THE END OF DEMOCRACY

Politico Magazine (September 8, 2019) recently set off a firestorm of discussion when it highlighted an academic paper presented by the renowned political scientist, Shawn Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg concluded that: “democracy is devouring itself- and it won’t last.”  His premise is that social media has diluted the ability of society’s elites to guide self-rule along a responsible path.  In their place, he argues, the masses now control the political process and they are ill equipped to run a well-functioning democracy as envisioned by the founders.

 Politico Magazine summarizes the argument as follows:  “Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who do not look like them.  It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and to process the good from the bad, the truth from the false.  It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.”

Rosenberg sees the end of democracy as imbedded in the human tendency to seek out simple solutions to complicated problems when given the chance.  Thus, when a cascade of unfiltered sources of information push out an easy to digest combination of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism as the path to a better life, it is difficult for many Americans to ignore. The reptilian brain is offered up a sugar high that encourages the replacement of thoughtful democratic pluralism with a populist plan to have no tolerance for members of other tribes.

Rosenberg does not place the blame for the end of democracy on Donald Trump. I would agree that these tendencies existed long before the internet exploded, during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. The information fueled populism smoldered during the Obama presidency and reignited in 2015, when Trump was running for office.  Ironically, the more open, free and “democratic” the flow of unfettered information, the less responsible the electorate has become.

To save democracy in our constitutional republic, is it time to turn to the philosopher kings envisioned by Plato for their non-partisan wisdom? Is it time to replace the unwashed masses with a few good men who can lead us through the wilderness?  I think not. 

In the pre internet decades, when money, politics and power from both political parties exercised greater control over the electorate, inequality rose to unprecedented levels.  Wealth begat more wealth at the expense of middle class prosperity.   Voters were presented with too few choices.  Selective agendas were formulated in the political back rooms and corporate board rooms. Clearly, top down democracy is as unacceptable as unchecked populist democracy.

So what is to be done?  There is no putting the information genie back in the bottle.  Responsible democratic pluralism must adapt to the new reality of opinions and misinformation masquerading as facts. Our long heritage of freedom of expression (not to mention the Constitution) would not permit the formation of “information police” to determine what is factual versus what is harmful to a democracy.

I will offer two thoughts that could represent small steps in returning to a healthy democratic pluralism.  First, Congress should adopt a bi-partisan national initiative to use debate technology in the public schools to teach critical observation from different perspectives.  Not the ego driven debate techniques found in political campaigns, but the fact driven methods taught in formal debating.

I still fondly remember my 8^th grade debating experience incorporated into the social studies curriculum. The topic was foreign aid and many of the issues remain the same in today’s political environment. The participants spent many hours researching their positions and the final debate was presented to the elementary school community.

I can think of no better platform than formal debating to prepare students for the opportunities and dangers of the information age. Such an addition would mandate increased emphasis on social studies and government, both sorely lacking. Students would develop skills in research, the weighing of alternative positions, organization, persuasion, communication and civic awareness.

My second suggestion would require individual and community effort to implement.  It has become obvious to me that face-to-face communication is a valuable tool in counteracting the excesses and falsehoods of the information age.  Actively listening, building trust, fostering relationships and letting others give feedback is a constructive way to address sensitive political, social, and economic issues.

Communities need to take the lead in sponsoring discussion forums in their libraries, places of worship and education campuses.  With the appropriate moderator, a diverse group of citizens can come to understand opposing points of view without the rancor or emotional outbursts so common on social media.  The goal is respectful tolerance for alternative positions, not to change anyone’s mind.

In my own experience, a book club is an excellent forum to consider alternative points of view. There are many other social gatherings that can achieve a cross pollination of ideas.  The only requirement is that the membership be diverse to avoid “preaching to the choir.” In this regard, meetings of partisan political organizations are of little benefit.

 The information age is not going away.  The internet and social media will remain a potent force in shaping our political future.  It is important that we take steps to insure that all reasonable views are open for discussion and that voters learn skills to identify, challenge and reject misinformation.

Will encouraging debating skills and community meetings alone abate the erosion of democracy? Probably not, but we need to start somewhere.

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

“Sometimes, I feel I gotta get away
Bells chime, I know I gotta get away
And I know if I don't, I'll go out of my mind
Better leave her behind with the kids, they're alright
The kids are alright”  THE WHO

We recently attended a wedding in Pittsburgh, organized by and populated with millennials. Nothing about the ceremony or reception was traditional.  The few baby boomers in attendance could not help scratching their heads at the audacity of young people changing the rules of getting married.  By the end of the evening, I grudgingly had to admit, the future of America is secure.  The kids are alright.

To describe the wedding, is to enter an alternative reality of a communal gathering to honor an exchange of vows. Rather than a house of worship, the location was an old warehouse where nymph like twenty somethings practice the art form made famous by Cirque du Soleil. During the pre-dinner reception, guests were in awe of acrobatic performances above their heads.

The bride and groom met while swing dancing and both have a special affinity for tacos.  The former provided the post dinner entertainment and the latter the theme for the wedding appetizers and buffet.  There was no wedding cake.  A well-stocked cookie table and bar provided the sweets and lubrication for the occasion. 

The parents of the groom are close friends, so we were observers to the lead up of the wedding. The newly married couple have secure employment and utilized a parental loan to purchase a home in the heart of Pittsburgh. Senior wedding guidance was brushed aside and many of the well-appointed but frugal arrangements made by or paid for by the couple.  Nothing would deter them from their vision.

The young guests in attendance were emotional clones in their insular worlds, but diverse in their ethnic backgrounds and sexual preferences.  If the coupling in attendance holds firm, mixed marriages of every description will be the new norm.  Misogynist, homophobic, and anti-immigration views will have no place in mid-21^st century millennial America.

The few married couples with children seemed to hold an elevated position among the throng and one could detect the ticking of biological clocks among the single women.  But the women were emancipated and assertive.  The men were deferential and supportive. Adopting the bride’s maiden name was a popular idea.  Gender equality seemed the order of the day.

This was a professional and geeky crowd trained to practice medicine, law and cutting their teeth at Goggle.  Not many tattoos, at least in places that were observable.  In other words, our future leaders.

A few observations have lead me to conclude that America is in good hands. First, these young adults were aloof but confident in their life choices and career paths.  The groom loves working with his hands and nixed his earlier plans to earn a PhD in history to become a plumber.  Unlike my generation, they are not about attacking the choices made by their parents. They are simply ignoring what came before and busy taking action to create new social norms and business infrastructure.

Second, these young people care about the environment.  They make choices big and small with sustainability and carbon usage in mind.   I sense the environment will grow into a political and economic juggernaut as they age and seize the reigns of power.  Within my lifetime, Americans will be asked to sacrifice material wealth in order to address climate change and other fallout from industrialization.

Third, millennial America is well positioned to transition America into the information age. Their problem solving skills in medicine, law, accounting, finance and above all technology are digitally enhanced. No traditional method of doing business will be safe from their vision. The solutions to chronic problems they will develop are science fiction today.

In politics, the 2020 national election will see millennials as the largest demographic group in deciding our future.  They are not committed to partisan party politics but are intent on electing a President who values what they value.  There is a growing awareness that their parent’s generation has asked them to sacrifice a great deal in terms of high debt loads and lower economic outlooks, all to support the boomer’s crash into retirement.  Many millennials want to change this reality.

Lastly, I do not see this generation selling out their views for individual wealth.  One gets the sense that democratic socialism would match their worldview well.  A willingness to pay higher taxes in return for cradle to grave social benefits; job satisfaction and more free time. Less material wealth replaced by a healthier and happier life for them and their children.

I feel confident in leaving mother earth and American democracy behind with the kids.  The kids are alright. 

IT IS NOT “TIME FOR A CHANGE” IN THE COMMISSIONER’S NOVEMBER ELECTION

Many prospective voters are focused on the national elections in 2020 and giving little attention to this November’s contests.  For voters in Washington County, this would be a mistake.  This year’s race for County Commissioner will determine whether Washington County remains on the path of responsible decision-making or enters into an uncertain future with a high probability of a change for the worse. Unlike the well-worn political slogan, it is simply not “time for a change” in Washington County.

No one who follows local politics believes that Commissioners Larry Maggi, a Democrat, or Diana Irey Vaughan, a Republican, are in danger of losing their seats.  The future of Washington County governance will depend on whether incumbent Democrat, Harlan Shober, or Republican challenger, Nick Sherman, wins the third seat for Commissioner.  

Voter registration has become more Republican in recent years.  In the event that Democrats do not turn out to vote, Washington County could enter 2020 with a Republican majority on the Board.  This was almost the result in 2015 when Mr. Shober won his Commissioner seat by the narrow margin of 35 votes over his Republican challenger.

Let me be clear, I am not a die-hard local Democratic supporter.  I disagree with the present Board of Commissioners on several issues.  I felt that the court mandated money spent on tax reassessment was important and warranted.  I was not in favor of privatizing the Washington County Health Center.  I would like to see more County resources dedicated to mass transportation and social issues.  I believe that the County has a responsibility to provide more economic assistance to the City of Washington and other struggling municipalities.

Despite my concerns, it is impossible to ignore the facts.  The present Board of Commissioners works well together and governs with a minimum of political rancor.  Washington County has faced many challenges over the past decade.  By all appearances, the incumbent Commissioners have been adept at incorporating new economic wealth from fracking operations and proximity to a major urban center into a desirable place to live and work. 

The unemployment rate in Washington County is at record lows.  Many new businesses have located their operations here. Each year, more tourists visit the plethora of festivals and activities within our borders.  For these and other positive developments, all three incumbent Commissioners have earned the right to be re-elected.

Full disclosure, I know Harlan Shober and find him to be an accessible, hardworking Commissioner. It was impressive to me that his fellow Commissioners across Pennsylvania voted him President of their statewide association in 2018. Before serving as Commissioner for 8 years, Mr. Shober earned his political stripes as the former Chairman of Chartiers Township Board of Supervisors.  I do not know Republican challenger, Nick Sherman. I must give him points for honesty when he states on his campaign website: “We are doing well in Washington County.”

To illustrate what can go terribly wrong, consider the 1996 Commissioner’s race in Allegheny County. Two Republicans, Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer, won the election, creating a Republican majority for the first time in six decades.

The new Republican administration quickly went to work firing Department heads with many years of experience and replacing them with political appointees and conservative ideologues.  One of the first actions of the new Commissioners was a 20-percent property tax cut, implemented before spending cuts were in place.  Allegheny County’s reserves of $80 million quickly disappeared.  When the budgets of essential county services were finally slashed, a host of lawsuits were filed.  Attempts to privatize County services resulted in union protests and more lawsuits.

The following two years were a mashup of chaos, bumbling, bickering, financial problems and lowered bond ratings. Allegheny County voters responded by voting to get rid of the three headed Commissioner system in 1999 and adopted a County Executive with a 15 member council.

Washington County can point to its own misplaced “time for a change” moment that occurred in January of 2000. Under the pretense to balance the budget, newly elected Democratic Commissioner, John Bevec, joined forces with Republican Diana Irey to terminate several well qualified department heads. Among the dismissals were the head of County Administrator, Bill McGowen, and the Director of Parks and Recreation, Andy Baechle.  Mr. Baechle was recognized as an expert in his field and had secured 3 million in grants during his tenure.  Allegheny County quickly hired him at twice the salary.

Many in Washington County interpreted the dismissals of professional department heads as more political than economic. The one Commissioner who had worked to develop a strong lineup to run the County, Bracken Burns, was outraged by the maneuvering of his fellow Commissioners. In interviews with local newspapers, he called the actions a “political purge” and “the dumbing down of Washington County.” Predictably, until the next election, County government was marred by infighting and little was accomplished.

In this November’s election, there is no reason to roll the dice with an uncertain future and risk repeating the post-election meltdowns described above. The voters of Washington County know what they have with the three incumbent Commissioners.  They are a team that has earned the right to remain in office so they can continue to work together and provide thoughtful leadership and a stable government.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BALTICS

Part I of my essay explored my impressions of the people and history of the Baltic region. Part II will discuss the importance of the Baltics within the context of recent foreign affairs.

I must begin with our mode of transportation through the Baltics.  Cruise ships are perhaps the most diverse ecosystems in the world.  A captain from Italy, wait staff from every third world country and our cabin porter from tiny French Guiana in South America. The passengers are no less diverse, just older and better off economically. I enjoyed watching conservative Republicans from the United States sharing tables with families from Hong Kong, Egypt and Nigeria. Like Dorothy, they knew they were not in Kansas anymore. Multiculturalism is alive and well on the high seas.

I seemed to be among the few who felt comfortable raising political issues with fellow passengers within this confined environment. But what better opportunity to take the world’s temperature on Trump, Brexit, Paris yellow jackets, Putin and the demonstrations in Hong Kong?  

On our last excursion in Denmark, a family from Hong Kong was afraid they would not be able to fly home because of the airport demonstrations. A couple from Paris described Prime Minister Macron as a robot, with no emotional affect. The English we spoke with all viewed Prime Minister Boris Johnson as the ticket to economic and political ruin.  Everyone wanted to hear our impressions of President Trump and what the future holds for America.

We learned that every country in the Baltics has adopted some degree of cradle to grave benefits for its citizens, with high taxes to pay for these programs.  Free health care, education, pensions and elder care are universal. From the many conversations I had with our excursion guides and with local citizens, democratic socialism is imbedded deep in the DNA of the Baltics as a model that guarantees the basic needs of all citizens. I heard many complaints concerning political leadership, but none concerning the democratic socialism economic model.

Next, we learned that favoring social programs for all citizens does not translate into favoring open borders or mass immigration. Almost everyone I spoke to in every Baltic country we visited wanted some form of limited/controlled immigration. It was not difficult to translate this widely held view into the rise of populist political leaders throughout the Baltic region.

The Baltics has its own unique history of multinational trade versus national interests that I found fascinating.  The Hanseatic League was a powerful commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and market towns, first formed in the late 1100s. The League came to dominate Baltic maritime trade for many centuries.  Hanseatic cities had their own legal system and operated their own armies for mutual protection and aid.

On many of our excursions, we heard stories of local medieval citizens forced to choose between following orders from their King or from the transnational Hanseatic League.  Making the wrong choice resulted in mass slaughter.  Whole communities were burned to the ground.  The power and influence of the Hanseatic League based solely on economic interest, with little religious or national affiliation was greater than any multinational corporation or international trade pact that exists today.

Champions of the European Union have pointed to the Hanseatic League as a kind of prototype version of economic unification.  All of the Baltic countries we visited belong to the EU. Unlike Great Britain, no one we spoke to seemed eager to exit the EU.  The ease of travel and free trade with EU partners throughout Europe has served the Baltic region well. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that these countries would agree to expand the EU into a political alliance and to give up their ability to govern as independent nations.  Patriotism is high in tiny Latvia with its two million citizens; Denmark with its 6 million; and Russia with a population of over 144 million. Each country has its own creation myths, national heroes and milestones that are honored with great pride.

One of the challenges across the Baltic and indeed throughout Europe is to recognize the importance of celebrating unique national identity, without permitting patriotism to morph into nativist, racist views.  To illustrate this point, I will focus on tiny Estonia, population 1.3 million people.

As the fortunes of Estonia changed over the years of the modern era, one of its major streets was chronologically renamed: Lenin Street, Hitler Street, Stalin Street and now, Freedom Street.  Young, urban Estonians are fiercely independent and want no further intervention into their affairs.  But Estonia’s remarkable economic growth has remained in its capital, Tallinn, and poverty remains high in rural areas.

In July of 2019 the Conservative People’s Party won enough seats in the parliament to be included in the new government. The party’s leaders rally against migrants, same sex partnerships and the mainstream media.  They claim to be the champions of rural Estonians and are often aligned with Russian policy positions. 

Progressive Estonians have formed a coalition against the far right with a new movement: “Yes to Freedom, No to Lies.” They advocate not attacking the far right head on, but rather talking directly to citizens about “Estonian democratic values.”  As in the United States and in all western democracies, the struggle to maintain liberal democratic principles is a real crisis.  But for Estonians an illiberal outcome comes with immediate consequences. If democracy losses and Russia again dominates society, a major street in Tallinn will be renamed Putin Street.

For centuries, the Baltic region has been the buffer between Western Europe and Russia.  Nothing has changed this reality.  Under Putin, the Russian bear is again on the prowl, seeking to increase its sphere of influence and to tamp down domestic dissent.  Americans should pay close attention to tiny Estonia, the canary in the coal mine.

  

A TRIP AROUND THE BALTIC SEA

This essay will detail our experiences cruising on the Baltic Sea earlier this summer.  Part I will provide some background on the region and its people. Part II will give a political analysis of the Baltics and its role in shaping current events.

Our journey began in Stockholm, Sweden and would end two weeks later in Copenhagen, Denmark.  We traveled east to Helsinki, Finland and St Petersburg, Russia. Then headed down the coast of the small Baltic States, and swung west to Germany. We had extended land based stays in both Stockholm and Copenhagen.

The Baltic Sea and those nations surrounding it have never gained the recognition of its big sister, the Mediterranean. This is unfortunate because the history is rich, with many well-preserved medieval towns.  The palaces, castles and churches are among the most magnificent in the world. The warrior Vikings, followed by the Kingdom of Denmark, followed by Sweden, each took turns being the bully on the block. In modern history, Russia and Germany have fought for hegemony of the Baltic region.

The small Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania could do no better than roll with the political and military punches, which came far too often. Large but sparsely populated Finland always punched above its weight.  For an excellent analysis of modern Finnish history read Jared Diamond’s new book, Upheaval, which details Finland’s heroic battle against the Russians in the 1940 winter war.

One must be careful in drawing sweeping conclusions about a nation and its people based on short visits, but despite the close proximity of the countries we visited, each was distinctive.  The Scandinavian portion of the Baltics is much different from the small Baltic States that were formally under Soviet domination.  Sweden remained neutral during the world wars and its historical structures remained untouched. In Russia and the Baltic States the great palaces and churches were decimated and have been rebuilt.

The Swedes appear more reserved and introspective than the Danes.  Both countries treasure their Viking heritage and have not forgotten the centuries of war and conquest of one against the other.

The Russians are somewhat arrogant, much like the French, but with awful food. They do not smile often, but then the sun seldom shines in the summer and the winters are horrific and long in St Petersburg. Although not willing to vocalize their discontent to tourists, Russian patience with Putin appears to be wearing thin as they realize he is no Peter the Great and may not deserve his imperial pretensions. We were fortunate to escape St. Petersburg several days before local election protests erupted in Russian cities.

Russians take pride in selling Americans stuff they do not need at outrageous markups like nesting dolls (of course there is a Steeler version) and amber jewelry. Our favorite tourist initiative was a young girl who ran from bridge to bridge (20 bridges over 5 miles) to wave and dance over top our canal excursion as it passed under each bridge. By the end of our tour, she was receiving thunderous applause and generous tips.

The Finns are beautiful, artistic people who purchase more live theater and performing art tickets than Americans purchase movie tickets. One of our favorite stops was the open air Helsinki Market, full of salmon cakes, excellent crafts and artwork and a farmer from northern Finland selling his own lingonberry jam.

You get the feeling in Tallinn, Estonia and Riga, Latvia that the natives are simply thrilled to have their own small nation states, free of foreign intervention.  Both countries proudly fly the NATO flag next to their own as if to proclaim “never again.”

Our port in Germany was part of the old GDR, East Germany, prior to German reunification. The miracle here was how quickly the country was able to westernize the east into one seamless democracy, after years under communism.

Visits to smaller communities in the countryside provided their own distinctive pleasure.  Visby Sweden and Jelling Denmark were towns with century’s old thatched roofs and local pride in their medieval walls and ancient ruins. In Visby, a medieval festival was in full swing with hundreds of young Swedes in period dress. In Jelling, one of the oldest churches in Europe still stands near the Danish rune stone that first referenced both “Denmark” and “Christianity”.  The carvings on the face of this birth Stone appear on every Danish passport.

The number of palaces, castles and churches we visited could become mind numbing. My wife’s diary helped us to place each within the historical context of each country we visited. It is admirable that no matter how many times each structure was ravished by fire or war, they were quickly rebuilt as symbols of national pride.

There was much history to absorb and opportunity for further reading. Peter the Great (1672-1725) and Catherine the Great (1729-1796) had a hand in almost all we witnessed in Russia.  When one views St. Petersburg and realizes that the city is no older than our major American cities, the amount of splendor is hard to comprehend. King Gustav II of Sweden and Queen Margaret I of Sweden were both nation builders that deserve further study.

If you go, do not take hordes of dollars. The Baltics, sans Russia, are working to become a cashless region.  In Sweden, the number of retail cash transactions has fallen by 80%.  By comparison, America is at least a decade behind.

In part II of this essay I will consider some of the political implications of the Baltics in today’s foreign affairs.

THE ECONOMY WILL DETERMINE THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Remember all the excitement among Democrats when Conor Lamb won the special election for Congress in a Republican district. This euphoria was repeated when the Democratic Party took back the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. Now it is happening again, as Trump levels racist attacks against progressive members of Congress.  Many political pundits are predicting that these events, along with other positive signs, are setting up a major Democratic victory for the presidency in the 2020 election.

As I survey the political landscape in the summer of 2019, I do not feel confident that Trump will be defeated.  In fact, given his formidable array of political advantages as the incumbent President, I believe the odds of Trump being reelected increase; the closer we get to Election Day.

The economy has always been a major factor in national elections, and Trump’s economy is the most robust in the world. Despite ongoing trade battles with China and saber rattling with Iran, the stock market hit all-time highs in mid-July. Unemployment, new jobs and GNP numbers continue to impress. Consumer spending is on fire with not even a hint of recession on the horizon.  The Federal Reserve has conceded to the President’s demand to reduce interest rates, guaranteeing that cheap borrowing and the economic expansion will keep humming along through 2020.

A great deal of research has been conducted over the years on the effect of economic conditions on presidential elections. Politico points out that Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

Most Americans have little interest in following Trump’s tweets.  They are not familiar with the myriad of articles, books and cable news shows that explain how Trump has degraded both domestic and foreign policy institutions.  They do not care who was appointed to the Trump cabinet or why certain officials resigned in disgrace.

These voters, who are not avowed members of one of our partisan political tribes, and who have no ideological skin in the game, will enter the voting booth in 2020 asking one primary question:  do I feel more economically secure and has my 401(k) account grown since the last election? In many cases, Trump gets an affirmative vote, no matter what secondary issues may concern the voter.

In addition to the economy, if matters stay the same, the President will also be able to claim a reduction in American troops in the Mid-East with no new entanglements.  This is critical to winning over a war weary nation and a position shared by most of the Democratic electorate.

 There will be those that challenge my assessment of Trump’s political future. They will point to his immoral standing, his imperial and narcissistic personality and his personal attacks against the rule of law, the media and against individuals who disagree with him. These were valid issues leading up to the 2016 election but will hold little water in 2020. At this point there is nothing new about Trump’s past, his political views or his treatment of individuals that would shock those who are familiar with his history.

Voters have come to expect the President to act out in unpredictable ways. Trump tends to say things that affront those who would never vote for him in the first place.  He is careful to both praise and reward his political base with frequent announcements. Moreover, voters in recent elections have appeared to be been more influenced by “what affects them” than “what offends them.”

What about the Mueller Report and the possibility of the Democratic House bringing impeachment proceedings?  The Report has not changed the view of the Trump base and will have less impact on neutral voters as the election approaches. Any attempt to impeach the President is a fool’s errand because the Republican Senate will never convict.  In addition, impeachment would provide Trump with additional fuel for his claim that a vast conspiracy is afoot to discredit his 2016 election.

For Democrats to cobble together a winning strategy to defeat President Trump in 2020 will indeed be a formidable task.  The key will be to take back several key states that were part of the Obama coalition.  There must be a willingness to listen to those voters who turned Republican in 2016 and to address their needs. Unfortunately, a good strategy and a humble attitude will not be enough to defeat Trump if the economy keeps firing on all cylinders and continues to reward those who previously voted for him.

While the president has few leadership or administrative skills, his political savvy as the ringmaster of the presidential circus is formidable. Every decision he makes going forward will be based on reelection.  Unless the economy has an unexpected reversal, Trump will likely win a second term in 2020.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

It is difficult enough to keep track of family schedules, local news and domestic politics.  Attempting to keep informed on the status of other countries is beyond the capabilities of most of us.  Unless one is blessed with entirely too much free time and an insatiable appetite for reading the Economist, the Financial Times and the daily postings of Foreign Affairs. What follows is my short summary of where other select countries stand in this summer of 2019.

↔ Russia. Economically, Russia is a one trick pony with oil and gas production.  Putin has mastered the art of the authoritarian regime, with limited democracy, by instilling a sense of patriotism through propaganda based on Russian history and myth. Military adventurism against countries with Russian speaking populations and in Syria have helped Putin remain popular.  This approach is wearing thin as living conditions have not improved. 

↑ China.  While China appears to be faltering in the short term with riots in Hong Cong and at an economic disadvantage in the face of U.S. tariffs, these wounds are superficial.  American leaders think in terms of the next election cycle, the Chinese plan in terms of multiple decades.  China is well positioned to challenge the United States for hegemony in Asia and eventually beyond.

↓ Great Britain.  Following the referendum vote to leave the European Union, Great Britain has faced its greatest challenge since WWII.  The popular vote to leave was contrary to what the established political elites thought was best for the country. The government has been unable to agree on the conditions for leaving. Two conservative Prime Ministers have resigned and Boris Johnson, a political jokester who favors “leave” at any cost is well positioned to take control.  The next deadline with the EU to finalize terms is in October.  The three possible outcomes: soft leave with a deal signed; hard leave with no agreement; and another referendum to possibly reverse the decision to leave, each are fraught with economic and political landmines.

↔ France.   Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France in 2017. It appeared that his country had escaped the right wing populism that was washing over Europe.  Macron championed rational economic reforms with unions, pensions and other cost saving measures.  The goodwill disappeared when a proposed tax on gasoline lead to the “yellow vest” demonstrations that lasted for months.  Macron has regained control of the streets, but not widened his political appeal, after showing his authoritarian stripes in permitting deadly police weapons like flash-ball guns and dispersal grenades against the demonstrators.  The political choice in France is now between authoritarian neoliberalism and nationalist populism. 

↔ Mexico.  Mexico needs the new trade agreement negotiated with Trump and Canada (Usmca) to pass Congress.  This helps explain Mexican cooperation with the President in addressing the flow of refugees flowing from Central America to the U.S. border.  As the border patrols from both countries change diapers and make baloney sandwiches, it is open season for the flow of drugs to the north and cash/guns to the south.

↓ Venezuela, Cuba.  American foreign policy is directed against these two socialist countries while other nations to our south, below Mexico, are ignored. An American supported coup in Venezuela failed to topple Nicolas Maduro. Economic embargoes remains in place against both countries.  Cuba depends on oil from Venezuela, but all exports are in shambles, resulting in severe deprivations to both local populations.

↑ Turkey.  On 15 July 2016, an unsuccessful coup was attempted in Turkey against state institutions, including the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Erdogan used this event to jail and purge hundreds of thousands of his detractors from the military, civil service and higher education.  In addition, he has sought to cozy up to Russia and ignore his European allies, while becoming more authoritarian.  This somber picture began to change when his scheme to annul the election of a popular, more liberal, opponent to become the mayor of Istanbul failed after a second election on June 23. Shoots of democracy are beginning to reappear in Turkey and the currency is recovering from a 40% drop in value.

↔ Israel.  On the outside Israel appears to be in the best position since its creation.  The most important Israeli ally, the U.S. has moved its embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Many Arab countries are no longer calling for Israel’s destruction as they have common cause against Iran.  Iran, Israel’s mortal enemy, is in an economic tailspin because of U.S. sanctions. But none of these positive developments will solve a more desperate Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or a more desperate Palestinian population from starting a new wave of violence, or address the multitude of domestic problems facing Israel.

For more background on any of these countries (or others), the best up to date analysis can be found at the Economist.com, on numerous podcasts and blogs and of course, Wikipedia.