Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer-Gilad about US immigration policy under a second term for US President Donald Trump. The discussion focuses on Trump’s policy objectives, the feasibility of them and their impact on immigrants and the legal system. Douglas’s expertise provides an informed perspective on what lies ahead.
Douglas is a lawyer who dedicates his career to immigration cases. He is also a rabbinical student in New York and a doctoral candidate in Talmud and Rabbinics. He teaches law at Boston University and is active in human rights work around the world. He currently helps Israeli families affected by the October 7 attacks. He brings a deep understanding of immigration law and its real-world effects.
Atul asks Douglas about Trump’s approach to border security and immigration enforcement. Trump emphasizes securing the border and protecting American jobs. His policies include stricter deportation measures, particularly targeting immigrants with criminal backgrounds. However, mass deportations require resources and international cooperation, which makes them difficult to implement.
US Customs and Border Protection have too much power
One key issue is the power of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Under a second Trump administration, CBP receives more authority to override civil rights protections. This means fewer rights for immigrants, including restrictions on their ability to appeal deportation. Trump also intends to close the US–Mexico border entirely. CBP already has minimal oversight compared to the FBI. With more freedom, the agency can act with even less accountability and become more aggressive in enforcing immigration laws.
The conversation also explores the role of tech billionaires in shaping immigration policy. Elon Musk expresses opinions on immigration but does not control government bureaucracy. It remains to be seen whether figures like Musk influence policy or if the system continues without significant changes.
Deportations are difficult
Another major topic is the idea of a large-scale deportation program. Trump previously spoke about removing millions of undocumented immigrants. Douglas discusses whether such a plan is realistic and what legal and logistical challenges it faces.
Finally, the discussion touches on the possibility of another ban on Muslim immigration. Trump previously enacted restrictions on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries. Douglas provides insights into whether such a policy returns and what its legal consequences are.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer-Gilad about US immigration policy under a second term for US President Donald Trump. The discussion focuses on Trump’s policy objectives, the feasibility of them and their impact on immigrants and the legal system. Douglas’s…” post_summery=”US President Donald Trump’s new administration intends to crack down heavily on immigration. He is granting more power to US Customs and Border Protection and wants to institute stricter deportation policies. But these efforts require resources and international cooperation — can Trump realistically execute these goals?” post-date=”Feb 09, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: US Immigration Policy Under Donald Trump 2.0″ slug-data=”fo-talks-us-immigration-policy-under-donald-trump-2-0″>FO° Talks: US Immigration Policy Under Donald Trump 2.0
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 7 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6 here.]
France and Germany are the two beating hearts of Europe. Both of them ended 2024 without a budget. Both countries face new elections in 2025.
France’s tumultuous 2024
France went through a tumultuous year. Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh explain the crisis in the French Fifth Republic in the piece embedded below. Traditional parties have imploded and new blocs have emerged. Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement national (RN) is on the ascendant. Although it won only 126 seats out of 577 in the French parliament, it received the most votes.
Related Reading
!["Macron]("https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Macron-1.webp")
The left-wing Nouveau front populaire (NFP) won 193 seats while President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble won 159. The two parties oppose RN’s social and political far-right stance, but NFP and RN are closer on economic policy than either is to Ensemble. In 2024, the three parties could not agree upon a budget. Michel Barnier’s government fell, making him the shortest-serving prime minister of the Fifth Republic.
An ineffective government and rising AfD worry Germans
Germany’s traffic-light coalition — so-called because red, yellow and green are colors of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Greens, respectively — fell because the parties could not agree upon a budget. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government has proven to be indecisive and ineffective. The three parties could rarely agree on anything even as the German economy contracted for two consecutive years.
Related Reading
!["Coal]("https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Coal-and-Steel-Production-Plant-1-1024x683.jpg")
The far-right Allianz für Deutschland (AfD) is on the rise, sending shivers down the spine of a country where the specter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party remain strong. Yet the ineffectiveness of traditional political parties, a sinking economy and fears about immigration are fueling AfD’s rise. Repeated acts of terror by some Muslim immigrants have added to the fear.
Who will lead Europe?
In France, Germany and other EU countries, the clash of cultures between secular Europeans and religious immigrants is only too real. The fact that the latter are often poor and congregate around mosques makes them more Islamist than their countrymen back home. Note that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gets a much higher percentage of votes in France, Germany and the Netherlands than he does in Turkey.
As problems mount, the French Fifth Republic is on the verge of collapse while Germany still suffers from a postwar crisis of confidence. The operative question is simple: Who will lead Europe?
In 2006, former CIA officer Glenn Carle told a group of German officials, “If Germany does not lead Europe, Europe will not be led.” These officials were horrified at having to assume the responsibilities they had long avoided so as not to be tarred as the new Nazis. Only Germany can lead Europe, and it may eventually be AfD that leads. What happens then?
Throughout Europe, the far-right is on the rise. Slovakia, Hungary, Italy and the Netherlands are some examples. Economic strain, fears of immigration and concerns about social cohesion are at play. None of these concerns are going away in 2025.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 7 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”Both the French and German governments collapsed in 2024 after political parties were unable to agree on budgets. Europe is without leadership at a time when its economy is under strain and concerns over immigration are increasing. Far-right parties will continue to rise in 2025.” post-date=”Feb 08, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Europe Faces a Tough Year Ahead” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-europe-faces-a-tough-year-ahead”>
FO° Exclusive: Europe Faces a Tough Year Ahead
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 6 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5 here.]
In 2024, militant Islamist violence in Africa reached a record high. Fatalities have nearly tripled since 2020 to approximately 11,000. This violence has displaced over 45 million people, a 14% increase over the 2023 figure. Last year marked the 13th consecutive year in which this figure has risen.
Russia has now emerged as a major player in Africa, displacing France in many countries. Moscow has conducted multiple disinformation campaigns and sent mercenaries to many conflict zones, such as Mali, Niger, Libya and Sudan.
Sudan’s conflict is Africa’s biggest crisis
The implosion of Sudan is the biggest crisis in Africa today. It has exacerbated the tensions in an already fragile region, worsening conflicts in neighboring states and increasing political instability. The internal conflicts in Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Ethiopia are now further complicated by Sudan’s instability.
Foreign powers, most notably the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Iran and Egypt, are inflaming Sudan’s conflict. They have deployed drones, munitions and mercenaries. They also patronize the smuggling of resources. This scramble for influence risks Sudan fragmenting into a collection of client states, sidelining civilian voices and popular sovereignty.
Climate change has increased African food insecurity
Over 11.5 million Sudanese have been internally displaced, and more 2.3 million have fled the country since the civil war began in April 2023. Food shortages are estimated to be killing hundreds of people daily. An estimated three million people are facing acute food insecurity.
Experts point out that droughts and floods are a key reason for increased conflict. Climate change means that places lack rain for longer periods or get too much rain in too short a time. This means the land is less productive, even as populations rise. This explosive combination has led people to fight over water, pastures and land.
In 2024, an estimated 163 million Africans suffered from acute food insecurity, over 10% of the continent’s population. This figure is nearly triple that of five years ago. Many of these Africans are crossing the Mediterranean Sea to get to Europe.
Lee Kuan Yew, the late Singaporean statesman, once warned that if Europe did not export prosperity south, Africa would export people north. That is exactly what is happening.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 6 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”In 2024, an estimated 163 million Africans suffered from acute food insecurity, over 10% of the continent’s population. This figure is nearly triple that of five years ago. Many of these Africans are crossing the Mediterranean Sea to get to Europe.” post-date=”Feb 06, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Unstable Africa Drives Refugees North” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-unstable-africa-drives-refugees-north”>
FO° Exclusive: Unstable Africa Drives Refugees North
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 5 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 here.]
Former CIA officer Glenn Carle and Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh disagree on the global economy. Carle thinks the global economy will muddle through, while Singh thinks there is trouble ahead.
Global growth is promising but debt is rising
Carle takes confidence from official growth figures. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates global growth will be 3.3% in 2025. The US economy is projected to grow at 2.5%, the EU about 1%, China 4.8% and India 6%. These figures are relatively healthy and the global economy should be able to weather the shock of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.
Singh sees record global debt — $323 billion as of December 3, 2024 — as well as protectionism and currency wars as big risks. Sovereign debt will continue to rise, increasing default risk. Both the German and French governments fell because political leaders could not agree upon a budget. Europeans will not accept cuts to their welfare states in order to save the money for Ukraine.
The dollar: a depreciating global reserve currency?
In Asia, China’s real estate bubble has burst. Rising labor costs weakened its export-led strategy, which faltered under the Covid-19 pandemic. Since 1978, China has industrialized at the cost not only of the West but also emerging economies like India and Brazil. It is betting on a new wave of industrialization in critical technologies like solar panels and batteries. State support for Chinese companies is common and well known. This is tempting many countries worldwide to raise tariffs, provoking retaliation and exacerbating inflation.
Donald Trump wants to weaken the dollar, yet simultaneously retain its status as the world’s reserve currency. He is inspired by former US President Richard Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard in 1973 after the Vietnam War. Despite this abandonment, the dollar continued to be the global reserve currency. According to our Republican sources, there is no serious threat to the dollar given current economic crises in both China and the EU. Therefore, they are confident that the US dollar will continue to be the global reserve currency even after depreciation.
Trump’s tariffs and weakening currencies may cause turbulence
Economists at top investment banks believe that the Trump administration may also use tariffs as a tool to support depreciation, pointing to the 1985 Plaza Accord. In those Cold War days, allies with a trade surplus — France, West Germany, Japan and the UK — agreed with the US to depreciate the dollar. Our sources in the incoming Trump administration indirectly indicate that some of their colleagues are determined to bring back manufacturing to the US and see depreciation as a key policy measure.
Other countries are anticipating Trump tariffs and dollar depreciation. The Swiss National Bank, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Canada have already cut interest rates, weakening their currencies. Others are planning to follow suit. However, if all major trading countries try to weaken their currencies simultaneously, none may gain from more competitive exports, but all could experience heightened exchange rate volatility.
![""]("https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-6.png")
Change in currency value vs US dollar, January 3, 2023 – December 16, 2024. Via FOI.
Singh believes that the chances of a black swan event have increased because the structural economic and political problems are not going away. So, fasten your seatbelts and expect turbulence ahead.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 5 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”Glenn Carle and Atul Singh disagree on the global economy. Carle believes it will muddle through with healthy growth, while Singh warns of risks from global debt, protectionism and currency wars. Tariffs, currency depreciation and China’s economic struggles could lead to volatility and potential crises in 2025.” post-date=”Feb 04, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Will the Global Economy Muddle Along, or Is There Trouble Ahead?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-will-the-global-economy-muddle-along-or-is-there-trouble-ahead”>
FO° Exclusive: Will the Global Economy Muddle Along, or Is There Trouble Ahead?
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 4 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 here.]
Russia and Ukraine have been at war since February 24, 2022. Casualties have mounted, and economies are under strain. Russia has been slowly but relentlessly gaining Ukrainian territory in a battle of attrition. Western support for Ukraine has been wavering. Neither France nor Germany has a budget for 2025 partly because of political disagreements over Ukraine.
US President Donald Trump’s reelection changes the equation as well. He will not support Ukraine as strongly as his predecessor Joe Biden did. So, there will be pressure on Ukraine to sue for peace.
Can Russia sustain the war?
Former CIA officer Glenn Carle and Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh disagree on their reading of Russia. The former sees the Russian economy as under strain. Russian foreign exchange reserves are decreasing and inflationary pressures are increasing. The country has overinvested in the military and other sectors are suffering. The ruble is tumbling. Carle estimates that Russia cannot prosecute the war forever.
Singh takes a different view. He points out that, while prices are rising, so are wages. Ironically, Western sanctions have benefited Russia by preventing capital flight. Money is no longer flowing out to buy yachts in Monaco or football clubs in London. Now, the capital stays home, creating a domestic multiplier effect. Sanctions have also forced Russia to reindustrialize. Besides, GDP figures can be deceptive. Western countries with higher GDP have a smaller manufacturing base than Russia’s. Also, sanctions have not entirely worked because developing country purchases have replaced European demand for Russian fossil fuels.
Ukraine and Europe’s strength are low
Given Russia’s size and resources, it can take greater pain than Ukraine. Ukraine’s economy has cratered, shrinking by as much as 30% according to some estimates. Ukrainian men have fled the country at higher rates than their Russian counterparts. Ukraine is simply running out of cash and men.
Unsurprisingly, Europe is losing its nerve. The German far-left and far-right both want the war to end and blame it — along with American protectionism — for deindustrializing their country. Traditionally, Germany has been a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse. Now, it is in crisis. So is France and so are many other European countries. Given these trends, Singh believes that some sort of peace or ceasefire deal should occur by the end of the year.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 4 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”Russia and Ukraine will probably reach a peace or ceasefire deal this year as Ukraine’s economy continues to struggle, Western support wanes and Europe loses resolve. Despite Russia’s economic challenges, sanctions have ironically strengthened domestic investment in industry, while Ukraine faces severe economic and manpower shortages.” post-date=”Feb 02, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The Russia–Ukraine War Could End” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-russia-ukraine-war-could-end”>
FO° Exclusive: The Russia–Ukraine War Could End
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 3 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1 and Part 2 here.]
Israel has emerged as the big winner in the latest Middle Eastern conflict. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have weakened Hamas. In Lebanon, the IDF decapitated Hezbollah and destroyed the Shia militant group’s assets. In Syria, Sunni rebels have seized Damascus, and Baathist dictator Bashar al-Assad has fled to Moscow. During the upheaval in Syria, the IDF seized all of the Golan Heights. It also destroyed the country’s entire air force, almost all of its navy and most of its other military assets.
Sunnis reclaimed Damascus, ending Assad’s reign
Previously, Syria was a key Iranian ally and fought many wars against Israel. The Assad family belonged to the country’s Alawite minority, which follows a form of Shia Islam. Now that Assad is gone, Iran stands weakened and cut off by land from its allies in Lebanon. So, the threat to Israel is greatly diminished. Turkey is back in the fray, though, and its influence has risen.
The Ottoman sultan was the caliph of all Sunni Muslims until the empire ended in the aftermath of World War I. Now, the fabled Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is back in Sunni hands. In the long run, a Salafist Syria might be a bigger threat to Israel than an Alawite one. By the time Assad fell, his regime had a very narrow social base, commanding only the loyalty of the Alawite elite. The majority of the Syrian population had turned against the Assad regime, which explains its rapid fall.
Jolani took charge in Syria
Now, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa is in charge. He is better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. Backed by Turkey and some Gulf countries, Jolani has engineered an image makeover and is projecting himself as a moderate. Yet it is important to note that he was an associate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and a formidable al-Qaeda operative. The US State Department long had a bounty of $10 million on his head. Already, his men are telling women to cover their heads. If Jolani manages to consolidate power and create a majoritarian state backed by other Sunni powers, that might cause Israel a greater headache than its erstwhile Shia foes.
Note that the 1916 Sykes–Picot order is dead. The nation state experiment in the Middle East has failed. Tribalism and sectarianism are ascendant. Keeping Syria or Iraq or any of the states in the region united and functional will become harder.
The winners are clear
In the meantime, the Kurds and Palestinians remain the losers of history. No great or regional power really backs them. In the case of Palestinians, every power in the region gives them lip service, but none of these Muslim states is willing to fight for them.
In 2025, conflict in the Middle East will diminish because it has clear winners. Israel now has the upper hand against its enemies, especially Iran. For the time being, the great powers are standing by and avoiding involvement in the region.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 3 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”In 2025, conflict in the Middle East will diminish because it has clear winners. Israel now has the upper hand against its enemies, especially Iran. For the time being, the great powers are standing by and avoiding involvement in the region.” post-date=”Jan 30, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The Turbulent Middle East Will Cool Down a Bit” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-turbulent-middle-east-will-cool-down-a-bit”>
FO° Exclusive: The Turbulent Middle East Will Cool Down a Bit
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 2 of a seven-part series. You can read Part 1 here.]
In just the next decade — even the next five years — AI will be performing most tasks better than humans. It will also be more efficient. The shocking question our societies must answer now appears to be, “Who will be the master, AI or humans?” Even the profoundly cautious National Intelligence Council warns that AI may pose “existential threats … that could damage life on a global scale” and that “require the development of resilient strategies to survive.”
AI will eliminate jobs and concentrate wealth
For the first time in ten thousand years of civilization, humanity faces an entity that will disrupt us, may control us and could even threaten our existence. Even if AI does not take over humanity, its impact on global employment, for both white- and blue-collar workers, could well disrupt societies and traditional ways of life.
In a poll of AI experts, 18% were excited at near-term prospects, 42% were equally excited and concerned and 37% were more concerned than excited about the changes in the “humans-plus-tech” evolution they expect to see by 2035. Numerous studies estimate that AI will eliminate the need for anywhere from seven to 48% of all jobs within 15 years. Kai-Fu Lee, one of the world’s leading experts on the subject, estimates that AI will eliminate the need for about 38% of all jobs by the early 2030s.
AI will also concentrate wealth in the few corporations and countries that have the financial and technical resources to develop and exploit this technology. Large AI firms in the US like Meta, Google and Microsoft will emerge as winners. So will Chinese companies like Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu.
Experts note, too, that wealth distribution will become even more unequal, with the top 1% of the population reaping most of the profits. Much of the rest of humanity will be in danger of losing its livelihoods. The US and China together are likely to capture 70% of the over $15 trillion that AI is estimated to add to the global economy by 2030.
The US and China will race to Mars
In addition to an AI race, a new space race is also underway. Both the US and China are racing to go to Mars. The former expects to get there by 2027–2028, while the latter is planning for 2028. Space is becoming increasingly militarized as well. Surveillance satellites, missile defense and anti-satellite technologies are increasingly important.
Governments and private players will invest an estimated $1 trillion in the space sector. SpaceX is developing a fully reusable, two-stage super heavy-lift launch vehicle called Starship. At 122 meters (equivalent to a 35-story building), Starship can currently carry 90 metric tons and will soon double that. SpaceX has launched Starship six times and plans 100–400 launches annually within one to three years.
Renewable energy will rise
A third technological race is on in the renewable energy industry. The majority of solar panels and batteries currently come from China. Electric vehicles (EVs) in China cost a third less than in Europe and the US. China subsidizes EVs handsomely. Furthermore, the Chinese EV industry has technological and production advantages over its competitors.
Global EV sales are projected to grow by 30% in 2025 and reach 15.1 million. In 2024, 11.6 million EVs were sold. They comprise 13.2% of total vehicle sales. This market share is estimated to grow year-on-year despite the Trump administration’s lack of enthusiasm for EVs.
Demand for electricity is rising significantly. Increasingly, renewables are supplying this electricity. In 2025, renewables will surpass coal to become the largest source of electricity for the first time in history.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 2 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”Within a few years, AI will outperform humans, disrupt jobs and concentrate wealth, sparking existential concerns. Meanwhile, the US and China will race to Mars, and space will be increasingly militarized. Renewable energy will surpass coal, and new advancements in EVs and solar technology will reshape the globe.” post-date=”Jan 28, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The New Science and Technology Race Is Heating Up” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-new-science-and-technology-race-is-heating-up”>
FO° Exclusive: The New Science and Technology Race Is Heating Up
[On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 1 of a seven-part series.]
US President Donald Trump won the election by promising more secure borders and higher tariffs. Now that he is in office, he will clamp down on immigration. Trump and his team believe in protectionism and isolationism. The underlying idea is to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US. So, expect higher tariffs. Lower immigration is likely to lead to economic harm. Tighter labor markets, higher costs for businesses and increased inflation are likely to follow.
Republican divide on immigration
As an issue, immigration has created a divide within Trump’s camp. The trigger was his selection of Sriram Krishnan as senior adviser for AI in his administration. Krishnan is a Tamil Brahmin (Tam Brahm) who was born in India. He did his undergrad at SRM Institute of Science and Technology (SRMIST) and is a general partner of American venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. This high-achieving Tam Brahm heads the firm’s London office and is pals with both former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk.
Krishnan’s appointment led to a backlash from the Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. Laura Loomer, a MAGA political activist and Internet personality, took issue with it. Vivek Ramaswamy and Musk, the two co-chairs of the newly proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) rode out to Krishnan’s defense. So did former PayPal executive David Sacks, whom Trump has tapped to be White House AI and cryptocurrency tsar. The war of words played out on X, the new bastion of free speech.
The MAGA crowd argues that the tech industry imports Indian workers because they are cheap. These Indians put downward pressure on American wages. Trump’s finance and tech bros, on the other hand, argue that there are not enough Americans to do tech jobs and thus the tech industry needs to bring in foreign workers. This controversy will continue to divide Trump’s camp in the months ahead.
The US will isolate itself
Trump’s tariffs will accelerate the creation of two contending economic systems. Such a situation existed during the Cold War, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the global economy has become more integrated than ever. However, the American and Chinese economies have now grown increasingly separate from each other. This trend will accelerate.
Importantly, US global leadership will weaken. Trump will pursue unilateralist, isolationist and contentious policies. So, we will see increased fraying of international norms and weakening of US alliances in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
[Anton Schauble and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” [On December 31, 2024, we predicted seven developments for 2025 and boldly went where only fools, angels and astrologers dare to go. So, what can we expect in 2025? To borrow words from the military, a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is Part 1 of a seven-part…” post_summery=”Now that US President Donald Trump has returned to office, he will implement protectionist policies, raising tariffs and limiting immigration. In the next four years, the US will increasingly isolate itself and abdicate global leadership, and the US and China will divide the world up into two increasingly separate economies.” post-date=”Jan 26, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: A Turbulent Donald Trump Second Presidency” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-a-turbulent-donald-trump-second-presidency”>
FO° Exclusive: A Turbulent Donald Trump Second Presidency
The recent passing of former US President Jimmy Carter on December 29, 2024, has prompted widespread praise for his post-presidency humanitarian work. His efforts have rightfully earned him recognition as a peacemaker and global advocate for human rights. Carter’s efforts after leaving office earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Democrats and Republicans alike have lauded them.
However, this acclaim should not obscure Carter’s presidency itself. Despite Carter’s declaredly moral stance, his administration was marred by contradictory foreign policy decisions.
Carter’s successes in and out of office
Carter’s presidency did have several positive achievements. His human rights policies resulted in the release of political prisoners in several countries. His administration pushed for nuclear arms control, notably through the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT II) treaty; although it was never ratified by the Senate, it represented a significant step in reducing the threat of nuclear war. Carter also worked to improve relations with China, successfully negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and avoided military conflict during the Iranian hostage crisis. Considering the tensions of the period, the latter was a remarkable feat. In 1978, he helped broker the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel.
After leaving the White House in 1981, Carter embarked on a path of active diplomacy, engaging in peace talks and humanitarian projects around the world. He facilitated efforts to eradicate the horrific Guinea worm disease in West Africa and spoke out against human rights violations wherever they occurred. His efforts to build affordable housing through Habitat for Humanity also demonstrated his long-standing commitment to social justice. This post-presidential work remains a cornerstone of his public legacy.
Carter’s moral compromises as president
Despite his achievements, Carter’s actions abroad during his presidency present a stark contrast to the ideals he later championed. His tenure from 1977 to 1981 was defined by a series of decisions that, though well-intentioned, often contradicted the principles of peace, international law and human rights.
Despite his moral rhetoric, his administration engaged in policies that enabled authoritarian governments and military dictatorships. Carter’s decision to increase military aid to Indonesia in 1977, for instance, is a glaring contradiction. Indonesia had invaded and annexed East Timor, and the Indonesian military was responsible for numerous human rights atrocities. Under Carter, US military aid to the Indonesian regime increased by 80%, with the provision of OV-10 Bronco counterinsurgency aircraft that killed tens of thousands of East Timorese civilians.
Similarly, Carter’s support for Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara and his efforts to restore military aid to Turkey after its 1974 invasion of the Republic of Cyprus stand out as decisions that were in direct defiance of international law and United Nations resolutions.
In addition to supporting authoritarian regimes, Carter’s administration failed to act on numerous human rights abuses happening around the world. One notable example is his administration’s stance on apartheid-era South Africa. Despite public condemnation of the regime’s racial policies, Carter vetoed multiple UN resolutions that sought to impose sanctions on the apartheid government. This failure to take meaningful action against South Africa’s occupation of Namibia and its apartheid system was a significant shortcoming of Carter’s foreign policy. It was only after Ronald Reagan succeeded Carter that the US government shifted to a more robust stance against apartheid. The move gained broad bipartisan support in Congress.
Carter’s handling of the Palestine issue further exemplifies the tension between his stated principles and his actual policies. Although he publicly supported the idea of a Palestinian homeland, he failed to openly support an independent Palestinian state and refused to even meet with Palestinian leaders. He failed to pressure Israel to stop expanding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, even after the Israeli government violated the terms of the Camp David Accords.
Instead, Carter’s administration dramatically increased military aid to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s right-wing government. He dismissed calls for stronger action against Israeli occupation. In a particularly controversial move, Carter fired his ambassador to the UN, former Congressman and Civil Rights leader Andrew Young, after Young met with a Palestinian representative at the UN.
Carter’s policy toward Central America also reveals a troubling disregard for human rights. In El Salvador, the military junta waged a brutal campaign against leftist insurgents and civilians. Carter continued to provide military aid to the Salvadoran government despite widespread reports of human rights violations, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Carter’s failure to recognize the severity of the situation and his continued support for the Salvadoran regime drew sharp criticism from human rights advocates.
Carter also authorized military aid to General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, King Fahd in Saudi Arabia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Moreover, Carter’s covert support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, designed to counter Soviet influence, contributed to the rise of Islamist extremism and laid the groundwork for decades of instability in the region.
As we reflect on his legacy, we should remember both the shortcomings of Carter’s presidency and the extraordinary contributions he made to global peace and justice in his later years.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The recent passing of former US President Jimmy Carter on December 29, 2024, has prompted widespread praise for his post-presidency humanitarian work. His efforts have rightfully earned him recognition as a peacemaker and global advocate for human rights. Carter’s efforts after leaving office…” post_summery=”US President Jimmy Carter’s recent passing has led many to reflect on his administration and praise his post-presidential humanitarian work. Carter earned the Nobel Peace Prize for his post-presidency work, but while in office, he was no peacemaker. Carter’s foreign policy compromised his morals, supported autocratic regimes and failed to combat human rights violations.” post-date=”Jan 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Was the Great Jimmy Carter Really a Peacemaker?” slug-data=”fo-talks-was-the-great-jimmy-carter-really-a-peacemaker”>
FO° Talks: Was the Great Jimmy Carter Really a Peacemaker?
