We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Supporters with a placard 'April 10 is the Yoon Suk Yeol government, Judgment Day.' attend the Democratic Party of Korea's general election campaign rally at Yongsan Station Square in Seoul, South Korea, April 9, 2024.
South Korean opposition likely to clean up in key elections
South Koreans went to the polls today for key legislative elections amid a bitterly polarized environment and a sluggish economy, with early exit polls showing a likely landslide for the opposition Democratic Party. President Yoon Suk Yeol has been stymied by DP control of the unicameral legislature throughout the first two years of his presidency, and his People Power Party was facing daunting odds heading into today.
Cost of living is top of mind. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung turned the humble green onions that feature in so many Korean dishes into a political weapon after Yoon made remarks on their price that were perceived as being out of touch. Meanwhile, Yoon’s wife, Kim Keon-hee, has been at the center of a luxury gift scandal, which has hardly helped with perceptions of aloofness.
That said, Lee faces graft allegations of his own and is no less of a controversial figure. In fact, he was lucky to survive an attempted assassination in January, when he was stabbed in the neck at a campaign rally. Political violence is not unheard of in South Korea, but the incident underlines the depth of the country’s political divisions.
“Because of the political polarization, South Koreans end up deciding elections based on things like whether the first lady received a $2,000 handbag and didn't report it,” says Eurasia Group senior analyst Jeremy Chan. “It speaks to the underlying dynamic in South Korea, where folks are deciding on the trivial stuff because the political parties can't deal with the big issues.”
And there are BIG issues on South Korea’s plate: The country is getting old and having very few babies, economic growth is weak and unlikely to improve, and, of course, North Korea’s nuclear weapons threaten total annihilation.
Chan expects Yoon to continue focusing on foreign policy if exit polls hold true, including “doubling down on the rapprochement with Japan, broadening relations with Europe, with ASEAN, and with the United States, while moving further away from China and North Korea, because that's where he can exert influence without the National Assembly.”
Official results are expected early Thursday.
Mayorkas impeachment: Reps. Lofgren & Spartz on House vote on DHS secretary
The US House of Representatives is voting on a Republican-led resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the immigration crisis on the southern border. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sat down with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN), who both sit on the House Immigration subcommittee, moments before the vote took place for their thoughts on the first impeachment of a cabinet secretary in modern history.
“[The impeachment] has nothing to do with meeting the constitutional standards,” Lofgren, former chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, tells Bremmer, “It’s a complete waste of time.”
House Democrats say the vote is unconstitutional and politically motivated, but the GOP, which has a razor-thin three-vote majority in the House, accuse Mayorkas of a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and beaching public trust.
“I always believe that ultimate responsibility lays [with] the top executive,” GOP Rep. and Ukrainian American Spartz argues, “We need to send the message that can’t allow executives not to do their duty to the public.”
Watch the full interview on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on public television beginning this Saturday, February 10. Check local listings.
United States Senator Ron Johnson (Republican of Wisconsin)
Will Democrats and Republicans head for the border?
But there is now more talk in Washington of a legislative compromise that Dems would accept and Republicans would cheer in the form of policies that make it tougher for asylum-seekers to enter the US.
Why might the Dems give way? They want more money from Republicans to help Ukraine repel Russia, and concessions on border policy might help. Dems also worry that another border crisis will undermine their 2024 election chances by boosting Republican turnout and diverting attention from other issues – like abortion rights – where Democrats hold a stronger political hand.
What’s the Republican calculation? Winning Dem concessions to tighten the border is a political victory, but an election-year border crisis on Biden’s watch might be more valuable.
We’ll be watching to see how heavyweights in each party play their respective political hands.
Republican candidates line the Miami stage for Wednesday's GOP debate.
What this week’s vote and GOP debate mean for 2024
In a world obsessed with reading polls like prophecies, many are looking at Tuesday’s election results for evidence of where Americans really stand.
Despite Joe Biden’s lagging popularity, Democrats scored key victories on Election Day. They maintained control of the governorship in predominantly red Kentucky, made an impressive showing in Mississippi, and enshrined a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio. The abortion issue also helped Dems flip the House of Delegates and maintain control of the State Senate in Virginia.
So was Tuesday a harbinger of 2024?
Not if the five Republicans who took to the debate stage in Florida last night – former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott – have any say. With Donald Trump, who is 48 points ahead of second place DeSantis, refusing to take part, the debates are more of a pep rally for the Republican base than a competition at this point. But they reveal what the GOP thinks are winning and losing issues for the party.
Support for Israel was the biggest topic of debate, with candidates competing to display more support for American Jews domestically and Israel’s military abroad. National security followed close behind, and there was plenty of squabbling over who would be toughest on China. Meanwhile, the abortion issue got buried – it didn’t get mentioned until an hour and a half in.
But beyond the issues, Tuesday’s election results highlighted emerging threats to the GOP …
The power of the moderate Democrat: With the Republican Party reeling from the PR nightmare of taking three weeks to appoint a House speaker and the hard-right’s growing influence, many moderate Republicans and traditional conservatives are showing more of a willingness to shop around on the ballot.
Incumbent Democrat Andy Beshear’s win in Kentucky’s gubernatorial race and Democrat Brandon Presley’s narrow loss in his bid for the governor’s mansion in Mississippi are testaments to the power of the moderate Dem in suburbs, swing states, and even predominantly red ones like the Magnolia State, where Presley earned 47% of the vote.
Both candidates are being lauded as emerging political leaders because they can build coalitions, a strategy Democratic candidates running in inhospitable districts – and national elections – should heed. Beshear is one of the most popular governors in the country, despite running a state that voted for Trump by 26 points. His campaign leaned into the abortion issue and Medicaid access, rejected partisanship, and focused on jobs and the economy, gaining him cross-party appeal.
Abortion could help Biden’s popularity problem: We have seen what happened in Ohio before, and we're not talking about last August when Issue 1 – which concerned adding the right to abortion to the constitution – doubled turnout. Back in 2004, former President George W. Bush looked weak in the polls, so the GOP proposed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in 11 key states, increasing socially conservative turnout in tight races among voters who might have otherwise stayed home.
Now, Democrats are taking a leaf from Bush’s playbook. At least 11 states are on track to have abortion-related measures on their ballots in 2024, including swing states like Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The election will almost certainly be close, and getting abortion on the ballot could overcome Biden’s lukewarm popularity and get Democratic and moderate voters to the polls in the states where he needs them the most.
In Ohio, 18 counties that voted for Trump in 2020 voted in favor of Issue 1. The same goes for 67 other Trump-won counties in the six states where abortion has been on the ballot since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
In previous debates, only former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley recognized that abortion restriction was a liability for the GOP. But following Tuesday’s election, DeSantis softened his stance, while Haley continued calling for compromise, and Vivek Ramaswamy said “male responsibility” and paternity tests were the answer.
The moral of the story: Even with Biden’s approval rating in the tank, this week's election showed how making a few key counties a little less red can be decisive – a strategy Democrats will no doubt be hoping to repeat in November 2024. Meanwhile, Republican candidates will prepare for the next debate on Dec. 6 in the hopes of wooing voters ahead of the first primary in Iowa on Jan. 15.
Speakerless House shows weakness to US adversaries, says Rep. Mike Waltz
It's not a particularly comfortable moment to be a House Republican on Capitol Hill. Unable to agree on a Speaker, the House remains paralyzed and unable to do crucial work on a wide array of domestic and foreign policy priorities. Israel, of course, is at the top of that list. Republican Congressman Mike Waltz worries that the paralysis on Capitol Hill is playing right into the hands of America's adversaries.
"Our adversaries smell weakness in Washington right now," Rep. Waltz tells Ian Bremmer on an episode of GZERO World. "We need to get our act together and move the country forward." And yet, the House remains without a Speaker. What will it take to remove this logjam and get the House back to work?
Watch more on this episode: America's tightrope walk with the Israel-Hamas war
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Paralyzed US House is an “absolute nightmare” - Sen. Chris Murphy
A House (of bickering Republicans) divided against itself, cannot stand. Forgive the redux of Abraham Lincoln's famous quote, but it seems particularly relevant in light of another week of total paralysis on Capitol Hill. Namely, within the House Republican caucus.
According to Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who sat down with Ian Bremmer for an interview on GZERO World, the chaos in the House chamber due to Republicans' inability to nominate a House speaker may, in fact, be a feature, not a bug. "The House is just an absolute nightmare, and it's a really bad look for the United States. It weakens President Biden's credibility abroad."
"Republicans are weakening America and weakening people's faith in government, but it has national security consequences when people don't know whether, even the things we have perfect consensus on, like support for Israel, can actually get a vote and pass."
Watch more on this episode: America's tightrope walk with the Israel-Hamas war
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Jordan’s shot for the speaker, close to no avail ›
- McCarthy is ousted as House speaker. What comes next? ›
- GOP-led US House will get tougher on China — but not as much as you'd think ›
- Paralyzed US House can’t even wave to Israel ›
- Meet Mike Johnson, US House Speaker & DC's most Googled person - GZERO Media ›
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
Trump vs. Biden: Round two
It’s on. President Joe Biden released a kick-off reelection ad on Tuesday, which means both he and his predecessor Donald Trump have now officially thrown their hats in the ring for the 2024 presidential race, kicking off one hell of a showdown.
Most Americans don't want either candidate to run again, but if polls – and vibes – are anything to go by, that’s what they’ll get. But what’s the same and what’s shifted since 2020, and how might these factors shape the 2024 campaign?
The more things change …
What pandemic? The last time Biden and Trump were both vying for the Oval Office, the number one issue for many voters was pandemic containment and recovery.
That’s no longer the case. For most Americans, who are now concerned with inflation and bread-and-butter issues, the pandemic feels like a distant memory.
Back in 2020, the pandemic was good fodder for Biden, who used Trump’s chaotic COVID response to cast himself as a level-headed policy man who follows expert advice. Indeed, without COVID casting a shadow over … everything, Biden won’t be able to campaign from his Delaware basement this time around, but will have to shuttle around the country to attend town halls and rallies – something his likely opponent is very good at.
Role reversal. Incumbency is usually an advantage for US presidential candidates. Consider that Trump was just the third president in 60 years to lose reelection.
While Biden was focused largely on panning Trump’s record in 2020, this time he will seek to make the election about his legislative wins – including a big infrastructure package that had bipartisan support – to get independent voters onside.
Donald Trump’s legal woes. Trump has always coveted controversy, but his current legal predicament is a whole new ball game. Earlier this month, the former president was charged by a Manhattan grand jury on 34 counts of business fraud. And the cases – and potential cases – are piling up.
Biden will certainly use this as a cudgel, but it’s unlikely to be a winning strategy for Democrats. So far, there’s no indication that these cases will hurt Trump politically, with his polling numbers remaining steady despite being the first US president in history to be charged with a crime.
The more they stay the same …
Biden isn’t getting any younger. In 2020, voters were already expressing concern about Biden’s age and mental faculties. His propensity for gaffes and lifelong stutter certainly didn’t help.
Ageist attacks will only intensify on the 2024 campaign trail. A bullish Trump will surely seek to make a big deal of the fact that Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term. (For context, Ronald Reagan was 77 at the end of his presidency.) But Trump, at age 76 himself, may also be subjected to age-related critiques on the campaign trail.
Trump: GOP King. Despite the stack of op-eds published in recent months suggesting that Trump’s hold over the Republican Party is waning, poll after poll suggests that he would still thump any wannabe president in a GOP primary. A whopping two-thirds of GOP voters back him despite his legal woes, according to a new NBC poll. Indeed, watching Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis – who is expected to announce his candidacy soon – awkwardly navigate Trump’s special status within the Republican Party reflects the former president’s influence over the GOP base.
Still, while Trump’s no-holds-barred approach might resonate in a feisty Republican primary, results from the 2021 midterm elections suggest that the Trump playbook doesn’t necessarily resonate with independent voters in a general election.
Enthusiasm gap. Trump has consolidated a group of die-hard supporters over the past seven years, and they remain as loyal as ever. Biden, on the other hand, had an enthusiasm problem in 2020 (though the clearing of the Democratic field helped get him over the finish line) – and this continues to be the case.
With this in mind, Democrats will be looking to boost turnout among independents by undermining the former president’s electability pitch, so expect Donald Trump to take up a lot of oxygen in the months ahead.
Lessons from the COVID lab-leak fiasco
The US Department of Energy made unlikely headlines over the weekend when The Wall Street Journal reported that new evidence had led the agency to conclude with “low confidence” that the COVID-19 virus probably escaped from a Chinese lab. The DOE’s findings match up with the FBI’s, which point to an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology with “moderate confidence.”
This follows investigations by four other agencies plus the National Intelligence Council that concluded with low confidence that the virus spread naturally from animals to humans, possibly in a wet market in Wuhan. Other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, remain undecided, much like DOE was until recently.
The bottom line is we still don’t know how the pandemic got started. Both origin stories – natural transmission and laboratory leak – are scientifically plausible. The DOE’s report should lead us to update our beliefs slightly toward the lab-leak theory, but the score in the intelligence community is still 5-2 in favor of zoonotic transfer, and all but the FBI’s conclusions were reached with low confidence.
One thing we do know – and all agencies agree on this – is that the virus was not deliberately engineered and released by China as a bioweapon. We also know that Beijing systematically lied to the international community, the World Health Organization, and its own citizens about the virus, making the outbreak worse than it had to be. (Yes, those two thoughts are compatible: The Chinese government’s sketchiness can be easily explained by many reasons other than bioterror.)
But we will likely never get to the bottom of COVID’s true origins, precisely because China refuses to allow a proper investigation.
So … what more is there to say about this?
Well, I think there is an important lesson here about the politicization of science in the United States. Coming out as a believer in the lab-leak hypothesis would have gotten you banned from social media just two years ago. Today, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies consider it reasonable if not likely. What gives?
Uncertainty reigned supreme in the early days of the pandemic. Nobody knew how deadly the disease was, how easily it could spread, who was vulnerable to it, or how to protect themselves from it. Back then, the dominant narrative about the virus’s origins was that it had jumped from a bat to a human at Wuhan’s live-animal market.
But in February 2020, Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton went on Fox News and raised the possibility that coronavirus may not have emerged naturally while accusing Beijing of a lack of transparency.
“We don’t know where it originated, but we do know we have to get to the bottom of that,” the senator said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level-4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases. We don’t have evidence that this disease originated there,” he clarified, “but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says, and China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.”
Cotton’s message found a receptive audience in right-wing conspiracy theorists. Almost immediately, what had started as a perfectly legitimate question got spun into an unfounded story that the virus was a bioweapon deliberately engineered by the Chinese Communist Party for nefarious purposes. Some even went so far as to claim Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the face of the U.S. pandemic response, funded China’s biowarfare program.
Mind you, Cotton himself never said he thought COVID was an act of biological warfare. In fact, he called that possibility “very unlikely.” All he said was it was an open scientific question that called for further investigation, requiring access to evidence Beijing was refusing to provide.
And he was 100% right. COVID’s origins were (and still are) very much an open scientific question. And this question was especially hard to answer given the Chinese government’s (ongoing) obstruction.
But, inured to former President Donald Trump’s racist antics and the American right’s penchant for amplifying misinformation, Twitter scientists, pundits, and journalists in the mainstream media rushed to shout Cotton down, lumping his views in with those of the cranks.
They called any suggestion that the virus did not emerge naturally a “debunked conspiracy theory” motivated by an anti-China and anti-science agenda, even though the lab-leak hypothesis was neither a conspiracy theory nor had it been debunked. They dismissed the message not because it was wrong but because they disagreed with the messenger’s worldview and disliked some of his political bedfellows.
As it turned out, the fact that Cotton’s doubts may have been colored by his anti-China bias, or that others took his hypothesis too far, was irrelevant to the question at hand. And the media’s uber-confident proclamation of a fake consensus when the science was nowhere near settled did real harm, delegitimizing public health authorities and further eroding trust in science.
Why did otherwise smart, judicious, and well-intentioned journalists and scientists react so virulently – and, indeed, unscientifically – to the lab-leak hypothesis? Two words: politics brain.
The political environment was exceptionally charged back then. Partisan polarization had divided Americans into tribes bitterly pitted against each other. Citizens were constantly bombarded with conflicting information, and whether something was accepted as true or false depended as much or more on who it came from than whether it was actually true.
So when a vocal China hawk representing a political party hostile to science and comfortable with conspiracy theories raised questions about the prevailing narrative, the natural instinct of many in mainstream media was to push back. Because many of those who publicly raised questions about the virus’s origins were bad actors, the act of raising questions itself became an act of bad faith. That’s what politics brain does to us: It clouds our judgment and supercharges cognitive biases like groupthink, mood affiliation, and motivated reasoning.
There’s another lesson here. Yes, parts of the media and the scientific community were biased. Bias is human. Bias is inevitable. I can live with bias. But the bigger problem was the misplaced confidence.
One thing that annoyed me about Dr. Fauci – who I’ve gotten to know a bit and consider a dedicated public servant – was how certain he came off in some of his early communications on questions that he obviously wasn’t certain about. Now, people don’t like uncertainty, and science is hard. Sometimes it needs to be simplified for the public to understand. Fauci didn’t want to cede any ground that the anti-science crowd could exploit to sow doubt. I get that.
But all that false certainty ends up doing is delegitimizing science at a time when trust in objective truth and institutions of knowledge is at historic lows. It’s genuinely better to treat people with respect, explain the nuances, say “I don’t know” when you don’t know, and hope they’ll get it. That goes for the pandemic’s origins, vaccine effectiveness, long COVID, climate change, and many other areas of scientific inquiry.
When it comes to science, just … follow the science.
________________________________
🔔 Be sure to subscribe to GZERO Daily to get the world's best global politics newsletter every day on top of my weekly email. Did I mention it's free?