Home Blog Page 951

The Election: Failing Real Change, Hope Lost

LAS VEGAS, NV - FEBRUARY 23: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on February 23, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The New York businessman won his third state victory in a row in the "first in the West" caucuses. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

By Jeffrey Sommers

The Democrats under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were long on soaring rhetoric, and short on substance. Many Americans wanted more “change” and less “hope”. Democrats must advance candidates committed to real policy change, not just rhetorical masters on hope.

The Donald Trump fiasco was enabled by the Democrats’ rejection of their New Deal coalition. Selecting Hillary Clinton to head their presidential ticket created an opening for a Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact between the “deplorables” and those who could not stomach more establishment politics delivering ever more gains for Wall Street, with only more pain for the working and middle class.

The Democrats under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were long on soaring rhetoric, and short on substance. Many Americans wanted more “change” and less “hope”.

We all know the Republicans proved obstructionist at every turn. Yet, at key moments the Democrats caved even when the opportunity opened to enact New Deal style reforms. Case in point was when President Obama held Congressional majorities his first 2 years. In his first half-year in office the GOP was cowed and Obama could have readily run the table on policy change. He could have pushed through a “public option” for healthcare reform. Instead, he and David Axelrod advanced a new politics of conciliation that would herald a new era of cooperation. This Age of Aquarius might have been realisable in the context of an acrimonious academic department or small community in need of healing. Yet, we live in a rough and tumble world of politics where egocentric, sociopathic alpha personalities representing billionaire interests position their tools in political office with the expressed purpose to turn policy in their direction by any means necessary. In short, Obama and Axelrod’s represented a combination of good intentions and vanity that could only end badly in the real world of interest-based politics. The rhetoric of hope would not “trump” interests.

Meanwhile, the Clintons bent on every point of principle. They learned from their re-election defeat after Bill’s two years in office as Governor of Arkansas. Politicians recalibrate after political losses and accommodate to either the conservative impulses of the electorate, or the demands of powerful special interests. Yet, the Clintons became too comfortable with this accommodation. They morphed into centre-right democrats and failed to pivot to progressive policies when political openings presented themselves for change: an example being Hillary’s rejection of single-payer healthcare in 1993 when the electorate briefly favoured it. They no longer merely represented the establishment. By the 1990s, they became part of it.

President Obama delivered the Republican’s healthcare reform. This kept Big Insurance well fed, but failed to control costs. This consistent accommodation to power cost Democrats the White House in 2016. The public in 2009 was ready for far-reaching economic reform. Obama’s (and the Democratic establishment’s) “evolutionary” approach to reform was doomed to fail. Having a beer in New Jersey with CounterPunch’s dear late Alexander Cockburn in September 2009, we expressed total frustration at this once in a 2 or 3 generation opportunity presented by the 2008 financial crash to introduce major policy change. We were dismayed that Obama and Axelrod had already lost their window for launching real policy change, while giving time for Republicans to re-organise and mount their counterattack.

Obama made sensible reforms of the health insurance industry (covering children to 26 years of age, not penalising women on costs for merely being women, no dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.). The thinking was that this could be followed by more reform. But, by delaying major change when there was an opening for it (e.g., the failure to cover people under a public option) meant Big Insurance could still levy big premium increases. That they did within a month of Hillary Clinton’s election bid should surprise no one. These big cost increases delivered the coup de grace to Hillary’s flagging campaign. The working and middle classes failed to benefit from Obama’s economy (and would have done no better under Republicans).

Hillary promised all the policy failures of Obama, minus the soaring rhetoric of change. This was hardly a combination for electoral victory.

The Democratic Party lost the confidence of many in the working and middle classes. The public showed great patience over the 4 terms of Clinton and Obama, but saw few gains. Democrats to failed to advance a New Deal style agenda and finally paid the price on November 8, 2016. The hubris of Clinton/Obama/Wasserman Democratic establishment led to this electoral loss. Latinos, African-Americans and millennials failed to turn out in the numbers and margins the Democratic establishment cynically counted on.

Implications

Trump’s win is a disaster for the judiciary. With GOP control of the Senate, Trump will remake the Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary into an even more reactionary check on public power. These changes will last a generation and will most powerfully impact the powerless.

Economy: expect a behind the scenes intra-GOP debate over whether to reprise Reagan’s “sailor on shore leave” big deficit military spending to juice the economy, or to default to the austerity zealots of the party. The former would make the GOP heroes for people seeking work, but risk more war as weapons that are built, often get used. The latter (austerity) would create dissent at home as the economy fails, thus leaving the GOP looking for distractions, in short, more foreign adventures, again.

Foreign policy: while there is an opening to reduce tensions with Russia, for the reasons stated immediately above, expect the GOP to remain the war party. More weapons or austerity could both lead to more war.

Politically: Democrats have won the popular vote twice in 16 years, while losing the election. This demands Electoral College reform. Instead, expect the GOP to double down on this undemocratic institution that continues to deliver them unearned electoral victories. Moreover, failing a massive legislative wins by Democrats in 2018 and 2020, expect the GOP to further gerrymand legislative districts. This ensures victories even when they lose the vote. For example, the state of Wisconsin legislature won 60% of its legislative seats in 2012 with only 44% of the state vote. Expect more of this, along with more institutionalised voter suppression going forward.

Future: Democrats must advance candidates committed to real policy change, not just rhetorical masters on hope. Hillary’s loss may just be the event that finally discredits their leadership and creates a new politics that either takes over their party or failing that creates a new one.

The election outcome

The chance now opens for Dems to retake the House and Senate in 2 years. Will they make the necessary changes to do so? Time will tell…

This article was first published on CounterPunch on 9 November 2016

Featured image: Donald Trump, in Las Vegas.  Photo courtesy: Ethan Miller/Getty

Jeffrey Sommers is Professor of Political Economy & Public and Senior Fellow, Institute of World Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Visiting Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga.

Is there a future for Obama’s pivot to Asia?

By Sholto Byrnes

Since Barack Obama came to office in 2009, a signature policy of his administration has been the “pivot to Asia”. Much time has been spent in the region where the young “Barry” spent formative years (in Indonesia). US ships have conducted increasingly assertive “freedom of navigation operations” in the disputed South China Sea to defend the claims of American allies. And to cap it all, there was to be the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a deal that Mr Obama’s then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said set “the gold standard” for trade agreements, binding 12 Pacific Rim countries but notably excluding China.

As the US president counts the days until he departs, there has already been much speculation over whether the pivot has a future under either of his successors. Donald Trump’s isolationism and badmouthing of trade deals offer little hope, while Mrs Clinton’s about-turn on the TPP – she later decided “it didn’t meet my standards” and said she was against it – leaves what Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe described as a “pillar” of the policy with no support.

Recent events, however, suggest that the rebalance is unravelling even before Mr Obama leaves office. Late last month the Philippines’ president, Rodrigo Duterte, announced his country’s “separation” from Washington and that it was “time to say goodbye to America” during a visit to Beijing. His soft-pedalling of an international arbitration that ruled against China and for the Philippines in the South China Sea appears to have had results – deals and agreements to the tune of $24 billion, and Filipino fishermen being allowed to return to the Scarborough Shoal, one of the maritime areas both countries claim.

The timing may be coincidence, but all three countries appear to be sending clear signals that their friendships with America should not be taken for granted and that in the long run, their relationships with Asia’s rising giant may be given priority.

Vietnam also has a maritime dispute with China and, given their history, has plenty of reasons to be suspicious of its northern neighbour’s intentions. Relations were thought to have significantly warmed with the US. But last month, Chinese warships were welcomed in the Vietnamese strategic deep water port of Cam Ranh Bay for the first time, with Vietnam’s defence ministry saying the visit was aimed at bolstering ties.

This week, Malaysia’s prime minister, Najib Razak, is also in Beijing. Trade relations are already strong, but many new agreements and the first ever military deal between the two countries are also expected to be signed. Malaysia is another party to the South China Sea dispute, and under Mr Najib ties with America had seemed closer than ever.

But in an interview ahead of his visit, he said China was “a true friend and a strategic partner” and that he wanted the relationship “to reach new heights”. The defence deal, meanwhile, provoked alarm among pro-US commentators. A Reuters report declared it a “blow to the US”, while CNBC pondered whether “Beijing could gain a strategic ally in the thorny South China Sea problem.”

And why not? As Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, put it in an interview with Time recently: “The Chinese go around with lollipops in their pockets. They have aid, they have friendship deals… for them trade is an extension of their foreign policy.” Americans, he said “do not do these retail items”.

Moreover, he accused them of being about to walk away from TPP, which he referred to as the “one big thing which you have done… It shows that you are serious, that you are putting a stake here which you will have an interest in upholding.” After this, said Mr Lee, addressing an American audience: “How can anybody believe in you anymore?”

She told the Guardian: “This is the new regional norm. Now China is implementing the power and the US is in retreat.”

This may be a cause for consternation among those who see only good in American dominance, and it would be both a grave disappointment for Mr Obama, and another example of the aspirations of his foreign policy failing to overcome reality. Whether it is bad for the region, however, is another matter entirely.

The pivot, according to the veteran South East Asia researcher Bridget Welsh, is “dead in the water”.

Chinese officials talk repeatedly of “win-win cooperation”. Sceptics joke that they know what that means: China wins twice. But the many billions of dollars that the Chinese government and large companies are prepared to invest in South East Asia, particularly in infrastructure, are not to be sneezed at. And why should it matter that it is the China Railway Group that is planning to build the world’s largest underground city at an old military airport near my home in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, rather than a European or American conglomerate?

The disputes in the South China Sea naturally worry smaller claimant nations. Yet China does not want military conflict. It is entirely possible that its leadership will settle for what my colleague Shahriman Lockman has described as “non-compliant compliance” with international rulings that go against it, maintaining its claims to sovereignty while effectively observing the status quo.

China does not subscribe to the “universal values” of the West, it will be said. But then neither does much of developing world.

And let us look again at the declining dominance, and question assumptions about its benevolence. Jimmy Carter once told me he thought that the US, since the Second World War, “has been the most warlike nation on Earth. We’ve been involved probably 30 times in military action in foreign countries, which has been almost invariably a mistake”.

If that is what US dominance meant, maybe we shouldn’t mourn the failure of the pivot too much.

 

This article was first published at The National on November 1 2016

About the Author

sholto_byrnespngSholto Byrnes is a senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia

 

 

 

 

Leadership Crisis in Korea

By Sunnie Giles

At the heart of the Koreans’ rage in President Park Geun-hye’s scandal is a sense of betrayal. Park must facilitate a sense of belonging and connection among Koreans as one people. Then, and only then, will the maximum potential of Park’s vision of the Creative Economy be fulfilled and for the growth and prosperity as one Korea.

President Park Geun-hye is facing the most disastrous crisis of her political career with the recent allegations concerning Choi Soon-sil. Ms. Choi, a personal friend of the President’s for over 40 years, has no official government responsibilities, but it appears that President Park has consulted her as to many aspects of running the Korean government, Choi even benefiting financially from those consultations. As a result, Park’s approval rating has hit an all-time low.

As a leadership consultant and organisational scientist based in the US, where the public outrage for the Clintons’ quid-pro-quo influence peddling through her right-hand woman Huma Abedin is swelling in the wake of emails recently exposed on WikiLeaks, I offer my perspective on why this case is creating such a significant wave of public rage, and a possible path forward for the Korean people to repair the current crisis.

At the heart of the Koreans’ rage in this scandal is a sense of betrayal. These allegations come on the heels of the implementation of an anti-corruption law, the Kim Young-ran Act. This act was launched with much public fanfare, and applies specific and strict regulations on what constitutes special favours; for instance, it limits the price of a business meal to 30,000 won. This law was designed to level the playing field between those with vested rights and privileges and those without them, and to increase transparency and fairness in business and government practices. However, the Choi scandal has exposed inconsistency between the ideals represented by the Kim Young-ran Act and the reality of life in Korea.

The sense of betrayal the public feels makes even more sense in the context of the implicit Confucian agreement that those who are entrusted with power should serve others with parental mercy and devotion in exchange for the implicit obedience and loyalty of the followers.

This inconsistency results in a sense of betrayal. From a neuroscientific point of view, betrayal generates a violation of safety. Our brain detects a lack of safety in eight milliseconds. It does so well beneath consciousness, at the brainstem level, which controls our autonomic nervous system. This primal detection mechanism was developed to maximise our chances of survival in a world full of predators. Our brain’s hierarchical signal-processing system checks for safety first, trumping all other needs, including connection, learning and innovation. My recent global leadership research reveals that among other things, safety stems from the high moral and ethical standards of our leaders, and their consistency between words and actions.

The sense of betrayal the public feels makes even more sense in the context of the implicit Confucian agreement that those who are entrusted with power should serve others with parental mercy and devotion in exchange for the implicit obedience and loyalty of the followers. When the public sees the level of influence Choi has exerted on many aspects of the government, they feel betrayed that the power entrusted to Park has been abused – shared with a third person outside the implicit contract – instead of used to benevolently care for the Korean people. This is precisely why the Korean public feels such a visceral sense of anger: their primal need for safety was violated at the highest levels of government.

The same neuroscience principle reveals that the fallout from this scandal might also jeopardise one of President Park’s most important initiatives – the Creative Economy. Park’s Creative Economy is designed to create jobs and increase the market potential for Korean companies by providing an ecosystem and infrastructure to foster innovation and creativity, especially in the IT industry.

President Park must publicly validate the anger and betrayal of trust the public feels. She must present a plan of action to restore consistent application of the intent of the Kim Young-ran Act to prevent advantages granted to only those with vested privileges.

Once an incoming neurological signal passes the safety test, it then must pass the connection test: can I nurture and connect with this person? Only after passing the safety and connection tests is the best part of our human brain, the frontal cortex which facilitates learning and innovation, unleashed (all of us conduct these tests instinctually, automatically and unconsciously). When Parks failed the safety and connection tests, she vastly decreased the ability of the Korean people to access the power of their frontal cortex and achieve innovation and creativity.

Given the developments to date, what is the best course of action? Firstly, I think it’s imperative Ms. Choi apologise for violating the implicit trust the Korean people granted President Park – this is not a matter of law but of reaching the hearts of the Korean people. It is not enough that she cooperates with the prosecutor office’s investigation. As a personal friend of 40 years to President Park, this seems to be the minimal logical step she needs to take to relieve the pressure on the President.

Secondly, President Park must publicly validate the anger and betrayal of trust the public feels. She must present a plan of action to restore consistent application of the intent of the Kim Young-ran Act to prevent advantages granted to only those with vested privileges. She must also restore a sense of safety and reassure the public she is solely devoted to the welfare of the Korean people as the mother of the country – and she must actually mean it, since our brainwaves will be extra sensitive to signals of insincerity or inconsistency. Once the public feels validated, a sense of safety is restored, and they are provided with a consistent demonstration of high ethical and moral standards, then Park must facilitate a sense of belonging and connection among Koreans as one people. Then, and only then, will the maximum potential of Park’s vision of the Creative Economy be fulfilled and for the growth and prosperity as one Korea.

This was first published in the Korea Times on November 17 2016.

Featured image courtesy: Alfredo Estrella, AFP

About the Author

giles-webDr. Sunnie Giles is a Korean-born executive coach and organizational consultant based out of the U.S. She has an MBA from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in systemic psychology from Brigham Young University. Visit sunniegiles.com for more information.

Dr. Dan Steinbock’s interview on the Trump triumph: Changes in foreign and trade policy, new cabinet names, markets, protests, Clinton investigations and much more

Interview with Dr. Dan Steinbock

We were able to reach Dr. Steinbock right after the US election. As you may recall, he has argued for months that there is potential for a Trump upset and a few weeks ago in the Macau Summit, he suggested that the era of US post-war liberal internationalism was fading into history. In the past 48 hours, he has given interviews on the US election from US and Europe to China and Nigeria, while answering to election questions from Ukraine and India to Iran and Brazil.

Q: You have monitored US 2016 elections for months. Here are just a few examples:

• “US 2016 election is a global risk“, The World Financial Review, April 25, 2016,

• “US 2016 election divides advanced and emerging economies”, China-US Focus, Oct 14, 2016  

• “Hobbled at home, expect president Clinton to be hawkish in foreign policy”, South China Morning Post, Nov 1, 2016

• “Fight for the US Leadership begins after the election“, EconoMonitor/Roubini Global Economics, Nov 4, 2016 

• “US election and Africa,” BusinessDay Nigeria, Nov 7, 2016

• “After the Trump triumphValueWalk, Nov 9, 2016  

Prior to the election, you argued that there is room for a “Trump upset”. Why did you go against the grain?

First of all, for weeks the polls suggested a relatively tight race, which always magnifies the potential for surprises. Second, usually polls tend to reflect prevailing views in normal times; but we live in the “new normal”; that is, polls may fail to incorporate disruptive change. Third, while polls suggested that Clinton had a lead in the electoral college, too many observers ignored the very large number of “undecided” electors. As the race became particularly tight in the swing states, Trump was able to capture most of the undecided electors. 

Fourth, for months there had been a theory by political scientists that this election was different: in polls, people would say that they would vote for Clinton, but in reality they would vote for Trump. Fifth, more latinos and blacks would vote for Trump than observers expected; and they would not acknowledge their actions in pre-election surveys. Sixth, in the last 2-3 weeks, the Republican leadership opted for Trump, in part to defuse a further fragmentation of the party and in part because there was an increasing sense that Clinton could be beaten.

As the race became particularly tight in the swing states, Trump was able to capture most of the undecided electors.

Last but not least: Wikileaks, Wikileaks, Wikileaks. The collective weight of some 50,000 emails was massive. They provided huge evidence of the massive scope of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, her special assistant, Bill and Chelsea Clinton and her husband, the Democratic National Committee, and especially the Clinton Foundation which former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has compared with “criminal racketeering”. This foundation that has been portrayed as one of the greatest global philanthropic initiatives, seems to have served as a kind of a cash machine for the Clintons, and a political influence machine for rogue country oligarchs. 

Q: Some people argue that US media failed American voters. Did they?

Yes, they did. I first arrived in the US in 1986 and have not seen anything like this before. The pre-Watergate scandals pale in scope. There was broad collusion of mainstream media – including CNN, Newsweek, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post even Google – with the Clinton campaign. Even worse, both Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta sought to deflect the charges by making President Putin and Russia the scapegoat, despite the absence of evidence, as even the FBI acknowledged. Only days before the election, some 80% of Americans, according to US polls, believed that the national media had been biased for Clinton and against Trump. As the progressive film maker Michael Moore said, the Trump win would be a massive “F- you!” by ordinary Americans against the Clinton’s and Washington’s political class.

Q: Most observers in the US and internationally say that the Trump triumph was a surprise. Was it?

No, it wasn’t. The Trump victory was a “stunning surprise” to US mainstream media and Washington. But it was very much in line with broad voter distrust in Mrs Clinton and Washington. Economically, most Americans’ wages have stagnated since the 1980s. Politically, the Congress enjoys credibility only among 10-20% of Americans. In security matters, most Americans do not believe that US should play the role of “world police” internationally.

Q: Do you still expect post-election investigations?

Yes, but in “due time”; that is, after the transition of power. Republicans want investigations about the role of the State Department, the Department of Justice and the FBI, as the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus says. Speaker Paul Ryan has promised “aggressive oversight work” of a “quid pro quo” deal between the FBI and the State Department over emails. As chair of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz is pushing for a slate of “new hearings”. House Republicans are demanding a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation for possible conflicts of interest. In the past three months, Republicans have issued some 20 subpoenas and over 50 letters of inquiry probing Clinton. New ones will be fuelled by tens of thousands of Clinton emails courtesy of Wikileaks. 

Q: In Europe, Japan, Asia and the Middle East, not to speak of Mexico, there is much apprehension about the Trump triumph. Should they be concerned?

The key question, of course, is whether Trump will walk the talk. If he opts for realism in international affairs, he could be the first post-war non-imperial US president.

Well, the Mexican peso has been shaking for a reason… If international observers lack a realistic view of the US, yes, they should be concerned because their assumptions are misguided, as I have argued for a long time. There is a longstanding tradition to either ignore America as it is, or to demonise the US and its leaders. Both perspectives are flawed. The key question, of course, is whether Trump will walk the talk. If he opts for realism in international affairs, he could be the first post-war non-imperial US president. If he turns to his advisers, who reflect relatively extreme views of foreign and security policy, he could prove more hawkish than George W. Bush. 

Q: Where are some of the key friction points?

Clearly, Trump’s views about the US-EU relations, the North American Treaty Organization (NATO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) differ drastically from those of Washington establishment. As I have argued elsewhere (see above South China Morning Post, EconoMonitor/Roubini Global Economics, ValueWalk etc), his administration may prove more combative in foreign and security policy, trade and currency policy, and so on. He could defuse current tensions with Russia. He could redefine US policies vis-a-vis the Middle East, including Saudi-Arabia and Iran. He could be particularly assertive in Asia and toward China, Japan and several ASEAN nations. If he stays true to his pre-election pledges, he could re-negotiate US pacts with Japan and South Korea, which could re-define US security system in Asia Pacific. 

Q: Will Trump’s cabinet differ from those of his Republican predecessors?

Yes, it will. It will reflect his values and objectives. Overall, it will be “more white”, older and may include more billionaires and business executives than previous Republican administrations. While the appointments will take time, we know that the oil pioneer Forrest Lucas would like to be Interior secretary, Goldman Sachs veteran Steven Mnuchin would love to take over the Treasury; the hawkish Senator Jeff Sessions hopes to become secretary of Defense, along with the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Bob Corker; Rudy Giuliani could serve as Attorney General; the loyalty of the old Republican hand Newt Gingrich will be rewarded; retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, former director of Defense Intelligence Agency, could become Trump’s national security adviser and so on. The list of potential candidates is long and also includes Sarah Palin, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, and former CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp Dan DiMicco, Trump’s current trade adviser.

Q: Many people expect markets to tank. Do you?

In the short term, the Trump triumph will mean economic uncertainty, market volatility, and strategic doubt. That was evident on the election day. After all, global markets were rocked by Trump’s victory, which was accompanied by a weakening dollar, drastic declines of the Dow Jones, S&P 500 and Nasdaq, as well as markets in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. However, the real question is whether markets responded dramatically to anticipated future realities – or their own misguided expectations.

As a result, he will be able and willing to effect real change in America – for good or bad.

What is certain is that, in the coming weeks, the power transition in the White House will take place amid extraordinary political animosity and very fragile stability, as evidenced by the first protest wave in the US. This time even political violence cannot be excluded.

Nevertheless, Trump’s triumph has ensured the kind of political consolidation that Clinton could only dream about. As Republican majority will prevail in both the Senate and the House, Trump will take over the White House. As a result, he will be able and willing to effect real change in America – for good or bad.

Thank you.

Featured image courtesy of: Getty Images

About the Author

dan-steinbock-webDan Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/

Five things that explain Donald Trump’s stunning presidential election victory

By

A populist wave that began with Brexit in June reached the United States in stunning fashion on Tuesday night. In one of the biggest upsets in American political history, Donald Trump won a truly historic victory in the US presidential election.

fivethingsfig1

 

*Maine and Nebraska are not winner-take-all states, with congressional districts voting individually.
Source: New York Times

 

Trump’s remarkably decisive win stunned most political pundits, myself included. Throughout the campaign, Trump seemed to have a polling ceiling of about 44 percent and he consistently had the highest unfavorability rating of any major party nominee in history. Accordingly, months ago I predicted that Clinton would easily beat Trump.

Then, at the beginning of October, the uproar over Trump’s lewd and offensive remarks on the “Access Hollywood” videotape, combined with the escalating number of women who accused Trump of sexual assault, seemed to finish off his campaign. Right up until Tuesday afternoon, therefore, a comfortable victory for Clinton seemed like a foregone conclusion.

But I was dead wrong. Trump won a sweeping victory in the presidential race. His night began with critical victories in Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, three states essential to his path to 270 electoral votes. As the night wore on, Clinton’s “blue wall” collapsed amid a red tide that swept across the country from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky Mountains. The blue states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa fell to Trump like dominoes. The election returns made clear that Trump would carry over 300 electoral votes, more than enough to win the presidency.

fivethingsfig2

 

Source: New York Times

 

It’s extremely early to draw conclusions about the 2016 election results, but here are five factors that at least partially explain what happened.

 

1. Silent Trump vote

There really was a silent Trump vote that the polls failed to pick up on. The nationwide polling average gave Clinton about a 3-point lead overall, and the state-by-state polls indicated that she would win at least 300 electoral votes.

But the polls were as wrong as the pundits. Problems with the polls’ methodologies will undoubtedly be identified in the days and weeks ahead.

It seems equally reasonable to conclude that many Trump voters kept their intentions to themselves and refused to cooperate with the pollsters.

The extraordinary role of FBI Director James Comey in the presidential campaign cannot be underestimated either. Two weeks ago Clinton seemed on the verge of winning a double-digit victory. But Comey’s Oct. 28 letter to Congress, which announced that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s State Department emails, changed the momentum of the race. Clinton retook the polling lead at the end of last week, but the final polls masked the lasting damage that the Comey letter had done to her campaign.

Whatever the ultimate explanation for the polls’ failure to predict the election’s outcome, the future of the polling industry is in question after Tuesday. Trump’s astounding victory demonstrated that the polls simply cannot be trusted.

 

2. Celebrity Beat Organisation

A longstanding assumption of political campaigns is that a first-rate “Get out the Vote” organisation is indispensable. The conventional wisdom in 2016 thus held that Trump’s lack of a grassroots organisation was a huge liability for his campaign.

But as it turned out, he didn’t need an organisation. Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years, which meant that he entered the race with nearly 100 percent name recognition. Trump’s longstanding status as a celebrity enabled him to garner relentless media attention from the moment he entered the race. One study found that by May 2016 Trump had received the equivalent of US$3 billion in free advertising from the media coverage his campaign commanded. Trump seemed to intuitively understand that the controversial things he said on the campaign trail captured the voters’ attention in a way that serious policy speeches never could.

Trump didn’t play by the normal rules of politics, and his voters loved him for it.

Most important of all, he had highly motivated voters. Trump’s populist rhetoric and open contempt for civility and basic standards of decency enabled him to connect with the Republican base like no candidate since Ronald Reagan. Trump didn’t play by the normal rules of politics, and his voters loved him for it.

Trump’s victory would seem to herald a new era of celebrity politicians. He showed that a charismatic media-savvy outsider has significant advantages over traditional politicians and conventional political organisations in the internet age. In the future, we may see many more unconventional politicians in the Trump mold.

 

3. Populist Revolt Against Immigration and Trade

It will take days to sort through the data to figure out what issues resonated mostly deeply with Trump’s base.

But immigration and trade seem virtually certain to be at the top of the list. Trump bet his whole campaign on the idea that popular hostility to liberal immigration and free trade policies would propel him to the White House.

From the beginning to the end of his campaign, he returned time and again to those two cornerstone issues. In his announcement speech, he promised to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport 11 million unauthorised immigrants. He also pledged to tear up free trade agreements and bring back manufacturing jobs. From day one, he made xenophobic and nationalistic policies the centrepiece of his campaign.

Critics rightfully condemned his vicious attacks on Mexicans and Muslims, but Trump clearly understood that hostility toward immigration and globalisation ran deep among a critical mass of American voters.

His decision to focus on immigration and trade paid off in spades on Election Day. It’s no coincidence that Trump did exceptionally well in the traditionally blue states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all of which have large populations of white working-class voters. Previous Republican nominees such as John McCain, who embraced generous immigration policies, and Mitt Romney, who advocated free trade, never managed to connect with blue-collar voters in the Great Lakes region.

But Trump’s anti-immigration and protectionist trade policies gave him a unique opening with white working-class voters, and he made the most of it.

 

4. Outsiders Against Insiders

Trump will be the first president without elective office experience since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. Eisenhower, however, served as supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II and had unrivalled expertise in foreign affairs.

So how did Trump make his lack of government experience an asset in the campaign?

The answer lay in the intense and widespread public hostility to the political, media and business establishments that lead the country. Trust in institutions is at an all-time low and a majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.. The angry and volatile public mood made 2016 the ultimate change election.

Trump is thus the fourth consecutive president to win the White House by running as an “outsider” candidate. That is a lesson that future presidential candidates forget at their peril.

Amid such a potent anti-establishment spirit, Trump’s vulgar, intemperate and unorthodox style struck voters as far more genuine than the highly cautious and controlled Hillary Clinton. As the brash and unpredictable Trump positioned himself as an agent of change, Clinton seemed like the establishment’s candidate, an impression that proved fatal to her campaign. Indeed, Trump used Clinton’s deep experience in the White House, Senate and State Department against her by citing it as evidence that she represented the status quo.

Ironically, Bill Clinton won the White House 24 years ago using a similar anti-establishment strategy. In the 1992 election, he successfully depicted incumbent President George H. W. Bush as an out-of-touch elitist. Eight years later Bush’s son, George W. Bush, employed the same tactic to defeat Vice President Al Gore. And in 2008 Barack Obama successfully ran as an outsider against John McCain.

Trump is thus the fourth consecutive president to win the White House by running as an “outsider” candidate. That is a lesson that future presidential candidates forget at their peril.

 

5. America, The Divided

Above all, the 2016 election made clear that America is a nation deeply divided along racial, cultural, gender and class lines.

Under normal circumstances, one would expect the new president to attempt to rally the nation behind a message of unity.

But Trump will not be a normal president. He won the White House by waging one of the most divisive and polarising campaigns in American political history. It is entirely possible that he may choose to govern using the same strategy of divide and conquer.

In any case, Trump will soon be the most powerful person in the world. He will enter office on Jan. 20 with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, which means Republicans will dictate the nation’s policy agenda and control Supreme Court appointments for the next four years. It seems highly likely therefore that Nov. 8, 2016 will go down in the history books as a major turning point in American history.

The 2016 election defied the conventional wisdom from start to finish. It is probably a safe bet that the Trump presidency will be just as unpredictable.

 

Featured image: Trump supporters celebrate on Nov. 8, 2016.  Photo courtesy: John Locher/AP
This article was first published on The Conversation on 10 November 2016.

About the Author

gaughan-webAnthony J. Gaughan is Professor of Law at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

 

 

 

 

The Mainstream Media and the debasing of US Presidential elections

By Tunde Olupitan

The Mainstream Media (“MSM) has a lot to answer for. It has dragged these US presidential elections into the gutters.

The MSM, no longer the dominant source of news for many people, and in competition with social media, has fashioned itself, haphazardly, in the image of its foe. It has resorted to peddling gossip and rumour, shunning any attempt at true journalism, in-depth analysis, and preferring drivel to substance in its grand attempt to take their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton to the White House.

They have traded good reporting for soundbites, passing up reality show materials for real news. The release of the Trump tapes by the MSM was intended to prove what? Their energy would have been better utilised if they had concentrated on their candidate’s strong points – a seasoned public servant and her policies for the future. They did not heed Michelle Obama’s words ‘when they go low, you go high’. They decided to enter into the trenches with Trump. The tapes served their purpose, but it debased the US Presidential Elections process. Trump responded and brought 4 Clinton accusers to a Presidential debate, raking up the potential first husband’s past indiscretions and Clinton’s indiscretions about her 33,000 deleted emails.

The days of investigative journalism is dead, the MSM regurgitates anything it picks up on social media and use as and when it pleases.

In its effort to save its chosen one, the MSM resorted to the language of the Cold War, the Russian threat was here and now, it was interfering with the US Presidential elections. Gossip and rumour are now elevated by the MSM to the level of real news. The days of investigative journalism is dead, the MSM regurgitates anything it picks up on social media and use as and when it pleases. The latest FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email saga is now branded by the MSM as an attempt by the FBI boss to interfere with the elections. They refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room – they run after any strand of gossip, they throw mud hoping that some will stick somewhere anywhere.

Whether Hillary wins or loses this election, the MSN has not done much to aid their friend. If she loses, they are to blame and if she wins, she will go down in history as one of the presidents who fought the dirtiest campaign. She would win, not because she was better but because she threw a lot more mud and some will stick to her.

 

This article was first published on peelfirst.com on 2 November 2016

About the Author

Tunde Olupitan is the Managing Editor Europe & Americas for The European Financial Review, The European Business Review and The European Law Review.

TRUMP ELECTED PRESIDENT IN USA’s “BREXIT 2.0” ELECTION

by Dr. Jack Rasmus

To quote my previous article of Nov. 4, “Election 2016: Is Another Contested Election in the Works”:

“What the preceding analysis suggests is that Trump’s ability to turnout a highly disaffected white working class base in the Pennsylvania to Wisconsin geographic “arc” may prove the determining factor in the election.  Whether Hillary can neutralise that turnout by counter-mobilising suburbanites, minorities, and millennials (the least likely) in those same great lakes region “swing states” is the fundamental question in this election.”

 (see the blog jackrasmus.com, or https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/election-2016-is-another-contested-election-2000-in-the-works/ for the full article)

The states that put Trump over the top were once heavily working class and Democratic Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, with Michigan and Minnesota likely to follow as well when the final vote is tallied. These are the states most severely impacted by free trade, offshoring of jobs, and declining living standards.

This election was, as I continually have said since summer, a “rebellion of the working class” against the political elite of both Democrat and Republican parties.  Trump was able to mobilise and turnout his base of non-college educated working class (combined with the traditional conservative rural, small town, small business base) more effectively than Hillary Clinton was able to turn out her base of suburbanites, minorities, college educated, and women.

More white non-college workers switched from Democrat and voted Trump in 2016 than they switched and voted for Reagan in 1980.

Clinton Latinos turned out to vote significantly less than they did for Obama in 2012. Obama’s Latino margin over Romney was 44%; Clinton’s only 36%. Women over 45 went for Trump, and millennials turned out in less percent for Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2012.

The states that put Trump over the top were once heavily working class and Democratic Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, with Michigan and Minnesota likely to follow as well when the final vote is tallied. These are the states most severely impacted by free trade, offshoring of jobs, and declining living standards.

Public Opinion polls totally mis-forecast the US election, as they did with the UK Brexit referendum vote last June. They predicted a 3-5% vote in favour of Clinton. The popular vote was in favour of Trump.

For a more in-depth analysis, and “what happens next”, see my follow up article to be published later today.

Featured image courtesy: Getty Image

About the Author

jack_rasmus-webJack Rasmus is the author of  ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy, Clarity Press, 2015. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is www.kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @drjackrasmus.

 

After The Trump Triumph

By Dan Steinbock

The Trump victory was a “stunning surprise” to Washington and mainstream media. But it was very much in line with voter distrust in both Clintons and Washington’s ruling class.

Politically, Americans are fed up. In cooperation with the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign had far too cozy ties with Wall Street, neoconservatives and Pentagon contractors, as well as mainstream media organisations; from CNN and New York Times to Huffington Post and Google.

In turn, House Republicans demand a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation, which former New York City mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani has called a “racketeering enterprise” that should be prosecuted as such. Indeed, Republicans have promised to investigate the role of the State Department, the Department of Justice and the FBI. In turn, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has promised “aggressive oversight work” of a “quid pro quo” deal between the FBI and the State Department over emails, while chair of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz has been pushing for “new hearings.”

It will be interesting to see whether Republicans will walk the talk – unless, of course, the idea of “post-election healing” is understood as a license for collective amnesia.

The Demise of US-EU Cooperation – and NATO?

The Trump triumph is a belated acknowledgment of America’s malaise. However, as he vows immediate action on executive orders, it is not entirely clear, whether the Trump medication will alleviate or worsen America’s economic angst. His campaign promises have potential to add to rather than reduce America’s $20 trillion sovereign debt burden.

What is certain is that, economically, most Americans’ wages have stagnated since the 1980s. Politically, the Congress enjoys credibility only among 10-20% of Americans. In security matters, most Americans do not believe that US should play the role of “world police” internationally.

Trump believes he can “handle” President Putin. He prefers international stability to imperial democracy promotion.

Since the postwar Marshall Plan and the creation of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO), US-EU relations have been characterised by extraordinarily close economic, political and security cooperation. Nevertheless, the eclipse of the Cold War has given rise to a set of bilateral conflicts in trade and investment that go beyond longstanding economic disagreements.

Typically, President Obama was able to achieve the Trans-Pacific Trade agreement (TPP) in Asia, whereas the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with Europe has proved far more complicated. Hillary Clinton supported the new “Cold War” against Russia, which has contributed to Europe’s economic stagnation. In contrast, Trump believes he can “handle” President Putin. He prefers international stability to imperial democracy promotion.

Bilateral US-EU friction is most evident in Trump’s NATO criticism. As far as Trump is concerned, NATO members have failed to meet the 2% spending target of their GDP on defence. When he has criticised NATO for being “obsolete”, he has simply posed questions that many US leaders – including nation’s top military chiefs – ask behind the facade.

As Trump puts it, “Either they pay up, including for past deficiencies, or they have to get out. And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO.”

Trade Conflicts – or Anti-imperial Realism

In foreign trade, Trump has pledged to tear up or renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would be an embarrassment to Japan and the ASEAN nations that joined the deal after years of talks.

To reduce the US trade deficit with the region, he would raise trade rhetoric against China, Japan and ASEAN’s emerging low-cost producers. That would include a 45% tariff on Chinese exports and raising import duties on Japanese cars. In currency policy, he would confront Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Bank of Japan, which he claims are driving the yen down against the dollar. He would also challenge China’s foreign exchange reforms. In each case, the net effect would be aggravated currency friction.

The realists of US foreign policy expect – or at least hope – that Trump could prove America’s first postwar “anti-imperial” president.

Indeed, Trump’s list of foreign policy advisers – including neoconservative Walid Phares, senator Jeff Sessions, former Army lieutenant general Keith Kellogg, Blackwater USA’s Joe Schmitz, and bankers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos – suggests that either he plans to move US foreign policy further to the Reaganesque right, or that he must undermine his own agenda in due time.

The key question remains: Will Trump walk the talk? For instance, his goal to re-negotiate defenCe pacts in Asia would undermine the Abe administration’s controversial defenCe reforms .

Uncertainty – or Stability

Nevertheless, there is another and far more realistic side to Trump’s rhetoric. Some of his murmurings – whether NATO is still relevant; that the Middle East would be more stable if Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were still in power; that he could get along well with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and so on – suggest that, in the final analysis, Trump could focus his attention on renegotiating better deals and undermining bad ones, not regime change and global empire games.

The realists of US foreign policy expect – or at least hope – that Trump could prove America’s first postwar “anti-imperial” president.

In the short term, the Trump triumph will mean economic uncertainty, market volatility, and strategic doubt. That was evident on the election day as global markets were rocked by Trump’s victory, which was accompanied by a weakening dollar, drastic declines of the Dow Jones, S&P 500 and Nasdaq, as well as markets in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

The real question is whether markets responded dramatically to anticipated future realities – or their own misguided expectations. In the coming weeks, the power transition in the White House will take place amid extraordinary political animosity and very fragile stability.

After all, Trump’s triumph has ensured the kind of political consolidation that Clinton could only dream about. As Republican majority will prevail in both the Senate and the House, Trump will take over the White House. As a result, he will be able and willing to effect real change in America – for good or bad.

Featured image courtesy of: http://usatoday.nyomdagepek.hu

About the Author

dan-steinbock-webDan Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/

Youth and US Elections: About Way More than Just the Horserace

By Peter Levine and Abby Kiesa

A lasting impact of electoral engagement can deepen the civic life of communities. New research suggests that being involved with others on solutions to social problems contributes to young people to flourishing and achieving their potential.

As Election Day 2016 drew closer, news and conversations about the election focused even more narrowly than usual on the horserace and party politics, rather than, for instance, effective solutions to public problems and public deliberation about issues. Listening to the news, you may have thought that the only reason to care about youth electoral participation was to know what candidates they would support. But don’t let that fool or distract you − youth civic participation is about more than just who wins elections.

An election is a good opportunity to think about how young people are engaged in our public life generally. Participation in elections is one example of a civic engagement activity which includes actions that people take to address public problems. Other activities include news engagement, discussion of public issues and policy advocacy. Decades of research has shown that people who engage have built long-term habits and skills.¹ Engagement early in life fuels later engagement, thus creating the foundation for strong democratic participation. Additionally, emerging research shows that civic engagement isn’t only a civic good but also brings other individual and community-level benefits such as skill development, wellbeing and community and economic resilience.

Youth Electoral Engagement

 Elections are one way that communities address public problems. Elections create opportunities for community forums and town hall events with candidates, information about referenda and ballot initiatives, canvassing in communities, and of course, ultimately voting.

There are an enormous number of ways that young people can engage in activities related to an election. These activities provide the above development opportunities, as well as a potential gateway to new ways of engaging:

Discussion about referenda/initiatives/candidates
• Sharing information/curation
• Media creation related to election issues/topics
• Watching news/media about referenda/initiatives/candidates
• Encouraging others to register and/or vote
• Volunteering on a campaign
• Election judge/poll worker
• Voter registration
• Voting

Through electoral participation, young people can learn important lessons and skills to carry into other areas of engagement.

 Through a range of different programs and activities, organisations engage or support the civic development and leadership of young people. Through electoral participation, young people can learn important lessons and skills to carry into other areas of engagement. Here are a couple of highlights from 2016:

 •Unconvention²

 Our home, the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life hosted a satellite event that is part of a larger initiative called the “Unconvention”. An initiative of several major broadcast outlets, including Public Radio International, this is a series of events and conversations for millennials around the globe to discuss the issues and results of the US election. Research regularly finds that discussion among youth about elections increases the likelihood that youth will participate in other ways.

 •Mikva Challenge Primary trips & Great Electoral Race

 During the 2016 primaries, Mikva Challenge, an organisation that teaches civic skills and knowledge through action-based pedagogies, combined teaching about US elections with trips to states with primaries and caucuses going on. Youth involved in Mikva from around the country (and chaperones) worked on campaigns for a candidate of their choice. As Mikva Challenge staff shared, “The students discovered that actually knocking doors and making calls is entirely different than just talking about it. Engaging voters reveals young people’s persuasive skills, gives them confidence in their own voices, and allows them to see the impact of their work first-hand.”³ Additionally, Mikva has created the Great Electoral Race,4 a team-based competition curriculum based on learning about elections, candidates and displaying civic skills.

Over a decade’s worth of research has helped to illuminate what facilitates youth voting and electoral engagement and what can act as a barrier. We know that youth are more likely to vote when their household growing up was engaged,5 when people reach out to them to discuss the election or give them concrete information about when where and how to vote, and when they experience high quality civic education in the high school classroom.6 In fact, data indicates that when more youth are contacted by major political parties, youth turnout goes up (see graph below).

  figure

 

During the 2012 election cycle, our work for the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge7 found that no one intervention we researched outperformed the influence of the household and community a young person grew up in. As a result, to change the culture of communities to encourage youth participation, many community stakeholders need to be involved, including civic organisations, unions, schools, local businesses and local government.

Emerging Research on Benefits to Engagement

A lasting impact of electoral engagement can deepen the civic life of communities. However, the civic activities of a community, such as youth electoral participation, are more tied into social and economic systems than is often portrayed and can lead to increased social and economic benefits for individuals and communities. Young people develop important skills, attitudes, agency and networks of contacts to name a few, which can be taken into other venues and settings.

Skill Development

Working on community issues requires more than doing; civic engagement requires skills to be effective. Depending on the project or issue, a range of skills may be needed for effectiveness: communication, analysis or other critical thinking skills, or the ability to organise and manage a group.8 These “21st century skills” are more likely to be developed through high-quality, interactive civic education.9 There’s a great deal of overlap between these skill areas and skills that employers indicate they are looking for.10 For example, iCivics’ Drafting Board uses civic content to teach persuasive writing skills. Our experimental evaluation of the tool found that youth who engaged with the civic content through the tool were more likely to score higher on persuasive writing.11 As a result, both youth civic education and engagement contribute not only to youth civic development, but also to young people’s development for other areas of their life as well.

New research suggests that being involved with others on solutions to social problems contributes to young people to flourishing and achieving their potential.

 For many years, advocates have been encouraging schools to move from a knowledge-driven civics curriculum to one based on skill development. Developing effective skills for dialogue may be particularly important in today’s political culture. The American Psychological Association (APA) reported that in their 2016 poll about politics at the workplace, those workers between 18 and 34 were more likely to say that political discussions created stress and that it influenced their “work performance.”12

Well-Being

Skills are not the only area of individual development. Research has begun to investigate whether young people’s sense of contentment, meaning and motivation are increased through participation in civic life. New research suggests that being involved with others on solutions to social problems contributes to young people to flourishing and achieving their potential.13 Our colleagues at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University investigated whether consistent or increased civic engagement was more likely to be related to flourishing than disengagement or decreased engagement. Whether or not it’s a voter registration drive, a discussion group or an advocacy campaign, civic engagement activities, young people can find something deeper as well.

Community and Economic Resilience

The Rockefeller Foundation explains the purpose of their initiative on resilience as “helping cities, organisations, and communities better prepare for, respond to, and transform from disruption.”14 Youth engagement brings more time and energy to public problem solving. Elements of the City Resilience Framework,15 include attention to inclusivity and building connections between people, which civic engagement does. Young people also bring new perspectives to issues that would not be included otherwise. Early youth engagement also increases the likelihood of adult participation in community problem-solving.

Emerging research also suggests that there is a direct connection between a community’s civic engagement and economic resilience. Research done by one of us and a colleague found that during the US economic downturn during 2006-2010, a state’s unemployment was strongly correlated with the level of civic engagement in the state.16 Specifically, we found that the number of nonprofits and the level of social cohesion were the most significant indicators affecting economic resilience. The specific potential impact of youth engagement is something that we are investigating through a grant from the W.T. Grant Foundation.

 This emerging data, as a result, suggests that institutions such as governments, schools, news outlets, and parties ought to encourage practices like deliberation and activism during elections. Similar investments have been made for community service. By creating a federal agency for national and community service, instituting service requirements in some schools, school districts, and colleges, and building up a whole network of service programs and centers, we have been able to raise the youth volunteerism rate since the 1980s. Similar investments in youth electoral engagement are steps towards sustaining democratic participation and, as we’ve explained here, other individual and community benefits.

Featured image: On Tuesday, September 27th, 2016, organisations and volunteers from all over the country will celebrate National Voter Registration Day. Photo courtesy: nonprofitvote

About the Authors

peter-webPeter Levine, PhD is the Associate Dean for Research and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service. He is the author of We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America (Oxford University Press, 2013) and six previous books. 

abby-webAbby Kiesa, MA is Director of Impact at CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement), based at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service. In addition to conducting research, such as providing leadership for CIRCLE’s election efforts, Abby also serves as liaison to practitioner organisations across the country to maintain a conversation between research and practice.

References
1. For examples of this work see Plutzer (2002), Kirlin (2003) and Thomas & McFarland (2010).
2. http://www.92y.org/unconvention
3. http://civicyouth.org/guest-post-developing-youth-skills-before-and-after-election-day/
4. http://www.mikvachallenge.org/great-electoral-race/
5. Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge (2013) “All Together Now: Innovation and Collaboration for Youth Engagement”.
6. ibid
7. http://civicyouth.org/commission-on-youth-voting-and-civic-knowledge-releases-report/
8. http://civicyouth.org/commission-on-youth-voting-and-civic-knowledge-releases-report/8 For a sample list of skills used in civic life see Kirlin (2003) and CIRCLE Special Report on Civic Skills and Federal Policy (2010).
9. Torney Purta, Judith and Wilkenfeld, Britt S. (2009). “Paths to 21st Century Competencies Through Civic Education Classrooms: An Analysis of Survey Results from Ninth Graders.”
10. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/30/the soft skills employers are looking for/

11. http://civicyouth.org/icivics drafting board module boosts students writing skills/
12. http://www.apaexcellence.org/assets/general/2016 politics workplace survey results.pdf
13. http://www.bttop.org/news events/assessment spotlight tufts university tisch college citizenship and public service
14. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our work/topics/resilience
15.
http://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/city-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf

The Tropical Oil Crops Revolution – A More Sustainable Future?

By Derek Byerlee, Walter Falcon, and Rosamond Naylor

The rise of soybeans and oil palm in the tropics has attracted massive private and state investments, offering significant opportunities for tropical regions to develop their economies but often at the cost of clearing forests and savannas. This article discusses how the tropical oil crop revolution can provide better and more sustainable development.

Agricultural revolutions that transform global food systems and agricultural landscapes occur infrequently. Yet, since 1990 global production of oil crops in the developing world has almost tripled, expanding at a faster rate than cereals during the green revolution of 1965-85. Like the green revolution, this new revolution largely involves two crops – in this case, oil palm and soybeans – expanding mostly in the tropics. In a remarkably short time frame of about two decades soybeans and oil palm have become among the most important crops in world agriculture due to their contributions to food, feed, and fuel supplies. Their rise has taken place within a globalising world where the products of one region are consumed largely in another. Oil crops and their products now rank first (soybean products) and third (palm and palm kernel oil) in world agricultural trade with wheat products occupying second place.

Oil crops have attracted massive investments of private and state capital, opening up sparsely populated regions in the tropics and creating a host of dynamic industries in emerging economies, such as oil milling, intensive livestock, biodiesel, and oleo-chemicals. Most visibly, they have been among the major drivers of change in land use in the tropics, where their production has converted huge tracts of forest, savannah, and pastures into highly productive farmland, often at the cost of increased greenhouse emissions and loss of biodiversity.

 

chart1

chart2

 

 

A Perfect Storm

A host of factors aligned on the demand and supply sides to produce a “perfect storm” for growth of tropical oil crops.

First and foremost, demand expanded rapidly for both protein meal and vegetable oils. As consumers in emerging economies became richer, they greatly increased their consumption of livestock products and the associated demand for protein meal for feed, as well as for vegetable oils for cooking and processed foods.

Second, the rising demand for vegetable oils was further fuelled – both literally and figuratively – when the biodiesel industry took off. This industry, driven by policies mandating the use of biodiesel as a transportation fuel in several countries, has accounted for about one-third of the increase in global vegetable oil demand since 2003.

Easy access to land and capital, along with the availability of productive technologies, made oil crops very profitable and promoted their expansion.

Such dramatic increases in demand could not have been satisfied without equivalent drivers on the supply side. In Brazil, cheap land became accessible with the construction of new highways and ports, and new technologies allowed soybeans to grow well in its tropical savannahs. In Southeast Asia, even cheaper land became available for oil palm as governments made large concessions of forested and degraded land available to private companies.

The era of market liberalisation and privatisation starting in the late 1980s brought a surge of private capital, often foreign, to develop new supply chains, especially during the commodity boom from 2007-14. State capital, often subsidised, was also available to the oil crop sector through national development banks. Easy access to land and capital, along with the availability of productive technologies, made oil crops very profitable and promoted their expansion.

The supply and demand sides were brought together by global trade liberalisation and integration. As countries joined the newly created World Trade Organization, imports of vegetable oils and soybeans were liberalised almost everywhere, and trade exploded. Producers in a handful of exporting countries were linked to distant consumers and rapidly emerging new industries by investments in roads, ports and larger ships that facilitated trade at a relatively low cost. The most dramatic changes occurred in China and India. China’s liberalisation of soybean imports made it by far the world’s largest importer of soybeans (mostly supplied by Brazil), and India’s liberalisation of vegetable oil imports made it the world’s largest importer of vegetable oils (largely supplied by Indonesia).

Finally, the extraordinary success of the two dominant commodities, palm oil and soybeans, came from massive substitution of these products for traditional sources of vegetable oil. For example, palm oil replaced virtually all of the coconut oil used in food in Indonesia and soybean meal replaced waste materials and byproducts in animal feed in China.

 

The Winners and Losers

As with all periods of rapid economic change, the revolution in oil crops has had its winners and losers. The availability of cheap, plentiful vegetable oil has been important for improving food security in extremely poor populations by increasing their energy and fat intake. However, for richer households, consuming more vegetable oil sometimes poses health risks that are possibly even greater for palm oil due to its high level of saturated fats.

The revolution undoubtedly produced enormous economic benefits by creating new industries and transforming sparsely settled areas into dynamic growth poles with new towns and service providers along the value chain. Smallholders sometimes participated strongly in this growth, as in Indonesia (oil palm) and India (soybeans). However, local communities without secure land tenure often lost livelihoods as outside investors usurped their land rights.

Oil crops have also created millions of new jobs in Southeast and South Asia, regions with extensive poverty. Although labour rights have received less attention than land rights, millions of labourers in oil palm cross international borders illegally and are sometimes subject to employment abuse and poor living conditions.

The massive changes in land use associated with tropical oil crops have had high environmental costs in terms of GHG emissions and biodiversity losses. These costs have been exacerbated by the use of fire to clear land, where oil crops have replaced tropical forest. Recent analyses conclude that oil palm and soybeans, together with beef, pulp, and paper are the four key commodities contributing to GHGs from land-use changes, which in turn account for about 15 percent of global GHG emissions.

The Future Will Not Be Like The Past

Alarmists predict that oil crops will consume the remaining tropical forests. For a number of reasons, our analysis sees growth in demand for tropical oil crops sharply slowing by 2050 (by as much as two thirds).

Africa missed out on the oil crop revolution but is poised to take centre stage in the coming decades.

First, growth in demand for biofuel feedstocks cannot maintain the rapid pace of the past decade. This tapering off will be most apparent in the EU, the major consumer of biodiesel today, especially as it approaches the regulated maximum of renewable transport fuels that can be provided from foodstuffs. Some tropical countries, notably Brazil and Indonesia, are likely to compensate in part for the EU slowdown, but in our view neither India and China (the two most populous countries) nor sub-Saharan Africa will become significant producers of biodiesel, given their high dependence on imported vegetable oils. Second, the use of vegetable oils for food will also grow more slowly than in the recent past – in Asia, population growth will be slower and the effects of rising incomes will diminish as consumers in middle-income countries have already reach high levels of vegetable oil consumption. Third, the use of protein meal for feed is subject to a similar slowdown as China’s meat consumption levels off.

On the supply side, the biggest wild card is land availability for expanding oil palm in Asia and Africa, especially as environmental regulations tighten and current users gain more secure rights to their land. Whether this expansion is on forested or degraded land, the transaction costs of accessing large tracts of land surely will rise. However, in our view, the area covered by oil crops does not have to expand greatly to meet future demand, which can be supplied largely through intensification of existing crop land and only a modest expansion in area. Although there will be no dramatic yield jumps, since yield gaps for oil crops in the major producers (except smallholders) are already low relative to gaps in yields of other major staples, steady progress is possible through genetic gains in yield. In addition, sufficient degraded land is available to accommodate area expansion, provided land governance and incentive systems can be developed to steer the expansion onto degraded lands and away from areas of natural vegetation with high carbon stocks and biodiversity values.

Africa as the New Frontier

Africa missed out on the oil crop revolution but is poised to take centre stage in the coming decades. With rapid population and income growth, the region’s demand for vegetable oils and protein meal is expanding rapidly. On the supply side, Africa has the land and labour to meet that demand and perhaps become a significant exporter.

Oil palm, a traditional African crop, requires a judicious combination of improvements in the local supply chains of smallholders and small-scale processors with injections of outside capital, technology, and market expertise through private investors. The current emphasis on investment in large plantations is unlikely to be sustainable, given the complexities of African land markets and land rights.

Soybeans, a new crop in much of Africa, will inevitably expand with the attendant environmental costs of converting savannah and woodland to crop agriculture. Again, the focus should be on small and medium producers through contract farming and outgrower schemes to supply domestic and regional markets.

Even so, investors are exerting considerable pressure to gain access to land for tropical oil crops in Africa. The last large tract of tropical rainforest in the Congo basin has been protected from deforestation and timber extraction by the lack of infrastructure, but the steady extension of roads throughout Africa and better links to global markets pose a significant threat to these forests.

Better Prospects for Sustainability

We aspire to win-win outcomes for sustainable development, but as pragmatists we understand that the real world entails messy trade-offs. We are cautiously optimistic that the future expansion of the oil crop sector can be managed more sustainably. The much slower projected expansion will, in itself, make such costs more manageable. Some signs also point to convergence among global consumers, private actors, civil society, and local governments in finding ways to minimise the trade-offs between economic benefits and social and environmental costs.

A big challenge will be supporting smallholders in adopting sustainable practices and certifying their production, given the high transaction costs and skill requirements required.

Brazil, the major soybean producer, has made the most progress. Brazilian soybeans have contributed little to deforestation in recent years, although expansion into savannah and woodland continues, albeit more slowly, and is possibly displacing cattle farming to the Amazon frontier. As we write, a parallel story is unfolding in Indonesia, where major global traders have made strong commitments to achieve zero deforestation, zero use of peatlands and no exploitation of local communities. However, a difficult and uncertain path lies ahead when it comes to implementing these commitments on the ground in Indonesia.

The best bet to improve sustainability in the short to medium run involve full implementation of the commitments by palm oil traders through upgraded certification systems to enforce standards to help clean up supply chains. The performance-based contracts under the UN-negotiated agreement on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) also provide important incentives to governments to support such commitments. On the social side, we see major new opportunities for smallholders to take advantage of the growing infrastructure of roads, mills, and logistics, as they have already done in Sumatra, Indonesia. A big challenge will be supporting smallholders in adopting sustainable practices and certifying their production, given the high transaction costs and skill requirements required.

In the long run, private standards, trader commitments, and moratoria cannot substitute for better land and forest governance. But where there is a will, new tools allow stakeholders to monitor land users and changes in land use in real time, and they can quickly identify and expose transgressors. These tools, together with growing concern about climate change and biodiversity loss, are shining a spotlight on tropical oil crops and global trade in their products – a spotlight that companies and states alike can no longer ignore. Ultimately, however, it is the local players, including local communities, who implement policies on the ground. They are the ones who must be convinced that the sector’s sustainable development is good business for them and for the future.

About the Authors

byerlee-web Derek Byerlee is a Visiting Scholar at the Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Adjunct Professor in the Global Human Development Program, Georgetown University, and Editor-in-Chief of the Global Food Security journal.

falcon-webWalter P. Falcon is Farnsworth Professor of International Agricultural Policy (Emeritus) and Senior Fellow at Stanford University.

 

roz-webRosamond L. Naylor is the William Wrigley Professor of Earth Systems Science and the Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University.

Their book, The Tropical Oil Crops Revolution: Food, feed, fuel and forests, was published by Oxford University Press in October, 2016.

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

cross

Cross-Sector Collaboration Is the Unity We Need Now

By Caroline Suozzi The world is a complex place. Should finding solutions to its equally complex problems be a matter for governments, for the private sector, or for philanthropy? Well done if you answered “All...

WISE DECISION MAKER GUIDE

POWER INFLUENCERS

Top Investment Destinations

Emerging Trends

casibomjojobet girişHOLİGANBETjojobetcasibom güncelholiganbetCasibomholiganbet girişcasibom girişCasibomcasibomcasibom girişCASİBOMholiganbet güncelizmir escortCasibom Girişcasibomcasibom güncel girişcasibom güncelCasibomCasibom Güncelholiganbet