The EU is going through a period of serious political, economic and social crisis. Governments are falling, growth is stalling, and divisions are deepening. Like in the US, polarization has risen in Europe. The established parties have failed to meet people’s expectations, and the far right is on the rise. Over the last two and a half years, the Russia–Ukraine War has unleashed inflation and caused great economic pain. This has exacerbated social and political divides, making many countries in the EU almost ungovernable.
The German traffic light coalition government of the Social Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens (respectively red, yellow and green) has fallen. So has the French minority government led by Michel Barnier of Les Republicains. Now, neither France nor Germany has a government or a budget. Note this has not happened before.
Social divisions and political polarization
Germany and France are the two beating hearts of the EU. They created the EU and still drive it. With both in political limbo, the EU is lost.
Internally, both these countries are no longer homogenous or cohesive anymore. They have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. This has created problems of assimilation since, unlike the US, Europe does not have a tradition of mass immigration. In Germany and France, immigrants form a greater percentage of the population in the US. Furthermore, Muslim immigrants in these countries tend to be more conservative than the local population or even their relatives back home. For example, German Turks voted for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in much higher percentages than in Turkey. Many Muslim women also tend to wear headscarves in societies where sunbathing nude or topless is no longer a big deal.
Most people find change uncomfortable. Europeans are no exception. People do not like the way their communities are changing so rapidly. They may not be racist, but they want to retain their character. The French want to remain French and the Germans want to preserve their Germanness. Yet the political correctness that blights expression in the US also censors conversations in Europe. If someone is uncomfortable with headscarves or Turks voting for Erdoğan, she or he is denounced as a racist and an Islamophobe. People find such denunciation deeply alienating and often turn to the far right in revolt.
European economies are in big trouble
Economically, European countries are in trouble. They have huge debts, high deficits, slow productivity growth and low birth rates. There is no way Greece or Italy can pay back all their debts. Furthermore, the Russia–Ukraine War has increased energy prices, weakened industry and unleashed inflation in the economy. People are hurting. Naturally, they do not want to keep paying for a war with no end in sight.
In contrast, European elites have committed themselves to Ukraine’s defense. So, they want to keep spending on the war even as they seek budget cuts elsewhere. Naturally, legislators are unable to agree upon the cuts and governments are falling. At the moment, no resolution to the budget crisis in either Berlin and Paris is in sight.
The euro is not the world’s reserve currency. That privilege belongs to the dollar; so, unlike the US, Europe cannot print money to finance its deficits and prosecute endless war. So, Germany, France and the EU find themselves in a bind; their monetary and fiscal options are limited.
Europe has other problems too. Europe needs to increase the flexibility of its labor markets. Given an aging population, this can only happen with immigration and less rigid labor laws. The oppressive regulatory state is throttling growth and needs urgent reform. None other than German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a war on red tape despite his socialist roots. European countries also have to reform and even shrink the welfare state. Only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ever really achieved that in the last 50 years in Europe.
European economies have also suffered from external shocks. Chinese demand has declined and the US has taken a protectionist turn under both Republican and Democratic administrations. This protectionism will only increase once Donald Trump takes charge of the White House in January.
At a time of such upheaval, European political culture is in total flux. The traditional left and right are dead in France. They have been replaced by a constellation of pro-business centrists, the far right and a hodgepodge combination of leftist groups. German politics is also fragmenting, and the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) shows the degree of disaffection with the status quo in a country still haunted by Adolf Hitler. Something was not right in the state of Denmark and some things are certainly not hunky dory in Europe today. A full-blown crisis is now underway.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The EU is going through a period of serious political, economic and social crisis. Governments are falling, growth is stalling, and divisions are deepening. Like in the US, polarization has risen in Europe. The established parties have failed to meet people’s expectations, and the far right is…” post_summery=”The EU is in a crisis. Many countries have high debt and societies are polarized, causing increased political instability. Immigration has created new religious and racial divides. The Russia–Ukraine War has unleashed high inflation and deepened divides. With France and Germany without budgets and governments, the EU is in uncharted waters.” post-date=”Dec 09, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Why is the EU in Crisis? What Lies Ahead?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-why-is-the-eu-in-crisis-what-lies-ahead”>
FO° Exclusive: Why is the EU in Crisis? What Lies Ahead?
In the 2024 US presidential election, Donald Trump won more decisively than he did in 2016. His victory reflects several deep issues within American society and politics, many of which have been building for years. The rise of Trump, and the success of his campaign, can be understood in the context of several major factors, including culture wars, economic pain, social media and foreign challenges. These dynamics have created deep divisions within American society that helped fuel Trump’s victory.
Identity politics and culture wars
One important factor in Trump’s success is the growing resentment among many Americans towards “woke” language policing. This refers to the effort to change language to be more inclusive, such as the use of terms like “Latinx,” a gender-neutral alternative to “Latino.” However, Latinos detest the term. Spanish is a gendered language where even tables and chairs are assigned a gender. So, “Latinx” came across as gringo imperialism to many of them and a majority (54%) of Latino men voted for Trump.
Many Americans, including progressives, find this focus on language divisive and unnecessary. For example, in Boston, one can hear complaints that the word “jimmies” (a term for chocolate sprinkles) is racist because it supposedly derives from “Jim Crow,” a discriminatory system of laws from the years of segregation. This kind of language policing is part of the culture wars and has alienated millions of Americans from the Democratic Party. Democrat social justice warriors do not realize the extent of the backlash language policing has caused, especially among socially conservative minorities.
The fixation on trans issues and the insistence that trans women are women is unacceptable to many Americans. Democrats have obsessed over trans issues as part of their social justice agenda. Allowing this tiny group to suck the oxygen in the room has alienated millions struggling to put food on their table.
Economic and social concerns, media and technology
Trump also won because discontent among working-class Americans is running extremely high. Many Americans, including recent immigrants, fear that immigration is driving down wages and increasing competition for jobs. Although inflation has decreased, food prices have continue to rise faster than real wages. This has led to greater economic frustration. High prices for childcare, healthcare, education, housing and housing insurance also weigh heavily on many Americans, creating acute financial insecurity.
This economic anxiety is compounded by a sense that the political system is out of touch with ordinary people. The Democratic Party is run by a managerial elite with few working-class leaders. Furthermore, Democrats have been trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. With war in the Middle East, when Democrats please Arabs in Detroit, they upset Jews in Philadelphia.
Working-class whites, especially in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, feel alienated. These voters have felt neglected by the Democratic Party’s shift towards identity politics and social justice. The Democrats rarely speak about the bread-and-butter issues faced by the working class. For this reason, they support Trump, who has championed issues like tariffs and border control. Both will put upward pressure on wages even if they cause a rise in prices.
Trump’s victory is also tied to changes in the media landscape. With the rise of 24-hour cable TV, social media and smartphones, Americans have been able to isolate themselves. Thanks to algorithms that create filter bubbles and echo chambers, most voters only consume information that reinforces their beliefs. They rarely engage with diverse viewpoints and have come to distrust mainstream media, which has become increasingly partisan over the years.
Furthermore, Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation, starting from the 2016 election, have succeeded. They have created an environment of distrust in the US. While Russia does not necessarily want Americans to support Trump, it certainly seeks to sow chaos and weaken confidence in American institutions.
America’s individualistic culture also plays a role. In the US, anyone’s opinion can be as valued as that of a leader or expert, making it easier for misinformation to spread unchecked. The combination of social media and distrust in the media has made it easier for Trump to connect with voters who feel left behind by the political establishment.
Globalization and social disruption
Globalization and demographic changes have also fueled divisions in American society. As immigration increases and the country becomes more diverse, new social tensions arise. A family of conservative Muslims probably does not appreciate the emphasis on LGBTQ+ issues, and they may turn away from the Democrats even if they detest Trump. So might many Latinos who are deeply Christian and oppose abortion.
The rise of global powers like China has added to these tensions. Many Americans are worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs to China and other countries. Trump’s promises to bring back jobs through tariffs have resonated with many working-class voters. While many experts argue that tariffs will increase inflation, these voters seem simply not to believe them, or else they feel that is a price worth paying.
Many Americans are also tired of increasing red tape. Under Trump’s leadership, the Republican party has focused on dismantling the so-called “administrative state” — the vast network of government agencies and regulations. Trump’s supporters believe that reducing the size of government will limit the power of elites and unleash a “sonic boom” in the economy.
Ideologues like Glover Glenn Norquist have long argued that the American state needs to shrink. The Trump team buys into this argument. It also belongs to the isolationist strand of American politics and wants a quid pro quo approach to foreign policy. The new policymakers do not believe in multilateralism, rules that act as fetters on the US, or in the need for allies or institutions such as NATO or even the World Trade Organization. America First is all about championing national interests boldly and unashamedly. This puts into question the rules-based order the US has championed since 1945.
The 2024 election reveals deep divisions in American society. Trump’s new picks reveal a drift to authoritarianism. The US faces choppy waters ahead.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the 2024 US presidential election, Donald Trump won more decisively than he did in 2016. His victory reflects several deep issues within American society and politics, many of which have been building for years. The rise of Trump, and the success of his campaign, can be understood in the…” post_summery=”Donald Trump won the 2024 US presidential election because Americans are tired of political elites and feel economically insecure. His campaign tapped into dissatisfaction with cultural issues like “woke” language and concerns over jobs, inflation and immigration. These frustrations, amplified by media fragmentation and global challenges, made his message resonate even more strongly than in 2016.” post-date=”Dec 07, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Why Donald Trump Won Again and What Happens Now” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-why-donald-trump-won-again-and-what-happens-now”>
FO° Exclusive: Why Donald Trump Won Again and What Happens Now
Since the global financial crisis of 2007–2009, the UK economy has faced severe challenges. These issues worsened with Brexit in 2016, which sparked significant political and economic instability. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained resources, leaving the British economy weakened and in need of strong fiscal direction. In recent years, political deadlock made it difficult for any administration to address these issues effectively, leading to a decline in public investment and economic growth.
Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is now taking action. On October 30, she introduced a post-Brexit budget aimed at tackling Britain’s structural deficits while fostering economic growth. Reeves’s goal is to put the UK back on a steady financial path by raising revenues and directing funds toward essential services and infrastructure. Her budget includes £40 billion ($52 billion) in new tax measures alongside targeted investments.
The budget reflects two competing priorities: increasing growth by stimulating investment and balancing government finances. The UK has been operating with persistent deficits, and the outgoing Conservative government left Labour with a £22 billion ($28 billion) overspend, adding pressure to address the country’s long-standing issues.
Key budget measures
Reeves’s budget introduces a series of tax increases aimed at generating revenue to meet Britain’s immediate fiscal needs. The UK Treasury collects roughly £800 billion ($1 trillion) annually, but economists estimate an additional £20-30 billion ($26-39 billion) is required to achieve a stable economy. Reeves’s budget takes steps to bridge this gap.
Significant tax changes include:
- National insurance contributions: Employers will see increased rates starting in April 2025.
- Capital gains tax: The lower rate will increase from 10% to 18%, while the higher rate moves from 20% to 24%.
- Private school fees: VAT will apply from January 2025, and these schools will lose business rates relief from April 2025.
- Stamp duty land surcharge: The rate on second homes will increase from 2% to 5%.
- Employment allowance: Relief for smaller companies will increase from £5,000 ($6,400) to £10,500 ($13,500)
- Private equity taxation: Tax on managers’ profit shares will rise from 28% to 32%.
- Corporate tax rate: The main rate will stay at 25% for businesses with profits over £250,000 ($320,000) until the next election.
On the spending side, Reeves allocated £22.6 billion ($29.1 billion) to the healthcare sector and £5 billion ($6.4 billion) to housing investment. She also secured funding to extend the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway to London Euston, enhancing transport connectivity across the country. This investment aims to promote growth by addressing years of underinvestment in essential infrastructure.
Will it work?
Britain’s budget deficit and low investment levels echo the issues faced across Europe, with the EU also struggling to maintain competitiveness. According to Mario Draghi’s recent report to the European Commission, the EU’s investment rate of 22% of GDP is insufficient for sustainable growth. The UK has an even lower investment rate, barely surpassing 20% over the past 50 years, often ranking lowest in the G7.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has responded to this investment gap by prioritizing wealth creation. Speaking at an international summit, Starmer emphasized the need to attract private investment to support industries where the UK has a competitive edge, such as creative services, legal and accounting sectors and luxury manufacturing. Starmer has appointed an entrepreneur as investment minister to ease business relations and streamline regulation. However, some business leaders are wary of the government’s new interventionist policies and increased payroll costs. Executives of listed companies have been selling shares at double the rate seen before Labour took office, reflecting concerns over rising wages, expanded employee rights, and growing administrative burdens.
The UK’s attempts to balance its welfare state with economic growth will serve as a test case for other European economies facing similar post-globalization challenges. While the United States benefits from cheap energy and a flexible labor market, European countries, including the UK, must find ways to compete on the global stage with limited resources. How Britain navigates this delicate balance will be closely watched across Europe. If successful, Reeves’s budget could provide a framework for European governments to address similar structural issues, particularly as the EU faces its own struggles to adapt to global economic shifts.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Since the global financial crisis of 2007–2009, the UK economy has faced severe challenges. These issues worsened with Brexit in 2016, which sparked significant political and economic instability. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained resources, leaving the British economy weakened and in need…” post_summery=”British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has introduced a £40 billion tax increase and spending plan to address the UK’s economic struggles post-Brexit. Reeves’s budget aims to stabilize public finances while promoting growth, raising taxes on businesses, capital gains and private school fees. This shift could influence similar economic policies across Europe.” post-date=”Nov 07, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-rachel-reeves-delivers-important-post-brexit-budget”>
FO° Exclusive: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget
On October 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, gathering leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These five countries make up the BRICS organization, which aims to reshape the global order to reflect their own economic and political interests. This year, Putin’s primary goal was to strengthen BRICS by proposing an alternative international payment system that would bypass Western financial dominance, particularly that of the United States.
The BRICS countries argue that the US and its allies have weaponized the global financial system. The dominance of the dollar, and to a lesser extent the euro, in international trade and finance allows the West to impose sanctions that impact countries’ economies deeply. For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the US and its allies froze $282 billion of Russian assets held overseas and cut Russian banks off from SWIFT, a global system for cross-border payments. America also warned other countries’ banks of potential “secondary sanctions” if they supported Russia.
These actions have led several countries to reevaluate their reliance on the US dollar. Central banks around the world, especially in countries at odds with the US, are stockpiling gold and exploring alternatives to dollar-based transactions. BRICS members see this dependency on Western-controlled systems as risky and are eager to reduce it. China, in particular, views reliance on the dollar as a major security vulnerability.
The proposed solution: BRICS Bridge
To reduce dependency on Western financial systems, Russia proposed a new payment system called “BRICS Bridge.” This digital platform would allow BRICS countries to conduct cross-border payments through their central banks without relying on US-controlled networks like SWIFT. The concept borrows elements from a similar system, mBridge, which is partly overseen by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, a prominent institution in the Western-led financial order. However, BRICS Bridge aims to challenge that order, offering a financial lifeline to countries facing Western sanctions and creating a more multipolar financial system.
Different visions of global influence
Russia and China are the main drivers behind the push for BRICS reforms, but their motivations differ. Russia seeks to create a sphere of influence that protects its interests and supports its allies through a flexible, transactional approach to international relations. This approach would allow countries to engage with Russia based on mutual benefits without subscribing to Western “normative” values, which Russia sees as biased.
China’s ambitions go further. Rather than just establishing an independent sphere, China wants to rewrite international rules, shaping a world order where multiple centers of power coexist, with China as a central authority. This would give China greater control over global trade, finance, and diplomacy, gradually replacing the US as the primary rulemaker.
Many countries in the Global South support BRICS because they see it as a pathway to a more flexible international environment where they can negotiate deals that directly benefit their economic growth. For example, India has reaped significant benefits from purchasing discounted Russian oil, prioritizing these economic gains despite the moral conflict posed by the ongoing war in Ukraine. In a multipolar world, countries in the Global South could avoid being tied down by Western rules and make independent decisions in their best interests.
However, this freedom comes with risks. Without a dominant Western power like the US to counterbalance rising powers, these smaller countries could find themselves vulnerable to regional giants, such as China, who may impose their will on them by force in the future.
The BRICS alliance reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the current global order. Critics argue that the US-led international system has become ineffective and no longer serves the interests of many countries, leading them to seek alternatives. However, BRICS itself has limitations. Despite its symbolic appeal, it has not achieved substantial progress on key issues like creating a global currency to rival the dollar or liberalizing global trade. The dollar remains dominant, and the influence of Western-led institutions persists.
Even if BRICS doesn’t have the power to immediately reshape the world, its existence signals a significant shift. Countries are increasingly interested in alternatives, showing that faith in the US-led system is waning. The BRICS alliance may lack the cohesion and power to fully realize its vision, but its popularity underscores a global desire for change.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” On October 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, gathering leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These five countries make up the BRICS organization, which aims to reshape the global order to reflect their own economic and political…” post_summery=”Russia hosted leaders from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in Kazan on October 22. Russia aims to establish a new payment system to bypass Western-controlled networks like SWIFT. Getting out from underneath the thumb of Western sanctions is part and parcel of Russia’s ambition to create a multipolar world where it can operate its own sphere of influence without interference.” post-date=”Nov 06, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-make-sense-of-brics-summit-in-russia”>
FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia
In the early hours of Saturday, October 26, Israeli forces officially attacked Iran for the first time in history. This attack was a direct response to Iran’s missile strike on Israeli territory that took place on Tuesday, October 1, when Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles against Israel. This marked a turning point in the long-running proxy war between Israel and Iran. For the first time, the two countries are now openly in conflict.
Timeline of escalations
The first significant event in this recent escalation occurred on April 1. On that day, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria’s capital. This strike killed multiple high-ranking Iranian officials. Israel was targeting Iran’s growing influence in Syria and the presence of its leaders close to Israeli borders.
Iran quickly retaliated. On April 13, Iranian allies in the Axis of Resistance captured the MSC Aries, a commercial ship linked to Israel. Iran also launched direct attacks on Israeli territory. The Axis of Resistance, which supports Iran in its regional aims, includes Shia groups like the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, the Syrian government, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. It may also involve Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas.
In response, Israel conducted limited airstrikes on April 19. These strikes hit targets in both Syria and Iran, signaling Israel’s willingness to counter any action that could threaten its security. After this exchange, tensions cooled temporarily. Both sides proclaimed victory, and hostilities reverted to indirect, proxy conflict.
The fragile calm shattered on July 31. On that day, Israeli operatives carried out two major assassinations. The first was Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander, who was killed early that day. Shortly after, Ismail Haniyeh, the chairman of Hamas’s Political Bureau, was assassinated in Tehran. These targeted killings heightened tensions dramatically.
A few months later, Iran struck Israel directly. On October 1, Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles toward Israel, marking an escalation into open warfare. Israel’s response came nearly a month later.
In retaliation for Iran’s October 1 attack, Israel launched an extensive assault on Iranian targets on October 26. Dozens of Israeli warplanes traveled over 1,300 kilometers from their bases to target critical Iranian facilities. The strikes targeted Iranian air-defense systems, specifically S-300 radar and missile systems, as well as missile factories in three different provinces, including areas near Tehran.
Will Israel and Iran go to war?
