Connect with us

Politics

Lloyd Blankfein and Judy Samuelson on Business and Politics – The New York Times

Published

 on


What should corporate leaders do in a moment like this?

A week in which some lawmakers tried to overturn an election and President Trump incited a mob to storm the Capitol ended with Twitter permanently suspending Mr. Trump’s account on Friday night, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.” Around the same time, Parler, a social media platform with more permissive moderation that could serve as the president’s new digital soapbox, faced bans from Apple’s and Google’s app stores.

As the DealBook newsletter has been asking all week: What is the role of business in a moment like this?

To further reflect on this for our weekend edition, we spoke with Lloyd Blankfein, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive who has a history of taunting Mr. Trump on Twitter, about the expectations placed on business leaders, their role in enabling Mr. Trump and, as Mr. Blankfein put it, “What good could come of this?”

That conversation is followed by one with Judy Samuelson of the Aspen Institute, whose timely new book on the “new rules of business” explores responsible corporate citizenship. The interviews have been edited and condensed.

Lloyd Blankfein, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, is a bit of history buff. He often cites thick tomes about historical figures in conversations, and when I caught up with him Friday morning, he was considering this week’s place in history. “I wonder, is this going to be the sort of thing that people write about 120 years from now? Is this going to be that moment in time? Like living through the election in 1876?”

Mr. Blankfein was never a fan of President Trump and was one of the few top C.E.O.s to say so early on. In a candid conversation, he offered some provocative thoughts on the lessons learned for the business world.

DealBook: We’ve seen a lot of C.E.O.s this week condemn the attack on the Capitol, but few condemned Mr. Trump directly. Do you think Wall Street enabled him?

Blankfein: I try to be honest about these things. I didn’t support Trump — I was taking shots at him — so I don’t feel this way personally, but I think as a group, this is what was happening: For Wall Street, it was lower taxes, less regulation. He was delivering what “we” wanted. We put a clothespin on our nose. We weren’t ignorant of the kind of risks we were taking. We repressed them.

So you think the risks were well understood?

There was nobody who ever got to the presidency who was more transparent and better understood than him. In the minutes before he got elected, those NBC tapes came out. Did people not believe the 20 women who came forward? Do people think he paid his taxes all that time? And certainly for the second election — what was there left to know about him?

So people did know what they were doing. They did it because of their self-interest. Think of another historical example: How about those plutocrats in early 1930s Germany who liked the fact that Hitler was rearming and industrializing, spending money and getting them out of recession and driving the economy forward through his stimulus spending on war material? I don’t want to go too far with that, but just to show you how I’m thinking about it.

So, yes, they supported him. And I think that support is not undone by some one-minute-to-midnight deathbed confession that, “Oh my God, this was too much for me.”

How do you feel about people who went to work in the Trump administration? Several of them were Goldman alumni, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, who was a top economic adviser.

I didn’t vote for him, but early in the administration I had hopes and expectations that it would break to the high side, as most people do when they get into that office and sit behind that desk. So I don’t fault anyone for going in early, like my Goldman friends.

And once in, I don’t really fault people for staying, because once you’re in, I’d rather have them there than not there. I don’t think we would have been better off had Mnuchin resigned.

People who came in and replaced the people who replaced the people — at that point they knew what they were going in for, and I have a different view of that.

During your last two years at Goldman, you made your view of Mr. Trump well-known on Twitter. How did you think about speaking out?

There was a risk-reward element to comments that you made. I was in the risk management business. I didn’t really want to attract a lot of negative attention from powerful people if I could avoid it.

I made some sarcastic comments that kind of would be construed as critical of the administration. Through a kind of a neural network, it got to me that it wasn’t that appreciated and if it kept going, they may have to push back.

Did you feel intimidated?

It wasn’t that. Intimidation is a broad term and it has a connotation. If I said five things about you and I was getting attention, you’d have to push back.

How do you feel about business leaders increasingly weighing in on social issues? What was your policy?

My view is business leaders owe their platform to their company, and therefore they shouldn’t appropriate it for personal things, but rather they should take positions on those issues where it’s in the wheelhouse of the company’s expertise and their expertise.

In my case, I felt that way when I was lobbying for marriage equality, for example, because we had gay people in our firm who couldn’t fulfill their potential, or because there were restrictions on how they could travel.

So where is the line between your personal views and corporate views?

There’s a category of things where it’s so personal to you and so irrelevant to your business interests that you’re kind of appropriating a platform in a way. Like, in my view, it happens when actors on Broadway at the end of the show pontificate about their personal predilections to an audience that’s otherwise trapped and came to see a show. I regard that as kind of an appropriation.

When you think about the news this week, perhaps a culmination of the last four years, what do you think the biggest lessons are?

Character really counts. I learned that as a manager of traders and bankers.

There are people who make a lot of money in the world today, but they play the ethics thing close to the line. And if they were very, very profitable, you could get seduced and rationalize it in saying, “You know something? I know this is not good, but he’s delivering what I want.”

Whenever that happened, the character thing in the long run always came out at the worst possible time. In a way, that’s what happened here with the president.

What else did you learn?

This is where you can take some responsibility. The media hasn’t wrestled with the fact that 75 million people supported Trump and they’re not all stupid ignoramuses.

We have a country where half the country doesn’t communicate to the other half, doesn’t make an effort and frankly doesn’t have access to the rationale behind what drives the other half of the country.

What would you do about that?

We need to bind ourselves as a country. People don’t talk to anybody anymore. They’re linking up digitally with like-minded people and getting that kind of filter of reinforcement all the time. We have to do things that break down those barriers and get people to engage with each other.

You know what I think would be helpful in the United States for a million reasons? National service. The idea that after high school — like they do in Israel, but not necessarily to go into the military — go into national service. Take kids from Arkansas and New York and make them work in a food kitchen or some stuff that needs to be done.

But the real accomplishment will be to make people engage with each other and hear different things. I think there’s value in us having a country that could pull together. Not to be trite, but what better quote is there — biblical and then repeated by Lincoln — than “A house divided against itself cannot stand”?


I spoke to Judy Samuelson, the founder of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program, just before the siege on the Capitol began, unaware that we might “remember it as virtually the last convo before our country fell apart,” as she put it later in a email.

It makes sense, then, for the postscript follow-up questions about a disturbing day to lead our discussion of corporate citizenship, reputation and her new book, “Six New Rules of Business: Creating Real Value in a Changing World,” which is released next week.

DealBook: Have the events at the Capitol changed your thinking on the role of the corporate citizen?

Samuelson: The news about businesses pulling money from G.O.P. members who are agitating against the election outcome — wow — now that is interesting. This will have some kind of tail, I believe. Can this be a moment of real change in the practice of influence peddling by private interests?

What’s the matter with corporations making political donations?

What are companies aiming to accomplish through political spending? What protections, advantages and subsidies are they attempting to secure by picking and choosing individuals to support — or by supporting, in many cases, both sides of the aisle?

Businesses can’t have it both ways: They can’t benefit from the protections of the rule of law and play in an inherently corrupt system designed to influence the creation of those laws to their own advantage.

Don’t corporate citizens have the right to “speech,” just like individual citizens?

Business coalitions and individual executives have a voice, a keen interest and access to politicians through their own agency and role as employers, investors in public goods and creators of goods and services. Use that voice without the corrupting influence of money. You will still be heard and be able to exercise your First Amendment rights.

I know this idea feels hopelessly naïve, but my wish for this moment is this: Clean the public square, and let the people decide what is in our common interest.

One of the truest tests of the Business Roundtable’s remarkable restatement of corporate purpose must be a willingness to put the health of the commons ahead of private interests. Are our policy positions aligned with our pronouncements — whether addressing inequality, climate, or removing systemic barriers in pursuit of economic opportunity?

Why can’t C.E.O.s solely focus on maximizing profits and minimizing risks?

A business can’t succeed in a failed society, so executives should be thinking about society first. That means employees and customers, communities and global supply chains — and effects now and later.

It’s hard to measure the things that matter most, and on a very long timeline. But business is fun because you deal with complex issues and make difficult decisions.

So, what happens next?

We have had a lot of signaling of change from businesses on political, environmental and social issues. They have stated their intentions. The work now is holding them accountable.

Purpose is revealed over time, not just in statements. We, the public, need to be assured that the good intentions are being met.

What do you think? What should business leaders do in this moment? How should they use their political influence? Let us know: dealbook@nytimes.com.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Politics Report: BIA's Big Decision — Voice of San Diego – Voice of San Diego

Published

 on


Homes under construction in the “Signature” development in the Otay Ranch area of Chula Vista. / Photo by Andrew Dyer

The local chapter of the Building Industry Association has long been a fixture of the region’s business-conservative establishment. Along with groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Restaurant Association, San Diego Association of Realtors and Associated General Contractors, it’s been a reliable constituency and donor base for Republican candidates and causes.

But just as the region’s politics shifted, giving way to a comfortable Democratic advantage in every influential agency in the county, something funny happened – the politics of land use and housing development changed too. Suddenly, increased homebuilding was a central goal of the ascendant Democratic coalition. The BIA’s audience changed, but its work was as relevant as ever.

Now, the organization needs to choose a new leader.

Borre Winckel is retiring. He led the group for the last 12 years, and his love for building single-family homes in undeveloped areas was matched only by his love for provoking environmentalists and the legislators who passed housing regulations.

In a 2018 blog post titled “Elitist Environmentalists Strike Again,” for instance, he ridiculed the state and local push toward urban housing development as part of a climate-focused agenda, arguing it would crush the state’s economy and that its supporters were indifferent to poverty.

So, yeah, not exactly a pal to the transit-bike-urban apartment vision championed by YIMBYs.

The group is now at a crossroads: Do they continue betting on sprawl, and their ability to strong-arm it through local governments? The BIA was the biggest supporter of the successful countywide No on A campaign a year ago, which would have put all such sprawl projects to a popular vote, and many of its members specialize in those projects, not the new infill alternative urbanists prefer.

Or do they pivot, and look to embrace the changing politics and demographics, by becoming something closer to a YIMBY group, or transit- and housing-focused interest groups adjacent to it? At some point, it won’t make sense to keep fighting the last decade’s land use disputes.

The group’s next leader should suggest where they’re going. They could bring in anyone from a conservative firebrand to a progressive urbanist – or something in between, like a business-friendly moderate who might not lead the charge on development as intersectional politics, but who can at least play nice with the county’s increasingly powerful progressive flank.

Police Shooting Draws Mayor’s Concern, or No?

This week the city released disturbing footage of a San Diego police officer shooting three rounds into a homeless man, who had been eating a bowl of something when he reached into his back pocket, after a police officer asked him repeatedly about a knife. As the U-T noted, when the footage came out, the Police Department slightly but significantly altered their earlier description that the man had threatened the officer with a knife. They ended up saying he reached for a knife, “which threatened” the officer.

Lisa Halverstadt was interviewing the mayor soon after video came out and she asked about this incident.

“I think the video speaks for itself, and I certainly have very strong opinions about it. I recognize it is part of a defined process now and we will see what happens, but we certainly have a lot of work to do to make sure we’re doing homeless outreach in a way that doesn’t involve people getting shot,” he said.

There was some discussion among reporters and others whether this was him saying he was really concerned because the video was so obviously bad but that he needs to wait for this process to play out. Or whether he was not saying, in any way, what he thought about the video or the officer’s actions.

Polilinks

On the big week in state politics: Sara Libby’s Sacramento Report is loaded this week. Leading the review is the multibillion-dollar deal on reopening schools that some legislators say will not open schools.

On unions in schools: One of the things former Mayor Kevin Faulconer claims is that he would be able to get school communities back together. That Gov. Gavin Newsom has failed at this effort and thus, we should recall him. But Faulconer has not outlined how exactly he’d get school campuses open. Schools are not opening because teachers do not feel safe and have been unwilling to return, and they have a de facto veto because they are united.

So would he go after that power? Faulconer told Politico’s Mackenzie Mays that he would not suspend collective bargaining and force teachers back to classrooms.

“I think it’s about sitting down at the table and demanding results,” Faulconer said. “Keeping our schools closed is not what I would accept.”

About that sort of leadership: This reminded Andrew of when, many years ago, Faulconer was running for mayor and he promised similar leadership to deal with a civic dilemma. Faulconer supported the effort to revoke the plan to separate Barrio Logan’s homes from its polluting businesses with a new land-use code that would change the area over time. The shipbuilding industry and neighborhood had come to an agreement but not on a few specific points. Faulconer would not take a position on those points but he said he would resolve the impasse with leadership as mayor. It remains unresolved.

Chargers Stadium content: The Politics Report knows that many of you miss stadium news. You remember the days when we could tap into that stream of journalism that always giveth: the stream of endless, scandalous, enthralling stadium politics content. Well, there’s just the podcast for you coming out. On Tuesday “Bolted” will debut. It’s a history of the Chargers in San Diego and their march out of town. Scott talked with the producers for a couple hours about the politics, policies and leadership stumbles during that period.

MTS Board Pursuing Transit Advocate’s ‘Free Transfer’ Policy

The Metropolitan Transit System could soon make a big change, allowing riders who purchase one-way tickets to enjoy free transfers to other buses or trolleys.

The fact that riders need to buy multiple tickets – or purchase a relatively expensive day pass – to take multiple legs of a trip has been a sore spot for transit advocates for a while now. At the start of the year, the transit advocacy group Circulate San Diego sent the agency a letter urging it to consider a change that would allow free transfers.

“This inequity disproportionately impacts low-income riders, who are stuck paying twice for a one-way trip,” Circulate wrote.

The agency’s full board in January told MTS staff to study the idea, which came before the agency’s executive committee this week for approval. It’s now set to go before the full board.

MTS staff concluded that it was in a distinct minority among 16 similar agencies by not allowing transfers (that conclusion was … odd, in that the staff report emphasized it in reverse. Instead of highlighting that the majority of agencies provided free transfers, staff instead emphasized that MTS was not alone in charging for them).

In the end, staff suggested making the change. The committee approved allowing riders using the system’s new “PRONTO” fare card to transfer for free, redued the cost of youth passes for one-way trips, and rejected a proposal to set a default fare increase in 2025.

San Diego Councilman Sean Elo-Rivera, who serves on the committee and had been a vocal advocate for providing free youth passes in his previous job as director of Mid-City CAN, praised Circulate for its advocacy on the issue.

“I don’t want to be the elected now who takes credit for being on a committee for two meetings, and now this happened,” he said. “There’s a culture shift that’s happening throughout various government bodies in San Diego. From the County Board of Supervisors to the City Council and MTS and SANDAG, these are large institutions, and there’s some immediate changes that happen when people in the decision-making seats change, but there’s also – in institutions of this size – there’s time required for the institution as a whole to change. Some of this was set in motion by AB 805, and realigning power. But also what we’re seeing now is the product of work by previous boards, to look at transit different in general, and the way fares are impacting communities.”

Tucker Carlson’s Father

A dispatch from VOSD contributor Randy Dotinga: The main villain of a new HBO documentary series is none other than Dick Carlson – a former local TV reporter, father of a famous talking head and major candidate for San Diego mayor in 1984 who somehow managed to lose in a landslide while outspending an indicted incumbent.

The Lady and the Dale,” which chronicles a con artist’s remarkable life, paints Carlson as a craven sideshow barker who reveled in exposing transgender people in the 1970s. He did it not once but twice.

The first time, when Carlson worked in Los Angeles in 1975, he outed the subject of the documentary – a genius of self-promotion named Liz Carmichael who made headlines by trying to develop an ultra-low-mileage, three-wheeled sports car called the Dale. Accusations flew that she was ripping off investors, and Carlson revealed she was a convicted swindler who’d changed her gender.

This was news. But Carlson refused to take Carmichael’s gender switch seriously although the documentary proves it was clearly genuine. In one news report, Carlson referred to Carmichael as “she, or rather he,” said she’s “in actuality a man,” and described her as looking “harried, bedraggled” in a “pink pantsuit” that she’d apparently worn for days.

“I know Liz,” Carlson chuckled in an interview for the documentary. “That had to be just terrible … He really disliked me, I have to say.” No wonder: Carlson testified in Carmichael’s trial and insisted on using male pronouns for her even after the judge told him to knock it off. “I thought it was ludicrous, and I didn’t think I had to,” Carlson declared.

For her part, Carlson said Carmichael paid money to have him killed. The documentary doesn’t clear up whether this really happened.

In 1976, Carlson was working at KFMB-TV/Channel 8 here in San Diego when he got a tip about player Renée Richards at the La Jolla Tennis Club’s summer tourney. While she was playing as a woman, Richards had earlier undergone a sex-change surgery after living as Dr. Richard Raskind.

Much later, Richards told a San Diego reporter that she begged with Carlson to keep her secret: “I said, ‘You can’t do this. I am a private person. His reply? ‘Dr. Richards, you were a private person until you won that tournament yesterday.’”

Carlson insisted on telling viewers that “he’s a man.”

Susan Stryker, a transgender professor at Mills College who studies gender and appears in the documentary, told me this week that Carlson exemplifies the media’s tendency to paint transgender people as “evil deceivers and make-believers.”

“He wasn’t an outlier,” she said, “although he clearly has a prurient interest in trans women.”

Now in his 80s, Carlson clearly has no regrets, cavalierly telling the filmmakers that transgender families like Carmichael’s are mentally unhealthy: “If you didn’t think that was kind of sick, you would think Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person.”

A few years later, Carlson ran for San Diego mayor in 1984 against Roger Hedgecock, the then-indicted incumbent. The former TV reporter, who’d by then married a frozen-foods heiress, made his way into a one-on-one runoff in which he was accused of gay-baiting and then lost by a whopping 58-42 percent to Hedgecock. Carlson went on to head the Voice of America (and get into hot water) and become ambassador to the Seychelles, an island nation with fewer citizens than El Cajon.

Carlson’s son, Tucker, the high-rated Fox News host, who grew up here, rails against transgender rights and fixates on restrooms.

While “The Lady and the Dale” is fascinating and compelling, it turns Carmichael – who spent her life ripping people off – into a kind of heroine. And it fails to dig deeply into whether she brainwashed family members and employees who developed a cult-like devotion to her.

But the documentary doesn’t need to transform Dick Carlson into a mean, small-minded relic. He did that all on his own.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Op-Ed: Hot Pot Politics – CHEK

Published

 on


I don’t think I could handle being a politician. In fact, I’d guess that the majority of us couldn’t handle it. And wouldn’t want to.

All you have to do is peruse the “letters to the editor” page in any paper, or scroll through Twitter and news feeds, and you immediately see why.

Many people despise politicians, and no matter what mayors or premiers or prime ministers try to do, somebody’s going to be in a rage.

These days, that vitriol seems even more intense. Some of it, I’m sure, is because we are living through an exceptionally stressful time and leaders of any sort are an easy target for that pent-up frustration.

Some of it, though, is because these days it seems we have been given permission to be hateful.

Those of us who live here in Victoria, the provincial capital, are pretty close to the political action when it fires up. Many of my students and friends over the years have been government employees in one capacity or another, so I’ve heard lots of stories, good and bad, about the people who run our government.

I became involved in a campaign many years ago when someone talked me into volunteering for a political party during a provincial election. I was pretty young and naïve, and I thought it would be kind of exciting. Well, it certainly was an eye-opener.

One of my first jobs was canvassing, which meant going to a designated area within the riding and knocking on every door in the neighbourhood. A lot of volunteers didn’t like canvassing, for reasons I was about to find out. But I was game.

To be fair, many people whose doorbells I rang were polite and took the leaflet I handed them with a smile. But there were others who called me every name in the book, some even slamming the door in my face. It was humiliating. And here I was, thinking I was doing something positive and helpful.

I was supposed to canvass the whole area three times during the course of the campaign, but I think I probably only managed one cycle. That was enough for me.

I also worked the telephones at the campaign headquarters. One day, our candidate walked in to meet with all of the office workers and volunteers. He made the time to come up and sit by my desk, chit-chat a little, and thank me for volunteering. I immediately liked him and was suddenly filled with that sense of purpose I’d been seeking. Our little chat was the best thing about the whole campaign for me.

Years later, that candidate became the Premier of B.C.

There are many good people out there who truly want to make a difference in their community, province or country. They work hard and they put in long hours, often against all odds, to effect change. They are the ones who are passionate about their work, who try to reach across the aisle and find compromise. They’re the ones who will sit down at the desk of a lowly campaign worker and sincerely thank them for their efforts.

But as sincere and as passionate as these people might be, even if they succeed at getting something done, sometimes they just can’t win. Somebody’s always going to be seething.

Maybe we should consider being a little kinder to them. We can certainly disagree, but don’t make it personal.

Oh, I know there are the bad apples too: those with a sense of entitlement who care more about themselves and their rise to the top than they do their constituents. But that will always be true, in any career.

What I really hope for is that there will be enough younger people interested in fulfilling those important roles in the future, because we really do need them. Experience is one thing. A fresh, new outlook is another. And hopefully, they’ll have a thicker skin than I did when they go out on their first round of canvassing.

The only constituents I have to deal with these days are the members of my household. We disagree on a lot of things sometimes, but when it comes to Sunday dinner, this is an autocracy. I hold all the power.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Europe’s Vaccine Struggle Will Change Its Politics – Forbes

Published

 on


In my Christmas missive (link below) I sketched out a number of ‘surprise’ events that might occur in 2021, one of which was that

As part of its policy of ‘national strategic autonomy’ France opts to favour two French made vaccines for its citizens, but adverse reactions lead to a health and political crisis. Emmanuel Macron’s standing drops in the opinion polls, and the French establishment search for a centre right candidate for 2022’.

Though I wrote the note under the jovial banner ‘Drinking with Dickens’, I have to adhere to the first rule of forecasting which is to loudly take credit for any prediction that is mildly correct.

France under pressure

France, like much of the EU, is struggling to distribute COVID vaccines and shows little sign of lifting lockdown restrictions. To be fair, much of the blame for the slow rollout of vaccines rests with the odd modus operandi of Ursula von der Leyen’s cabinet.

The French situation is however compounded by Emmanuel Macron’s attack on the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine, 1 million vials of which lie unused in France, and by the failure so far of French scientists and pharmaceutical companies to speedily come up with a French ‘cure’ like that of fusty old Oxford (by the way Oxford has 72 ‘affiliated’ Nobel Prizes to 70 for France).

In the end it looks like Europe’s quest for ‘strategic autonomy’ (a French concept) and its admirable desire to implement a European solution to the vaccine problem, that got in the way. This unity is now crumbling – small, states Austria and Finland want to join forces with Israel, and Italy has intervened to stop the export of vaccines to Australia. As with the initial months of the COVID crisis, countries are beginning to fail the ‘solidarity’ text, which is not a great sign for the international order.

COVID trials

All of this begs at least two questions – do we yet have any sense as to what ‘type’ of country has managed to best deal with the COVID crisis, and second what the political implications and fallout of COVID (especially for Emmanuel Macron) are.

First, at the beginning of the crisis it seemed that countries that had experienced a pandemic in the recent past (Asia), and those with robust social democracies (small, advanced economies and Germany) dealt best with the fallout from the coronavirus, whilst the Anglo-Saxon countries (and diverse others) did less well. The UK and the US, together with Israel and the UAE of course, have now done much better with vaccination programs.

This disparity in performance, with countries like India confusing the picture even more, will try policy students for some time. One of the better explanations I have heard is from David Skilling who makes the distinction between liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs). LMEs use decentralised, competitive and flexible market mechanisms; CMEs rely more on established informal, relational arrangements between a range of stakeholders. In that context, the liberal market economies were quicker to organise supplies of vaccines and to distribute them.

We could spend a great deal of time debating which model is better – but it is a redundant conversation because changing a country from an LME to an CME, takes a great deal of time, and to quote the Skilling paper the race against COVID is a marathon, not a sprint’

What is more pertinent is how countries are set up for the next challenges – the potential for political unrest amidst enduring lockdowns (uncharacteristically Ireland witnessed a small but violent ‘anti-lockdown’ protest last week), the possibility of a large number of broken small businesses, the need to rethink how healthcare services can be made flexible, more focused on mental health and better funded on a permanent basis, and how the ‘scramble’ I referred to last week where numerous countries are chasing strategic assets, will distort supply chains and inevitably lead to new disputes.

Le Pen a risk

Given that task list, who would be a politician? Back to my speculative comment on Macron. First, I find that commentators outside France regularly overestimate the chances that he might be de-throned, and that Marine Le Pen might take his place. In my view Macron’s greatest failing during the COVID crisis (and most leaders have been tripped up by it) is his failure to be ‘close’ to the French people during the crisis to the extent that his ‘Jupiterean’ stance may become a liability.

To that end, if he is displaced (I don’t think so) it will not be someone from the right (General de Villiers, Philippe Juvin or Le Pen) but rather a centrist who is more avuncular (Edouard Philippe or Michel Barnier). On the left, my bet is that their leading candidate will be Annie Hidalgo as a modernising/eco/egalitarian candidate. There is still lots of time to go till the next French election, but in the light of the post-Merkel world, it will matter hugely for Europe.

Democracy under threat

On a broader landscape, by the time we get to mid 2022, the political topics that preoccupy us will be changing. While tackling inequality (especially in the US) will be prominent, politicians and societies will be dealing with an environment that is ‘the opposite of confinement’ in the sense of people’s desire to socialise and travel, the potential headwinds of higher interest rates and higher prices, and ongoing challenges to the democratic model (Freedom House’s latest report highlights just how vulnerable democracy is).

On that note, my credit goes to the French judiciary who have now tried and passed sentence on two of the previous three presidents, and in doing so uphold the credibility of the republic. Other countries might examine this example when it comes to the conduct of their (former) presidents and prime ministers.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending