Change of Guard

I was at the Knicks game (against Orlando Magic) at Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night, which offered a glimpse of iconic New York, with Spike Lee courtside to underline the fact.

Madison Square Garden was probably not the place to look for a reaction to Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral election victory, though across Manhattan I found many people exercised about the event (as well as the recent Epstein release).

Having last been in New York only two months ago, it has certainly not become less expensive, and to channel last week’s note (‘Pear-shaped’) on the K-Shaped economy that described how the holders of capital are doing well and labour is doing poorly, Mamdani is the beneficiary of this Marxian contrast, and he has the rhetoric to go with it.

Mamdani had the right level of charisma, decent organization and the perfect context. He may struggle as mayor, notably in terms of his authority with the police and emergency services, his economic acumen and moreover, in curbing the big picture macro issues that are beyond his control, as well as a hostile federal government.

Yet, for all the attention that his election has garnered, I do not think he is the only story in American politics (Seattle’s mayoral election also deserves attention for example), nor do I think he is the answer to the Democrats’ losing ways, and there are a number of other events to consider.

The first is the death of Dick Cheney, a day before Mamdani was elected. Cheney, or ‘Angler’ to give him his secret service codename (there is a good book on Cheney of that title, by Barton Gellman), is now an important reference point in American public life.

Cheney embodied the idea of someone who served the public and private sectors (almost at the same time), and who spent his life embedded in the industrial-defence-political complex. He had served several Republican presidents as a foreign policy and defence hawk, and when George W Bush asked him to lead the search for a vice-presidential candidate, Cheney could find no-one better than himself, and thus spent eight years as ‘W’ Bush’s vice president, with the suspicion being that it was he who called the shots (literally).

At the time, Cheney was regarded as a right-wing hawk, but as American politics changed, he and his courageous daughter Liz (also generally right wing) were two of very few Republicans who had consistently stood up to, and repeatedly condemned Donald Trump. Amongst other policies, Cheney as a Cold War warrior must have found it very difficult to understand and stomach the approach of the current White House to Russia.

That Cheney ended his life as a critic of Trump is a sign of how far the MAGA crowd have taken the Republican party. In itself, that should not mean that the Democrats fight the next elections from the far-left, as the result in New York hinted.

Indeed, two interesting results, the victories of Mikie Sherrill (now New Jersey’s first female Democratic governor) and Abigail Spanberger (Virginia’s first female governor) suggest that the Democrats can do well in the centre, with credible candidates. Both are role models – Sherrill is a Naval Academy graduate, flew helicopters and is the mother of four children, while Spanberger has three children and worked as a CIA agent.

In the current context, it is encouraging to see these very capable female candidates succeed, and even Marjorie Taylor Greene is displaying a form of reckless courage in veering away from the White House script.

Whilst the Democrat party is in disarray and dispute (following the vote to end the government shutdown), it is in need of a change of guard, notably so given the announcement that Nancy Pelosi will retire from public life. In that respect, serious candidates of the calibre of Sherrill will note three developments that might encourage the sense that a ‘change of guard’ is in the offing.

First, the president’s entanglement with Jeffrey Epstein is sapping his patience and political capital. Secondly, national security will become a more real issue as it is very clear now that China and Russia have only malign intentions towards the West, despite the fantasies of pseudo-Kissingerians in Washington. Third, and most importantly, the direction and timbre of the economy is the key political issue, with affordability at the top of the docket.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Profiles in Courage

John F Kennedy, who died this week 61 years ago, is famous for many things, but a lesser known accomplishment is that he won a Pulitzer Prize for a bestselling book entitled ‘Profiles in Courage’, that told the stories of eight American political figures (mostly senators if I recall) who took morally courageous stands on issues that went against the views of their parties and popular opinion. An example was John Quincy Adams’ decision to break from the Federalist Party (over foreign policy).

Like all things Kennedy, the book was a dazzling success, but also had a few magical ingredients. It is generally accepted that Ted Sorensen, adviser and speechwriter to Kennedy, contributed much of the book, or in his own terms, he wrote ‘many of the words that made up the sentences’. Equally, the book did not make it through the formal entry process for the Pulitzer, but was nudged into the competition by Joe Kennedy, the president’s father.

As an aside, in the context of the recent presidential election, it could well be argued that Joe Kennedy was a Trumpian figure…or that Trump is simply following the ‘Patriarch’s; example (David Nasaw’s book of this title is very good). Joe Kennedy accomplished more as a businessman than Trump, but fell short in his political career. Instead, he groomed Joe junior(killed in the second world war), then John, Bobby and Ted.

One of Joe senior’s achievements was his appointment as American ambassador to the UK, but his term was cut short because of his perceived stance on appeasement. With some irony, Joe senior had encouraged the publication of his son’s Harvard thesis as a book.

‘Why England Slept’ queried the ‘soft’ stance of the British government towards Germany in the lead-up to the war and argued that if Britain had re-armed earlier and taken a more robust stance with Germany, the second world war may not have happened, or at least might have taken a different path (the book was a great success and the British royalties were given to the city of Plymouth which had been badly bombed by the Luftwaffe).

Though Robert Kennedy junior may now take the ‘Kennedy’ limelight, the message of JFK’s books echoes in today’s world. In a couple of years’ time, someone might write ‘Why Europe Slept?’ in the sense that Europe has let its guard slip on security and not built defence infrastructure to keep up with the threat of Russia.

In a week where a Chinese vessel is suspected of cutting a telecoms cable between Germany and Finland, when the first EU defence and space commissioner has been confirmed (Andrius Kubilius’ first task is to compile an inventory of Europe’s defence supply chains) and where an intercontinental ballistic missile has apparently been used on Ukraine, there is a sense that Europe is still not ready for the worst.

The idea of ‘profiles in courage’ is even more pertinent. In a multipolar world, where countries and companies have to ‘take sides’, where America will arguably become more transactional and less relationship driven in its foreign policy and, where democracy is being eroded from within and afar, moral courage will be at a premium.

One unfortunate example here is Olaf Scholz’ moral capitulation in calling Russia’s president last week, ostensibly to lay the groundwork for a peace deal. Scholz likely had the upcoming German elections in mind, but his call was rewarded with an intense bombardment of Kiev.

This has left Scholz even more discredited. Up until this week there was now a growing debate around his future as SPD leader and the prospect that he could be replaced by Boris Pistorius, the popular defence minister. Pistorius has declared that he does not want the leadership tole.

This is a pity for Germany, because having Pistorius in place as Social Democrat leader by the time of the election might boost the party and would also make a coalition with the CDU easier to form and more ideologically consistent. As it stands, the polls show the CDU/CSU with some 32% of the vote, the SPD on 16%, AfD at 19% and Sara Wagenknecht’s party at 7%. At that rate the CDU-SPD coalition might need to take on a smaller partner, but in effect Merz would be the dominant partner.

A Merz lead coalition could be a real change for Germany, could reignite its economy and remake its energy policy, and may turn it into a more robust geopolitical player vis a vis Russia.

My advice is that Merz, and his compatriots at the head of the SPD both read the works of John Kennedy.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Restoring Democracy

A happy new year to all readers, where the start to 2024 has been marked by numerous articles in policy journals and the press about the importance of 2024 from the point of view of politics and democracy, never mind that some of these newspapers have in recent years done their best to promote the vandalization of democracy and the rule of law.

Regular readers will know that the ‘democratic recession’ is a major preoccupation of mine. In this respect, I intend to leap, feet first, into the debate on democracy. In a week’s time L’Accord du Peuple (Calmann Levy) which I have co-authored with the great Pierre-Charles Pradier, will be released in France.

While the book should, I hope, resonate across Europe, our target is France and our aim is to find practical ways of bringing democracy closer to French people. One pragmatic idea is to deploy citizens assemblies at the regional or departmental level, where they have more relevance and where they are perhaps less of a threat to national politicians, who it seems have deplorably little trust in the opinions of French citizens.

Then on January 20^th I have the privilege of a TEDx Talk on the topic of ‘restoring the credibility of democracy’. The Talk takes place in Stormont (Belfast), a symbolic location in so many respects for democracy, and where the ‘lights of democracy’ are currently ‘turned off’.

While it is remarkable that nearly half of the world’s population will vote in elections this year (Bangladesh today 7^th January, Taiwan next week, and then in order of importance the US, UK (September now likely), India, South Africa, the EU parliament, Mexico, Indonesia and Russia (but we already know the result there)), there are two new elements that are not discussed enough.

One is the fact electoral outcomes in different countries are correlated – for example, what happens in Taiwan next week can impact the US presidential campaign and might even alter the ways in which elections in India and Indonesia are held.

In addition, there are now common global issues (inflation, climate damage) as well as two polarising wars that are colouring political debates in individual countries. The other factor that is common across many of the aforementioned countries is the tug of war between the sanctity of democracy and the belief in ‘strongmanism’. India, South Africa and Russia are in the latter camp. Yet, Indonesia is exceptional here in that Joko Widodo will leave the political stage (he was first elected in October 2014) with exceptionally high approval ratings and broad respect (though his son is involved in the race to succeed him).

There other factor worth emphasising is the industrial-level interference in elections across the world. In this context, Richard Daley’s ‘vote-stuffing’ in favour of John Kennedy’s 1960 presidential campaign or even the Tammany Hall tactic of plying voters with alcohol and then leading them to the voting booth, appear quaint. It will be a busy year ahead for the team at ‘Fancy Bear’ the Russian hacking group alleged to have interfered in elections in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, US and France amongst other countries.

There are signs that democracies are responding to this interference. For example, yet more evidence has been uncovered of Russia’s support for Marine Le Pen. In addition, the EU has deployed its Digital Services Act for the first time to launch multiple investigations into X (Twitter) specifically that X has been spreading misinformation and diffusing hate content. Indeed, under Musk’s stewardship X has tried hard not to live up to the requirements of the Act – in May it disengaged from the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation and has scaled back resources for monitoring of content.

In the year ahead, I suspect that EU policymakers and national governments will take a tougher line on social media and will be more demanding on the social media giants’ willingness to police content.

However, there is a need for democratic governments to be even more muscular. In Europe two thorns in the democratic side are Hungary and Serbia. An EU leaders’ summit at the start of February, whose goal is to sign off aid to Ukraine, may be the final straw in terms of their patience with Hungary, a country that enables attacks on European democracy and the rule of law. There is now talk of suspending Hungary’s voting rights.

Another bad ‘democratic’ actor is Serbia, a potential EU member state. Serbia recently held general and local elections, the latter were marred by apparently very obvious vote rigging. This has triggered large protests in Belgrade against Alek Vucic’s government. Recently there occurred a brutal, sinister assault on the leader of the opposition leader Nikola Sandulovic. In my view, in the light of the ambivalence of Serbia’s relationship with Russia, the EU should suspend its passage towards EU membership.

In short, until the leaders of the democratic world adopt a more aggressive approach to those who attack democracy, they will continue to be mugged by autocrats. There is plenty they can do if they use cyber, social media and economic warfare to push back on attacks on democracy. One initiative that helped to bring down the Iron Curtain was the mass purchase and distribution of photocopiers into Eastern Europe by George Soros. This provided the mechanism by which ideas and information could travel around countries like Poland, Hungary and Romania. It is time for the West to think like this again.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

How to reconnect Europeans with the EU

The EU elections, like the Eurovision song contest is, for some, a chance to poke fun at the EU and at the more colourful characters contesting seats. Turnout will be relatively low, reflecting the fact that for many Europeans, power lies in national assemblies, and also the fact that they do not entirely understand the role and purpose of the EU Parliament.

In this respect the EU Parliamentary elections will do little to bridge the political and emotional gulf between the EU and its citizens. My own experience is that whether I am in the north of Greece, west of France or south of Ireland, Europe’s citizens are losing their sense of what the EU means to them in a tangible way.

The core elements of the project need to be remade, and done so in a way that brings them closer and more meaningful to Europeans. One example is the constitution. One frequently noted rejoinder during debates on the politics of the EU is to ask whether anyone has in fact read the EU constitution. Few have.

The EU constitution is some four hundred pages long (at seventy thousand words, it is seven times as long as the French and Dutch constitutions), and it is unlikely that many Europeans have read it or that they keep a copy close to hand.

Lawyers and academics will tell us that constitutions are legal documents and as such are long and complicated. Still, weighty texts like the European Constitution put distance between people and those who govern over them.

This is one of the ways in which politics today has created a sense of disconnect between insiders and outsiders. From a socio-political point of view, it is a disturbing divide because Europeans are losing confidence in the European Union, and as multiple economic and humanitarian crises take their political toll, Europeans are losing their sense of what Europe stands for.

One proposal, which may go just a small way to repairing the gap between the EU and its citizens, is for Europeans to have a short, tangible and agreed account of what it means to be European.

One thoroughly modern response might be to use artificial intelligence to optimize the constitutions of the various European states and to condense them into one, meaningful page. The algorithm would extract core beliefs and principles from the constitutions of a range of countries and boil them down into a single, short document.

A more straightforward tack would be produce a short document that highlights the meaning and relevance of the European Union for its many citizens. It could be done as follows, and maybe the next Commission might take this up.

The exercise would involve European citizens running pilot projects to discover what they feel they have in common, where they feel they are different, and what policies might, to their advantage, draw them together. To think aloud, an initial pilot project could be based on the participation of a retired Portuguese teacher, a Polish bank clerk, a German policewoman, a Latvian student, an Italian pensioner, and a Swedish nurse.

Their goal is to produce, on a single sheet of paper, the answers to the following questions: What do they, as Europeans, have in common? What can they stress as common values and aspirations, what policies might bring them closer together as Europeans (i.e. the Erasmus pan-European student-exchange program).

The answers might start off with the fact that most Europeans have a common history, one that has been marked by wars, scarred by the rise and fall of empires, shrouded in Christianity, and shaped by the passage of monarchy to democracy and autarchy, the rise of learning and culture, and, from the thirteenth century onward, the evolution of great cities.

This is an altogether broad and historical view of European identity, and it might well permit the inclusion of countries, such as Russia, that are not considered part of Europe today. The sum total of this historic experience might well inspire citizens to say that they have the following common values: peace (not to have another European war), the influence of the Christian church(es), democracy, recognition of the benefits of social democracy, and free movement of EU citizens.

This may just be a starting point, and it might even gain clarity through the participation of the growing number of pan-European couples and their children. Such an exercise may not also produce the unity of views that pro-Europeans may desire, but it will make Europeans think about what defines their region at a time when the US and China are reinforcing their own identities.

The next trick will be to get Europe’s leaders to react to such a template.