Connect with us

Politics

A massive repudiation of Trump’s racist politics is building – The Washington Post

Published

on


Those words seem prescient today, after four years of President Trump’s racism, from the “very fine people” marching with neo-Nazis in Charlottesville to, in just the past week, a “white power” retweet and a threat to veto defense spending to protect the names of Confederate generals; after a pandemic disproportionately ravaged African American communities while an indifferent president tried to move on; after Trump-allied demonstrators, some carrying firearms and Confederate flags, tried to “liberate” themselves from public health restrictions; after the video of George Floyd’s killing showed the world blatant police brutality; after Trump used federal firepower against peaceful civil rights demonstrators of all colors.

The reckoning Parker foresaw is now upon us. White women, disgusted by Trump’s cruelty, are abandoning him in large number. White liberals, stunned by the brazen racism, have taken to the streets. And signs point to African American turnout in November that will rival the record level of 2012, when Obama was on the ballot. This, by itself, would flip Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Democrats, an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress shows.

Surprisingly high Democratic turnout in recent contests in Wisconsin, Georgia, Kentucky and Colorado points to the possibility of a building wave. The various measures of Democratic enthusiasm suggest “turnout beyond anything we’ve seen since 1960,” University of North Carolina political scientist Marc Hetherington predicts. If so, that would mean a historic repudiation of Trump, who knows his hope of reelection depends on low turnout. He has warned that mail-in ballots and other attempts to encourage more voting would mean “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

That may not be wrong. Trump has accelerated a decades-old trend toward parties redefining themselves by race and racial attitudes. Racial resentment is now the single most important factor driving Republicans and Republican-leaning movers, according to extensive research, most recently by Nicholas Valentino and Kirill Zhirkov at the University of Michigan — more than religion, culture, class or ideology. An ongoing study by University of North Carolina researchers finds that racial resentment even drives hostility toward mask-wearing and social distancing. Conversely, racial liberalism now drives Democrats of all colors more than any other factor.

Consider just one yardstick, a standard question of racial attitudes in which people are asked to agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.”

In 2012, 56 percent of white Republicans agreed with that statement, according to the American National Election Studies. The number grew in 2016 with Trump’s rise, to 59 percent. Last month, an astonishing 71 percent of white Republicans agreed, according to a YouGov poll written by Parker and conducted by GQR (where my wife is a partner).

The opposite movement among white Democrats is even more striking. In 2012, 38 percent agreed that African Americans didn’t try hard enough. In 2016, that dropped to 27 percent. And now? Just 13 percent.

To the extent Trump’s racist provocation is a strategy (rather than simply an instinct), it is a miscalculation. The electorate was more than 90 percent white when Richard Nixon deployed his Southern strategy; the proportion is now 70 percent white and shrinking. But more than that, Trump’s racism has alienated a large number of white people.

“For many white Americans, the things Trump is saying and getting away with, they just didn’t think they lived in a world where that could happen,” says Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist specializing in public opinion at the University of Michigan. Racist appeals in particular alienate white, college-educated women, and even some women without college degrees, he has found: “One of the best ways to exacerbate the gender gap isn’t to talk about gender but to talk about race.”

Trump’s racism has also emboldened white Democrats, who have often been on the losing end of racial politics since George H.W. Bush deployed Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis in 1988. “They’re embracing the racial issues they used to cower on in decades past,” Hetherington says.

This is what Parker had in mind when he wrote in 2016 that Trump could be “good for the United States.” The backlash Trump provoked among whites and nonwhites alike “could kick off a second Reconstruction,” Parker now thinks. “I know it sounds crazy, especially coming from a black man,” he says, but “I think Trump actually is one of the best things that’s happened in this country.”

Read more:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Health officials ramp up effort to convince public that vaccine decisions will be based on science, not politics – The Washington Post

Published

on


Top Food and Drug Administration officials, in published articles and interviews, said they would approve a vaccine only after rigorous review and would consult an outside advisory committee — something that lawmakers and nongovernment scientists have been clamoring for. Agency officials insisted decisions will be based “solely on good science and data.” They got backup from Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious-disease expert, who told Reuters the FDA won’t be swayed by political considerations. He has said a vaccine might be ready by early next year.

But Trump, who has a history of leaning on, and sometimes abusing, government scientists, told Geraldo Rivera on Thursday, “I’m rushing it. I am. I’m pushing everybody.” He said he was focused on saving lives, not on winning the election.

As officials race to stop the pandemic, they are increasingly worried that public skepticism could spur a substantial number of people to reject a vaccine, undermining the nation’s ability to return to some semblance of normal life. To try to counter those concerns, lawmakers and health experts are demanding the FDA adhere to stringent standards and be as open as possible in considering any vaccine.

But the FDA’s efforts to convince the public the agency will make sound, data-driven decisions have been complicated by the White House’s politicization of health and science issues, from the wearing of face masks and school reopenings to its advocacy of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine. The FDA has itself played a role; it was roundly criticized for initially authorizing the anti-malarial drug that was touted by Trump for covid-19. It subsequently reversed the decision.

Bioethicists said that while the FDA’s effort to strengthen public faith in a vaccine is an important first step, the administration’s top scientists and regulators need to go further.

“You can’t have too many voices checking this decision — either to go or not go — given the crucial role that vaccines are going to play, given the political stakes and given the rising distrust of vaccination,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. “It’s people worrying they’re going too fast, saying, ‘I don’t trust Trump, I don’t trust this whole process.’ There’s a huge number of people that are just not going to accept whatever FDA says as adequate.”

Caplan called for an independent commission made up not only of scientists, but also of groups of people most in need of a vaccine, as well as “trusted moral leaders.”

“The administration has shown itself time and time again to push its political agenda and steamroll the science,” he said.

Steven Joffe, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that what is important now is what the FDA does, not what it says.

“Specifically, I think transparency about the data and about the process for decision-making are going to be critical for public and professional/scientific confidence in the vaccine,” he said.

Fears about vaccine uptake are flaring as the administration and manufacturers move at unprecedented speed to try to produce a coronavirus vaccine, with a few potential candidates already in late-stage trials. The accelerated timetable has buoyed hopes a vaccine might soon rescue the nation from crisis but also stoked fears that officials, if pressured by the White House, might cut corners to get a product out. Top health officials recognize that a vaccine will be all but useless if there is not broad public trust and support for whatever the FDA approves, according to one current and one former senior administration official.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), on Thursday introduced legislation requiring the FDA to solicit advice for every potential vaccine from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is made up of outside experts. He stressed the need for the FDA to be as transparent as possible.

“At a time when there is already hesitancy and outright opposition to getting vaccines in the population, any effort that cuts corners or reduces information or public trust would be disastrous, because then we couldn’t achieve herd immunity and resume normal lives,” Krishnamoorthi, chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on economic and consumer policy, said in an interview.

Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which reviews vaccines, said in an interview that the agency plans to consult its advisory committee to promote “an open vetting of a vaccine.” He said he wasn’t sure every coronavirus vaccine in the future would need to considered by the committee, but said, “For the first ones that come along, it makes sense.”

The agency has scheduled a meeting of its advisory committee for Oct. 22, according to Paul Offit, a member of the panel and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In an article published Friday in JAMA, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Marks and Anand Shah, FDA’s deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, pledged “unequivocally” to review vaccines “according to the established legal and regulatory standards for medical products.” In an opinion article in The Washington Post on Wednesday, Hahn said, “I have repeatedly said that all FDA decisions have been, and will continue to be, based solely on good science and data.” He also said he has been repeatedly asked whether there has been any inappropriate pressure on the FDA, but he didn’t answer that question in the article. In June, in testimony to a House committee, he said he hadn’t felt political pressure to make any specific decision.

During a briefing for reporters last week, a senior administration official acknowledged the administration is trying to walk “a very fine line” on when it should promote coronavirus vaccines. “We don’t know in whom these vaccines are going to work and who they’re not,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, according to ground rules set by the Department of Health and Human Services.

“It’s theoretically possible we could have 10 million doses in the middle of October, the end of October, it may not be till the end of December. It may be in early January,” the official said.

“So the fine line we’re walking is getting the American people very excited about the potential of vaccines and then missing on expectations, versus, you know, having a bunch of vaccines in the warehouse and not as many folks wanting to get it,” the official said.

To address that, he said the federal government’s strategy for communications and promotion of vaccines is going to be “very intense, multichannel, highly targeted,” based on data from the clinical trials.

Read more:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Global politics from the view of the political-economy trilemma | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal – voxeu.org

Published

on


Changing paradigm in global politics

In recent years, political landscape has been changing drastically in many countries. In the US, Donald Trump’s administration has pushed the ‘America-first’ agenda and prioritised the nation’s interest above all else since coming to power in 2017. Regardless of existing trade or other agreements, the administration has threatened to increase tariffs for trading partners or walk away from negotiations in case the conclusions are not favorable to the country. The administration’s anti-globalisation or isolationist stance has been observed in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as is evident from the country’s departure from the World’s Health Organization (WHO).

The UK has also prioritised its national interest and sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU. In many other countries, populist governments have arisen, both on the left and the right, touting similar slogans and advocating for de-globalisation to recover the economic and social benefits which they claim foreigners and immigrants have free ridden so far.

These new political forces are different from those of the recent past.

For example, after WWII, Europe pursued regional political and economic integration through democratic process, although it required each country to sacrifice its own national interest. Given this history, the rise of countries prioritising self-interest and advocating anti-globalisation means a paradigm shift in the postwar order and a challenge against long-lived European unification efforts.

Even in originally rather democratic countries, such rifts between political authorities and the people have led the former to suppress the latter through undemocratic or authoritarian measures. The example includes Hong Kong, Venezuela, and Turkey.

Rodrik’s political-economy trilemma

The current changes in political order can be comprehensively viewed through the lens of Dani Rodrik (2000)’s political-economy trilemma.

The word ‘trilemma’ may remind international economists of the open economy trilemma.

The open economy trilemma, which has become a central theorem in international finance ever since its introduction by Mundell (1960) and Fleming (1961), states that a country may simultaneously choose any two, but not all, of the three goals of monetary policy independence, exchange rate stability, and financial market openness to the full extent (Fig 1–a).1

Figure 1 Open economy trilemma and the political-economy trilemma

a) Open economy trilemma

b) Political-economy trilemma

Dani Rodrik applied this theory to political economy, asserting that among national sovereignty, democracy, and globalisation, only two of these policy goals or forms of governance can be simultaneously achieved to the full extent, but not all three.

For example, the member states of the EU each have democratic institutions of governance and are open to the globalised markets. However, each state cannot pursue its own national interest or assert its sovereignty (more fully than other member states do). In other words, the EU is a good example of a region marching toward global federalism (Fig. 1–b, bottom right corner of triangle).

Reclaiming its sovereignty in order to pursue its own national interest is exactly what the UK has been trying to accomplish by withdrawing from the EU. According to Rodrik’s political-economy trilemma, the UK could have gone further toward fuller sovereignty either by restricting democratic policymaking or by limiting openness to the global economy (i.e. going from the bottom right corner of the triangle in Fig. 1–b toward the side of ‘national sovereignty’). Considering that Boris Johnson’s administration is acting in strict accord with democratic process, sacrificing globalisation would be the only way the UK could withdraw from the EU. Greater pursuit of a nation’s national interest requires curtailing its access to international markets.

Other countries try to reap the benefit of globalisation while still fully embracing their own sovereign statehood. These countries align themselves with international rules and standards when making their own, but they do not necessarily follow a fully democratic process for policymaking. Their domestic standards and rules are not based on democratically determined policies, but rather on those of multinational corporations and international organisations, or on treaties and agreements concluded by administrative bodies (i.e. bureaucrats who were not necessarily democratically elected). Thomas Friedman (1999) calls this “the Golden Straitjacket” (Fig. 1–b; top of the triangle), which he describes as a state of affairs where “[a country’s] economy grows and its [democratic] politics shrinks.”

A country wearing the Golden Straitjacket can free itself by either pursuing a higher level of democracy or becoming less globalised.

It is also possible for a fully democratic nation to strengthen its national statehood and prioritise its national interest. However, such a country cannot reap the benefits of globalisation (Fig. 1–b; bottom left corner of the triangle). The Bretton Woods system, which existed from 1944 to 1971, allowed its member states to impose capital controls and barriers to international trade. From the perspective of the political-economy trilemma, this is a policy mix of full democracy and national sovereignty.

As these examples show, policy makers can simultaneously choose any two of the three policy goals of national sovereignty, democracy, and globalisation, but cannot achieve all three to the full extent.

Empirical validity of the political-economy trilemma

Now, a natural question arises: Can the theorem of the political-economy trilemma be empirically proven with actual data?

In our recent work (Aizenman and Ito 2020), we construct a set of the indexes, each of which measures the extent of attainment of the three political-economic factors: globalisation, national sovereignty, and democracy. The indexes are available for 139 countries between 1975 and 2016. Using these indexes, we test whether the weighted average of the three indexes is constant. If the indexes are to be found linearly correlated, it would mean that the three variables operate within a trilemma relationship, i.e. the trilemma is empirically valid.

The regression analysis shows that for industrialised countries, there is a linear negative association between globalisation and national sovereignty, while the democratisation index is statistically constant during the sample period. That means, for the industrial countries during 1975-2016, the political economy trilemma was mostly a dilemma between globalisation and national sovereignty. For developing countries, a weighted average of the three indexes adds up statistically to a constant with positive and significant weights, indicating they are in a trilemma relationship, as Rodrik claims.

Closely examining the development of the three indexes over the sample period reveals that for industrialised countries, while the level of democracy is stable and high, there is a combination of rising levels of globalisation and declining extent of national sovereignty from the 1980s through the 2000s, mainly reflecting the experience of European industrialised countries. Developing countries, in contrast, experienced convergence of declining sovereignty and rising globalisation and democratisation around the same period. Emerging market economies experienced rising globalisation and democratisation earlier than non-emerging market economies with all the three variables converging around the middle.

Figure 2 Development of political economy trilemma indexes – income groups

The possible impacts of the three policy goals on political and economic stability

Lastly, what kinds of impact could these three policy goals (national sovereignty, democracy, and globalisation) have on actual politics and economics? We perform regression analysis to examine how the three trilemma variables can affect political stability and economic stability.

Our results indicate that (a) more democratic industrialised countries tend to experience more political instability; and (b) developing countries tend to be able to stabilise their politics if they are more democratic. The lower the level of national sovereignty an industrialised country embraces, the more stable its political situation tends to be. Globalisation brings about both political and economic stability for both groups of countries.

Developed countries, particularly the US and the UK, are now asserting their national sovereignty, touting policies that prioritise their national interests and an anti-globalisation stance. If the regression analysis is correct, such policies could increase political instability and the probability of financial crisis. Furthermore, if a developing country takes an anti-democratic or an anti-globalisation stance, it could face more political or economic instability.

Let us see what will happen.

Editor’s note: The main research on which this column is based (Aizenman and Ito 2020)  first appeared as a Discussion Paper of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) of Japan

References

Aizenman, J and H Ito (2020), “The Political-Economy Trilemma”, Open Economies Review.

Aizenman, J, M D Chinn and H Ito (2013), “The ‘Impossible Trinity’ Hypothesis in an Era of Global Imbalances: Measurement and Testing”, Review of International Economics 21(3): 447–458.

Aizenman, J, M D Chinn and H Ito (2010), “The Emerging Global Financial Architecture: Tracing and Evaluating New Patterns of the Trilemma Configuration”, Journal of International Money and Finance 29 (2010): 615–641.

Mundell, R A (1963), “Capital Mobility and Stabilization Policy under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates”, Canadian Journal of Economic and Political Science 29 (4): 475–85.

Fleming, J M (1962), “Domestic financial policies under fixed and floating exchange rates.” IMF Staff Papers 9(3):369–379.

Friedman TL (1999), The Lexus and the olive tree: understanding globalization, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Obstfeld, M (2015), “Trilemmas and Tradeoffs: Living with Financial Globalization”, Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies Book Series. In: Claudio Raddatz & Diego Saravia & Jaume Ventura (ed.), Global Liquidity, Spillovers to Emerging Markets and Policy Responses, edition 1, volume 20, chapter 2, pages 013-078 Central Bank of Chile.

Obstfeld, M, J C Shambaugh and A M Taylor (2005), “The Trilemma in History: Tradeoffs among Exchange Rates, Monetary Policies, and Capital Mobility”, Review of Economics and Statistics 87 (August): 423–438.

Rodrik, D (2000), “How Far Will International Economic Integration Go?”, Journal of Economic Perspective 14(1 (Winter 2000)):177–186.

Shambaugh, J C (2004), “The Effects of Fixed Exchange Rates on Monetary Policy”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 301-52.

Endnotes

1 See more on the open economy trilemma in Aizenman et al. (2010, 2013), Obstfeld (2015), Obstfeld et al. (2005), and Shambaugh (2004).

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil resigns, says he is leaving politics – National Post

Published

on


Article content

HALIFAX — Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil unexpectedly announced his departure from politics Thursday, saying he stayed on the job longer than planned because of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

After 17 years in provincial politics it is simply time for a change, the Liberal premier said, adding he is ready for a rest.

“I’m not leaving because I don’t like the job,” McNeil told astonished reporters who thought they had gathered to cover a cabinet meeting. “I love the job as a matter of fact, and I’ve had tremendous support.”

“Many people are surprised today that I work with, and I’m sure many Nova Scotians are surprised.” A change in leadership, he said, is “the right thing for the province.”

McNeil, who headed two majority governments following his 2013 and 2017 election wins, said he will stay on until the Liberals choose a new leader. He was first elected in 2003 as the member for the riding of Annapolis.

He said he initially wanted to leave in the spring, but the pandemic postponed those plans.

“I was actually going to make this decision in April and then COVID-19 hit and I re-evaluated,” McNeil said. “Then we (Nova Scotia) flattened the curve and there was an opportunity for the party to prepare for a leadership contest and a new leader.”

The premier said the past five months had been difficult for the province because of a series of tragedies, including a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 22 people in central and northern Nova Scotia in April, and the crash later that month of a Cyclone helicopter from a Halifax-based navy vessel, which killed six service members.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending