America is still a democracy post-Trump, but is it a healthy one?

Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group's Jon Lieber, Jeffrey Wright, and Clayton Allen are taking the Red Pen to an op-ed by Eric Posner, an author and law professor at the University of Chicago. It's titled "America Passed the Trump Stress Test" and was published recently by Project Syndicate.

Professor Posner's argument is basically this: sure, President Trump has violated norms and challenged legitimate election results, but in the end, no real harm done to American institutions, or America's democracy itself. Now it's certainly true that Trump's behavior hasn't led to meaningful policy change, but Posner is blowing the whole thing off as a, "Nothing to see here, no big deal," moment. And we think it's a bit more serious than that.

First, Posner writes, "While many Republican voters tell pollsters that the election was stolen, hardly any of them have taken to the streets or pursued tactics that one would expect from people who truly believe that democracy has been subverted. There has been no Hong Kong style uprising. Trump's attacks on American institutions are largely a form of political performance art."

"There has been no Hong Kong-style uprising." Of course US democracy survived Trump, but that's a pretty low bar.

Okay. For starters, it is obvious that the US democracy has withstood Trump's challenge of the election results, and refusal to concede. Heck, that's my whole, "Don't panic," shtick, but that's a low bar. Trump has also in the process, reshaped the Republican party and accelerated the deep partisanship that has nearly destroyed the possibility of compromise in Washington. You do actually need legislation to get done in a country. Further, Trump isn't going anywhere. I mean, we'll see how Twitter treats him in his days, post Pennsylvania Avenue, when we all know he's still going to be tweeting, and he's still going to be talking to his base.

Next, on the matter of civic discourse and participation throughout the election, Posner writes, "Despite the hardships and constraints of the worst health crisis in a century, people donated money to candidates, argued with each other online, organized on a massive scale, notwithstanding the conspiracy theorizing, polarization, and persistent sense of turmoil. These are signs of a healthy democracy."

"...these are signs of a healthy democracy." America is surely a democracy,. Is it a healthy one?

May I remind you, Eric, that a majority of Trump voters don't think that Biden legitimately won, and the voting system was seriously stretched; hours long waits, mail-in ballot hiccups and the like. Look, America is surely a democracy, but saying that the American democracy is healthy? Most Americans don't think so, most foreigners too. That's a problem. I'd also point out that Trump's attacks on the legitimacy of the election have reinforced distrust in the system, particularly among his own 70 plus million supporters. That isn't the sign of a healthy democracy either.

Finally, Posner writes of Trump's hope of overturning the election results, "Perhaps," he says, "If enough voters took to the streets and enough officials calculated that a grateful Trump would award them with future Senate cures, these officials would have delivered for him, but that didn't happen."

"Perhaps, if enough voters took to the streets... these officials would have delivered for him. But that didn't happen." If the vote were closer, these things might have happened.

Actually, it didn't happen because the election wasn't close enough to rig in key swing States, but President Trump has created the toxic environment for all of these things to happen, following a potential closer vote. So, yes, overall, it's true that a concession would be nice, but it's not at all necessary for a transition of power to happen; Biden will be ascending to the presidency on January 20th, I have no doubt at all. And yes, American democracy still stands, but Trump's throwing out of conventional norms is not something to simply shrug off. US political institutions have been eroding considerably over the past decades, and that erosion has only accelerated under, and because of President Trump, it doesn't matter that Trump refused to show up at the White House Correspondence Dinner; I could care less. Refusing to release his tax returns. That's another matter. And Trump's overall strategy was not about shaking up Washington, so much as advancing his own personal interests and abusing American power. And that should not be ignored.

That's Bank of America's new target in its Environmental Business Initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.

Here's how it will drive innovation to address climate change.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Should the Biden administration "reverse course on China" in the hope of establishing a friendlier relationship, as diplomat Kishore Mahbubani argues in a recent Financial Times op-ed? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Michael Hirson take out the Red Pen to explain why it's not that simple.

And today, we are talking about the United States and China. The relationship between the two most powerful nations in the world is the worst it's been since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Pundits and policymakers alike all around the world are trying to figure out how Washington and Beijing can at least stop the bleeding because a reset is nowhere in the cards.

That's the topic of the op-ed that we are looking at today. It's from the Financial Times, written by Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, and the title summarizes the key argument: "Biden should summon the courage to reverse course on China." Meaning, he should throw out the Trump era approach and open the door to more cooperation and kinder, gentler relations.

More Show less

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved or are currently in early use globally, and COVAX, the global initiative started last year by the World Health Organization and other partners, is pushing for equitable access to vaccines for all. But most of the half billion jabs given so far have gone to citizens of wealthy countries, with half going to the US and China alone. What's the problem with so-called vaccine nationalism? Ian Bremmer explains that besides the clear humanitarian concerns, the continued global spread of COVID increases the risk of new mutations and variants that can threaten the entire world, vaccinated or not.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Should wealthy individuals and nations shoulder more of the burden in addressing climate change? Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert argues that Big Tech leaders like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk should shift more of their focus to fighting for our own planet's survival, instead of space exploration. "We're doing as much as we can to make life difficult on planet Earth for ourselves. But there's virtually nothing we could do to make it as difficult as life on Mars, where there's, among other things, no oxygen." Kolbert, the author of Under a White Sky, discusses why it's so crucial for a few rich countries to bear most of the climate burden, since they're also the biggest emitters. Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting this Friday, April 16. Check local listings.

In recent days, Northern Ireland has seen some of its worst street violence in over a decade. The anger has subsided a bit this week, but post-Brexit fears leave many uncertain about their future in a deeply divided land with a long history of political violence between Irish republicans and UK unionists.

More Show less

Fighting climate change is about making the planet get less hot. The more quickly countries slow down their carbon emissions, the faster that'll happen. All the more important for the nations that pollute the most — but not all of them are on board. Although the majority, including China, are setting future targets to go Net Zero, India doesn't want to commit (yet) to when to stop burning fossil fuels to spur economic growth. We take a look at when the world's top polluting economies intend to go carbon-neutral, compared with their share of global emissions, of renewable energy as a source of electricity, and percentage of global coal consumption.

Peruvian runoff: Perú's presidential election is going to a runoff in June between two surprise and polarizing contenders, each of whom won less than 20 percent of votes in a highly fragmented first round. Pedro Castillo, a far-left union leader and teacher who benefited from a late surge in the polls, will battle rightwing populist Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the country's imprisoned former strongman. Castillo wants to rewrite the constitution to weaken the political influence of the country's business elite and maybe to allow the state to nationalize parts of the mining sector to pay for social programs for the poor. Fujimori wants to use mining revenues to create jobs by investing in infrastructure and healthcare. The runoff will probably be a national referendum on Fujimori, a divisive figure running for the top job for the third time. No Peruvian president has ever left office without facing corruption charges, but Fujimori already faces several — and she'll avoid jail time if she wins.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.


Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal