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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations