WILL THAT RED/BLUE WAVE RIPPLE GLOBALLY?

WILL THAT RED/BLUE WAVE RIPPLE GLOBALLY?

Today, a deeply divided America votes in midterm elections for Congress, governors, and state and local legislatures. Amid a level of furious polarization not seen in decades, the vote is in many ways a referendum on President Trump’s unconventional presidential style, his “America First” agenda, and his bid to take the Republican Party in a radically more nationalistic direction.


Democrats, fired up with animus against Trump, are hoping that strong turnout among millennial voters and women (particularly in politically-purple suburban districts) can help them gain the two dozen seats they’ll need in order to take control of the House of Representatives, as polls suggest they can. Republicans, meanwhile, are focusing more on defending their control of the Senate. President Trump, in recent days, has rallied the party’s base by stoking fears about immigration and focusing on America’s roaring economy. The latest surveys suggest GOP will hold the upper chamber.

Since our beat here is global affairs, let’s take a look at the election through that lens.

How much do mid-term voters care about foreign policy?

 

Quite a bit. Polls show that foreign policy is a top issue for about two-thirds of voters right now. That’s about the same as in 2014, and while it ranks lower than traditional domestic issues such as healthcare (top concern for 80% of voters), economic policy, or immigration, it’s one of the few issues that is equally important for both Democrats and Republicans (see graphic below.)

What’s more, while it’s true that immigration outshines “foreign policy” as a concern for Republicans and “climate policy” does the same for Democrats – both of those issues are in fact closely bound up with the broader debate about what role America should play globally today. For Trump and his supporters, for example, proposals to regulate immigration more tightly and exit global pacts to combat climate change are part and parcel of the more assertively nationalistic America First foreign policy that he has outlined.

Do other countries and their leaders care?

 

You bet. Other world leaders are watching the election closely because of what the result tells them about Trump’s political future – a strong showing for the GOP will put Trump in a more competitive position as he seeks his own re-election in just two years.

That calculation is particularly important for leaders at odds with the US: after all, Chinese president Xi Jinping has to calculate how far to take a trade war with the US; North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has to craft an endgame for his current strategy of wooing Trump personally without conceding much on denuclearization; and Iran has to decide whether to abandon the nuclear deal now that the US has bolted on it, or to hold out hope for repairing it under a future US administration less implacably hostile to Tehran. All of those decisions look very different if Trump seems likely to be in power for another six years rather than just another two.

But that question matters also for traditional American allies such as Japan, Canada, and the EU, which are watching closely to assess the depth and permanence of the uncertainty the Trump has introduced into their ties to Washington. The prospect of another half dozen years of Trump would accelerate their efforts to develop financial and security policies that are more independent of the United States.

Would a divided Congress affect Trump’s foreign policy?

 

Not directly, no. In foreign policy, the US President has extremely broad scope for action – on military interventions, trade policy, and adherence to international rules and norms – that does not require Congressional approval.

One of the few areas where the House will have a say is on ratifying the revised NAFTA treaty, now called the USMCA. But here House Democrats would be in a bind: opposing Trump’s relatively mild but still worker-friendly revisions to the pact would be political suicide if the party hopes to win back white blue-collar voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Hard to see House Democrats making that a hill to die on just to stymie Trump.

What the House can do is open Congressional investigations or audits of areas that are related to foreign policy – such as the budgets of the Pentagon and State Department, Trump’s alleged financial ties to foreign powers, or the ongoing allegations of collusion in the 2016 election.  Prominent democrats have already signaled that if they gain control of the House this is precisely what they plan to do.

Advancing global money movement for everyone, everywhere

https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackimp/N6024.4218512GZEROMEDIA/B26379324.311531246;dc_trk_aid=504469522;dc_trk_cid=156468981;ord=[timestamp];dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;gdpr=${GDPR};gdpr_consent=${GDPR_CONSENT_755};ltd=?

Even with innovations in fintech and digital payments, roadblocks related to basic infrastructure like electricity and internet connectivity still prevent many migrant workers from being able to transfer money to their families back home with a truly digital end-to-end flow. While more workers can send money digitally today, the majority of people still receive funds in cash. Read more about why public-private partnerships are key to advancing the future of global money movement and why it matters from experts at the Visa Economic Empowerment Institute.

The European Union is, for better or worse, the most ambitious experiment in human history in institutionalized multinational cooperation. Its success depends on the willingness of its members to abide by its rules.

In recent years, the populist-nationalist governments of former Communist bloc members Hungary and Poland have flouted some of those rules in order to boost their own popularity with citizens suspicious of the EU's liberal values on issues like immigration and minority rights. In response, the EU has scolded these "illiberal" governments and threatened forceful action – so far without much effect.

The fight between EU institutions and Poland and Hungary has escalated.

More Show less

Ian Bremmer is joined on GZERO World by artificial intelligence scientists Kai-fu Lee, who recently wrote about how AI will change the world over the next two decades, precisely to talk about AI's future. After this week's Facebook debacle, how can we align interest to regulate AI-driven algorithms? Will AI steal all our jobs? And what should we do to learn from AI to improve our lives before it gets smarter than us?

Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Is a robot coming for your job? Kai-fu Lee explains AI

US elections officials have always persuaded losing candidates that they've, ahem, lost. Now it's worse because there's a new paradigm, according to former DHS and Election Assistance Commission official Matt Masterson, policy fellow with the Stanford Internet Observatory. Candidates that won't accept defeat regardless of the margin or evidence of fraud, he says, are undermining trust in the system — and election officials are ill-equipped to deal with this problem.

Matt Masterson made these remarks during a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Who's most responsible for spreading misinformation online? For Ginny Badanes, senior director for Democracy Forward at Microsoft, the problem starts with those who create it, yet ultimately governments, companies and individuals all share the burden. And she's more interested in what we can do to respond.

Ginny Badanes spoke at a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. In this video, watch Ian Bremmer's conversation with Lebanese journalist and author Kim Ghattas on GZW talking about the future of Lebanese politics and sectarianism in the county after the after the blast. It was originally published on August 19, 2020.

In Lebanon, "a majority (are) united in wanting a different future, a future that is non-sectarian, that is non-corrupt, that provides prosperity, justice, dignity for people," journalist Kim Ghattas told Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.

In this interview, Ghattas discusses the opportunity that could arise from the tragedy of the Beirut explosion which killed 200 and injured thousands more. The Lebanese are "fed up" with the militant group Hezbollah, she tells Bremmer, and want to strive for a government that better resembles the diversity and cosmopolitan nature of its citizens.

Watch the GZERO World episode: Lebanon Post-Blast: Rage in the Streets of Beirut.

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. Below is our original piece on the Beirut port explosions published on August 5, 2020.


The twin explosions at Beirut's port on Tuesday were so powerful that the aftershocks reverberated as far as the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, 150 miles away. The specter of fire and smoke was such that many suggested on social media that Beirut had experienced a nuclear blast.

In the days ahead, more details will come to light about why a deadly cache of materials was haphazardly stashed at a port warehouse, and why Lebanon's government failed to secure the site. So, what comes next for crisis-ridden Lebanon?

More Show less

Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:

What does it actually mean to cut $1 trillion from the Democrats' $3.5 trillion social spending bill?

President Biden has proposed one of the most ambitious expansions of federal spending in recent memory. If he gets everything he wants, it would probably be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society, but he's not going to get everything he wants. Democrats have basically said they cannot do all $3.5 trillion in spending. They're probably going to end up around $2 trillion. So what gets cut? Well, we don't know yet. There's kind of two ways to go about this. They could either cut the number of programs that have been proposed, doing fewer things with more money on a permanent basis, or they could try to do more things, each program getting less money and potentially doing them on a temporary basis. So, a future Congress would have to extend it. What does this mean for you? Well, a lot of the money in here is designed to go directly to families, either in the form of cash payments, through the tax code, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, or subsidies for things like child care, early childhood education, and community college. And if you cut these things back, it means less money is going to go out the door to the American people. It also means less tax increases to finance it. So the implications of what's being proposed could actually end up being a big deal for a lot of Americans who would qualify for benefits under these new programs.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal