All eyes are on the US as next month’s congressional elections approach. The outcome will answer many alarming questions raised two years ago, when Donald Trump won the presidential election.
Will the US electorate declare that Trump is not what America is about? Will voters renounce his racism, misogyny, nativism, and protectionism? Will they say that his “America First” rejection of the international rule of law is not what the US stands for? Or will they make it clear that Trump’s win was not a historical accident resulting from a Republican primary process that produced a flawed nominee and a Democratic primary process that produced Trump’s ideal opponent?
As the US’ future hangs in the balance, impassioned debates about what caused the 2016 outcome are more than academic. At stake is how the Democratic Party — and similar parties of the left in Europe — should position themselves to win the most votes. Should they lean toward the center, or focus on mobilizing young, progressive and enthusiastic newcomers?
Illustration: Lance Liu
There are good reasons to believe that the latter course is more likely to bring electoral success and stymie the dangers posed by Trump.
Voter turnout in the US is abysmal and worse in non-presidential-election years. In 2010, just 41.8 percent of the electorate voted. In 2014, only 36.7 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, according to data from the US Elections Project.
Democratic turnout is even worse, although it appears to be on the upswing this election cycle.
People often say they do not vote because they think it makes no difference: the two parties are as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Trump has shown that is not true. The Republicans who abandoned all pretense of fiscal rectitude and voted last year for a massive tax cut for billionaires and corporations have shown it is not true. The Republican senators who rallied behind the nomination of US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite his misleading testimony and entirely credible evidence of past sexual misbehavior, have shown it is not true.
However, the Democrats are also responsible for voter apathy. The party must overcome a long history of collusion with the right, from then-US president Bill Clinton’s capital-gains tax cut, which enriched the top 1 percent, and financial market deregulation, which helped bring on the Great Recession, to the 2008 bank bailout, which offered too little to displaced workers and homeowners facing foreclosure.
Over the past quarter-century, the party has sometimes seemed more focused on winning the support of those who live on capital gains than those who live on wages. Many stay-at-home voters complain that the Democrats are relying on attacks on Trump, rather than putting forward a real alternative.
The thirst for a different kind of contender is evident in voter support for progressive candidates like US Senator Bernie Sanders and New York’s 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who recently defeated the fourth-ranking Democrat in the US House of Representatives in a party primary.
Progressives like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have presented an attractive message to the voters whom Democrats must mobilize to win. They seek to restore access to a middle-class life by providing decent, well-paying jobs, re-establishing a sense of financial security and ensuring access to quality education — without the chokehold of student debt that so many graduates currently face — and decent healthcare, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
They call for affordable housing and a secure retirement in which elderly people are not preyed on by an avaricious financial sector, and they seek a more dynamic, competitive and fair-market economy by curbing the excesses of market power, financialization and globalization, and by strengthening workers’ bargaining power.
These perquisites of a middle-class life are attainable. They were affordable a half-century ago, when the US was substantially poorer than it is today, and they are affordable now. In fact, neither the US economy nor its democracy can afford not to bolster the middle class. US government policies and programs — including public options for health insurance, supplementary retirement benefits or mortgages — are crucial to realizing this vision.
I am encouraged by the outpouring of support for these progressive proposals and the political leaders who support them. In a normal democracy, these ideas would, I am confident, prevail, but US politics has been corrupted by money, gerrymandering and massive attempts at disenfranchisement.
Last year’s tax bill was nothing short of a bribe to corporations and wealthy people to pour their financial resources into this year’s election. Statistics show that money matters enormously in US politics.
Even with a flawed democracy — including a concerted effort to prevent some from voting — the power of the electorate matters. It will soon be clear whether it matters more than the money flowing into the Republican Party’s coffers. The US’ political and economic future, and most likely the peace and prosperity of the entire world, depends on the answer.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute. His most recent book is Globalization and its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath