Do not get me wrong — I was upset that US Prescient Donald Trump won. In fact, I still am.
I often quip that, as a scholar of the far right and populism, I used to study the political fringe and now I study the mainstream, but there is a risk that outraged liberal commentators are overstating how bad things are.
The dramatic, sweeping statements that everything used to be better and all is going to hell are becoming annoying — and counterproductive.
From the outset, the liberal response to Trump — or in Europe, Brexit — has been over the top. Godwin’s Law, which states that the longer an online discussion goes on, the higher the likelihood of someone bringing up Hitler, has been thrown out of the window. “Fascism” is already used before an online discussion has even started.
While some serious scholars of historical fascism have pointed out similarities between that era and the rise of Trump, the ease with which the term is thrown around and the reality of the situation in the US makes most fascism accusations far-stretched at best and dishonest at worst.
There is now a whole coterie industry of “anti-Trump” pundits, ironically more from the conservative than the liberal side, who on a daily basis write columns and tweets to inform us how bad Trump is and how feeble the state of US democracy is.
Book after book is published with onerous titles like How Democracies Die, On Tyranny or The Retreat of Western Liberalism, which either argue or warn that we are reaching a liberal end times, but many pundits do not only overstate their claim, they also are fairly blind to their own biases and privileges.
Several economists have already pointed out the US-centric, or Western-centric, bias of the claim that everything is getting worse.
Although there is some debate over the best measure, there is no doubt that extreme poverty has been nearly halved around the world in the past 30 years.
For all the debate in the US and some European countries, most studies show that “globally, democracy is not in decline.” In fact, while there might be growing disillusionment with democracy around the world, the change seems most pronounced in some Western democracies, particularly the US.
For several years, the (far) right has been criticizing the functioning of US democracy — think of the Tea Party’s critique of “big government” or Trump’s unfounded claims of mass voter fraud.
However, disillusionment with democracy is also loudly and prominently expressed by left-wing and young people in the US. Occupy Wall Street and the campaign of US Senator Bernie Sanders are two examples. The Trump presidency has now made it current within more established liberal communities, particularly among higher-educated, straight, white males.
This sentiment is at least in part a consequence of an egocentric bias.
There is absolutely no doubt that the economic, legal, political and social situation of non-white, non-straight and non-male people is better today than it was a few decades ago. If anything, the “decline” is fairly recent. The last decade saw strong push-backs against abortion and minority voting rights, for example.
The rise of Trump has finally catapulted the issue of white privilege on to the political and public agenda. White liberals are highly active and visible in the debate, but their privilege is seldom the target of their own attacks, and whenever white liberals do critique themselves, it is mostly in a symbolic, self-cleansing kind of way.
Similarly, male privilege is dominating the agenda right now, and male liberals are enthusiastically denouncing and shaming the sexist culture of “the entertainment industry” or “the media,” but rarely bring it closer to home, for example reflecting on how they (we, I) have facilitated the sexual harassment of others and profited from the sexist culture at home or at the work place.
In the wake of the Trump victory, there was even some discussion of education privilege. As the liberal media, simplistically, declared the white working-class man the prototypical Trump supporter, issues like the massive income gap between college-educated and non-college educated people were briefly discussed and somewhat criticized. Liberals soon moved on, focusing on the alleged importance of “fake news” and “post-truth,” rather than lack of education.
The fact that student debt was among the key concerns of both Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders campaign shows that education privilege is still largely a blind spot on the left.
Even the other privileges, when not used against Trump and his supporters, are often buried under more convenient liberal and left-wing frames, like “the 99 percent” versus “the 1 percent.”
Reflecting the empirical reality that “the richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s wealth than at any time in the past 50 years,” all attention is focused on “the corrupt elite,” which implicitly or explicitly is defined as the sole source of real privilege. This populist distinction purifies “the people” and largely ignores broader white, male, straight and education privilege.
It is time to face up to our own privilege and not hide behind the even more privileged. This does not mean shaming and ritual public self-incrimination, a long-time favorite within left-wing circles, but acknowledging and problematizing it.
Just as sexual assault cannot become so pervasive without a broader sexist culture, the 1 percent cannot flourish outside of a fundamentally unequal society.
It is more than just the 1 percent who profit from and sustain that inequality — they include most highly educated, straight, white, male liberals.
It is time to check our privilege and walk the talk.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with