Birth of Israelo-Fascism 
*  Is fascism on the march again? 
*  The far right is on the march again: The rise of Fascism in Austria 
*  Is Fascism Lurking in America? 
*  A Better Question Might Be, 'How Is It NOT Fascism?'
*  Fascism Then. Fascism Now? 
* Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers 
*  Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities 
*  Wal-Mart’s New Marketing Strategy Hides Dirty Practices
*  Ex-US Marine: I Killed Civilians in Iraq
*  If Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops 
*  Accused troops: We were under orders to kill 
*  The Marine’s tale: ‛We killed 30 civilians in six weeks. I felt we were committing genocide’ 

*  War Tribunal Finds Bush, Cheney Guilty of War Crimes

*  The Obama Administration May Be Guilty of War Crimes

© F. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Canadians Need to Wake Up and Take Action Lest Canada Become A Society Like the U.S.

What has happened to Canada? on "Q" with Jian Ghomeshi.

The above link to an interview was sent to me by a friend and it says a lot about what I and many in my social circle have been feeling for a number of years.  It's only 3:30 long and I encourage you to listen to it.

It's not just about politics, politicians and political parties and the way they have numbed the minds of the Canadian electorate, it's about the fact that most Canadians seem to have given up and given in as the culture of our society has more and more come to resemble what we see in the US where profit, unfettered capitalism, and increasing power for the already powerful has become the state religion.  It's an attitude which says that society can go to hell in a handbasket as long as there are a few elites in society who achieve personal wealth, power and influence beyond all reason.

This is not what Canada is or ever has been about.  Growing up I saw Canada as a nation where anyone had the opportunity to achieve personal success (which we concouraged) but in doing so we did not forget that there were many in our society who couldn't (for whatever reason) and so we had to watch out for them by having an adequate social safety net.  Unfortunately, that social safety net is a shadow of what it once was as certain politicians and business interests have been successfully transforming Canadian society into something resembling the United States.  And as that safety net has come undone it has created other social, economic and environmental problems which have diminished the quality of life of Canadians and have sowed despair in a growing underclass of disadvantaged, dispossessed and disempowered citizens.

So please listen to the interview.  You may not agree with everything that is being said, but it will certainly make you think, and hopefully you will want to share it with others.

Canada is not yet what American society has become and that is why there is still hope for us to pull back from the brink.

© F. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Post-dystopian Politics in a Pre-Dystopian World

Professor Henry Giroux holds the Global TV Network Chair at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department.  For quite a number of years he has written about the changing nature of the society we live in and how corporations along with financial and political elites are controlling the actions of government in order to enrich and empower the richest and most powerful members of society while the vast majority are left to struggle.

His most recent article (link below), which is incisive and thought provoking, focuses on "violent", authoritative and militaristic government policies and how they negatively impact peoples' ability to live a hopeful and  meaningful life.

The focus of Giroux's article is the US but his comments can equally apply to Canada, as it has been transformed by Conservatives policies under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

To paraphrase from one of the paragraphs in the essay:

Any viable movement [towards a reinvigorated] democracy needs not only to fight manufactured ignorance, economic inequality, racial [and social] injustice but also produce a community that manifests the values of equality, mutual respect [and hope for the future] . . . [things which are] missing in a world that [functions in a paradigm of robber baron capitalism where the pursuit of profit is justified by any means -- even if those means include a hollowed out democracy, environmental degradation, social injustice, human suffering and despair.

I encourage you to read it and pass it on to others.  Only by raising awareness can we hope to mobilize enough people to speak out and take action against politicians who are more than willing to impliment policies which are destroying the limited infrastructure of the compassionate and caring society that was built since the 1960s.  To not act is to condemn Canada to become the sort of society we see in many parts of the U.S. where social Darwinism is a reality. 

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19025-beyond-savage-politics-and-dystopian-nightmares 

© F. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Alternative / Independent Media: The Answer to Democratic Decay Or Just Some More Voices In The Crowd?

Last updated August 30, 2013 5:38 PM
 

February 12, 2013 -- I don't know why I've hesitated about blogging in the past since I find myself often commenting on various issues on Facebook which, in some cases, are accessible to the public.  But, for the most part, those comments are only visible to the people on my friends list, and I would like some of the thoughts I have put down to be heard beyond that limited circle.

I published my first blog last week as a result of a course I'm taking on alternative media and politics.  The blog was part of the assignment for that course.

So I will repost that blog here and l look forward to any thoughts or comments that I might receive.

*****************************

Alternative / Independent Media: The Answer To Democratic Decay Or Just Some More Voices In The Crowd?

In a world filled with media alternatives the choice of alternative / independent media (AIM) is so wide-ranging as to be overwhelming.  From magazines to newsletters to websites to TV and radio, one could spend weeks glued to a computer screen reading, watching and listening to all the alternative voices speaking about all the issues and viewpoints which are not covered adequately by the mainstream corporate media, or not at all.  To demonstrate how pervasive AIM has become plug the phrase "alternative media" or “independent media” into Google search and it returns over 9.2 million results combined.

Among the multitude of AIM voices on the internet is the website Truthout.

Truthout is a non-profit journalism organization dedicated to providing independent news and commentary on a daily basis. It is affiliated with the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an American organization whose goal is to “help promote and fund aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government.”

According to their website, Truthout’s investigative reporting “has focused on issues such as government secrecy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison, the militarization of law enforcement on the U.S. border, and the growth of the U.S. national security budget in the past decade.”  They work to spark action by "revealing systemic injustice" and "providing a platform for transformative ideas", through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis.

However, unlike many other AIM media sites Truthout claims not to advocate a political agenda.  They state that their aim is to “remain free of bias and adhere to high editorial standards.”  Notwithstanding this claim, if you examine the articles listed on their main page they cover many issues that would be at home on other progressive leaning alternative media sites, and they cover the issues in a manner that is consistent with a counter-hegemonic, anti-corporate narrative.

With the exception of their claim to being free of bias, Truthout has adopted an operational / administrative model similar to many other alternative media outlets.  They accept no advertising or corporate backing but instead depend entirely on readers to support their work.

So why the need for AIM sites like Truthout?  Although the issue has been discussed at length in academia, the short answer would be that mainstream corporate media is no longer the independent voice it once was, it no longer adequately plays the role of guarding democracy, and thus no longer truly represents the interests of the majority.  Whether it is in Canada, the United States or elsewhere in the democratic world, the historical role of a free and independent media has been a key factor in the establishment and growth of democratic societies and institutions.  In fact it is the only profession that is specifically mentioned in constitutions of various democratic nations, including Canada, the United States, the European Union and its member states.

However, for at least the past two decades barriers have been placed in the path of the democratic evolution of nations due to the increasing concentration of media ownership among small numbers of corporately owned and controlled media empires.  For example, in both Canada and the U.S. the mainstream media is controlled by an oligopoly of corporate media empires who cater to the power and corporate elites and help to maintain the status quo in support of their interests (Atton).  Europe also faces a similar situation despite the fact that their media markets are fragmented by the various languages spoken on that continent.

The goal of these corporate media conglomerates is to create passive and uninformed consumers / voters who will make irrational choices that are counter to their personal / democratic interests.  And to accomplish this goal these corporations are willing to spend huge amounts of money and resources.

While the concentration of mainstream media has been the catalyst for the birth (rebirth?) of independent media in the modern era, the multiplicity of voices, despite their best efforts, continue to be eclipsed by the reach of mainstream media.  Or, to put it another way, despite the efforts and successes of AIM sites and organizations like Truthout, which intend to offer an alternative or oppositional perspective, they are still unable to challenge the macro impact of mainstream media sources.  Which begs the question, is the shift to a democratic and participatory process of production the best option in response to preventing the further decay of democracy if distribution of the information is limited, and if you become just another faint voice in a crowd?

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.