Fair Observer’s sources suggest that Israeli leaders are planning further strikes. Potential targets could include Iranian oil terminals, missile sites, and nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might consider targeting Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil terminal in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Special forces from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may also conduct further targeted killings, specifically against key personnel in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iran has made clear that it wants to avoid a full-scale war with Israel or the United States. The US has played a significant role in trying to limit the scope of this conflict. American officials have issued warnings to both Iran and Israel, urging Iran to avoid any large-scale attacks on Israel while also advising Israel not to escalate the situation. However, the US no longer has as much leverage over Israel as it once did. Continued US military aid is not as vital, in Jerusalem’s view, as the destruction of Iran and Hezbollah’s ability to harm Israelis. They see Iran as weak and believe they must strike while they can.
Iran’s proxy forces, designed to provide a buffer around Iran and deter Israel, have shown limited effectiveness. These proxies can carry out attacks and spread fear, but they have been unable to inflict lasting damage on Israel, which has bolstered Israeli confidence. Despite occasional successful strikes, Iran’s allies cannot challenge Israel’s military defenses over an extended period. Iran’s regime knows that any sustained direct war would push it past the breaking point. Popular resentment against the regime for its repressive religious policies and poor handling of the economy is already high. If the Islamic Republic found itself on the losing end of a foreign war, it would topple.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu also has a precarious political situation. His coalition includes far-right members who advocate for reoccupying Gaza and restoring Israel’s biblical borders. He needs to maintain their political support in order to remain prime minister and avoid pending prosecution for corruption charges. Thus, Netanyahu needs to appeal to this faction, posturing himself as a strong leader capable of resisting Palestinian and Iranian threats. So, he is incentivized to be aggressive, whether or not it is in Israel’s long-term interests.
While Israel may enjoy short- to medium-term security through its aggressive actions, it faces long-term challenges. Its aggressive tack against Iran may push the Islamic Republic to develop a nuclear deterrent as its last defense given Israeli military superiority.
Further down the timeline, Israel faces a demographic risk. Its Muslim population now makes up more than 20% of its citizens, posing a challenge to Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. This trend could reshape Israel’s political landscape — as long as it remains a democracy — by gradually weakening the position of the Jewish majority.
Israeli leadership seems to think it can rescue the country from its precarious position by inflicting a sound defeat on enemies nearby and afar. It remains to be seen how far they will go and whether the gamble will pay off.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the early hours of Saturday, October 26, Israeli forces officially attacked Iran for the first time in history. This attack was a direct response to Iran’s missile strike on Israeli territory that took place on Tuesday, October 1, when Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles against Israel. This…” post_summery=”On October 26, Israel launched a significant strike on Iranian air-defense systems and missile facilities in response to Iran’s October 1 missile attack. This marked a peak in months of escalating hostilities, which began with Israel’s April strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria and included retaliatory attacks by Iran and its allies.” post-date=”Nov 03, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The Israel–Iran Conflict Is Getting More Dangerous” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-israel-iran-conflict-is-getting-more-dangerous”>
FO° Exclusive: The Israel–Iran Conflict Is Getting More Dangerous
Mario Draghi, former prime minister of Italy and president of the European Central Bank (ECB) from 2011 to 2019, recently submitted a highly anticipated report on European competitiveness at the request of European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen. The nearly 400-page report made headlines across Europe for its stark assessment of the continent’s economic challenges.
Why this report? Europeans are increasingly anxious about their future. Stagnating growth and a lack of innovation threaten the European way of life. As the global landscape shifts, Europe must adapt. Both the US and China have adopted protectionist measures and are aggressively promoting their domestic industries. Meanwhile, Europe has fallen behind. In 1995, European productivity was 95% that of the US; today, it stands at just 80%.
A significant part of Europe’s problem lies in its reliance on banks for corporate borrowing. In Europe, 75% of corporate loans come from banks, compared to just 25% in the US, which boasts deeper and more liquid capital markets. This gives the US a stronger growth engine. Europe lags behind in key sectors like artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, self-driving technology and other cutting-edge fields.
In response, Draghi’s report calls for a bold €800 billion “new industrial strategy for Europe.” This proposal represents a fundamental shift in economic policy and signals the end of the post-Cold War era of European economics. The report’s key recommendations include:
- A complete overhaul of investment funding in the EU.
- Relaxing competition rules to allow market consolidation in industries like telecommunications.
- Greater integration of capital markets and centralized market supervision.
- Joint procurement in defense.
- A new trade agenda for the EU.
- The creation of European Advanced Research Projects Agencies, following US models, to drive world-leading research.
- Raising investment by both the private and public sectors from 22% to 27% of GDP.
This marks a shift in the global economic zeitgeist. Industrial policy, long dismissed by free-market economists as inefficient, has become a central strategy for the US, China and now Europe. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and India are also pursuing industrial strategies with some success. It has worked for Europe before, as the success of Airbus demonstrates. Draghi and his team aim to make Europe more competitive while keeping it distinctly European.
There are still some flies in the ointment. Will European nations be able to integrate sensitive sectors like defense, banking and telecommunications? Can the famously divided EU countries overcome their differences and work together? And the most pressing question: Can the EC actually spend the €800 billion that Draghi’s report proposes?
Besides, isn’t this just more of the same old story — a push for greater European integration that will inevitably be resisted? This time, the stakes are different. Europe faces a crisis of competitiveness unlike any before.
The European powers are simply no longer as influential as they used to be. Individual nations can no longer hope to negotiate trade deals on equal footing with powers like China. They must negotiate as a bloc.
The world has changed. France and Britain have lost their colonies. Technology has changed. Volkswagen cannot keep up with Tesla in the electric car space. Europeans are afraid of slipping off the cliff into irrelevance.
Recent developments have convinced Europeans their position is precarious. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the failure to effectively integrate immigrants and the rise of far-right movements across Europe show that the European project itself is at risk, unless leaders can prove to their populaces that it can work for everyone.
This report, and the broader conversation it represents, could mark a pivotal moment in Europe’s future trajectory.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Mario Draghi, former prime minister of Italy and president of the European Central Bank (ECB) from 2011 to 2019, recently submitted a highly anticipated report on European competitiveness at the request of European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen. The nearly 400-page report made…” post_summery=”Former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi has released a 400-page report on European competitiveness. Europe is falling behind the US and China; innovation is stagnating and productivity is flagging. Draghi calls for a bold €800 billion “new industrial strategy for Europe” that will restructure the financial, telecommunications and defense sectors and pour funding into research while relaxing competition rules. Will the notoriously factional Europeans be able to come together in such a Herculean effort, and will it pay off if they do?” post-date=”Oct 01, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-mario-draghi-calls-for-a-new-european-industrial-policy”>
FO° Exclusive: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy
In the US, election day is just over a month away. Voters across the country — or, more realistically, in a small handful of swing states — will decide whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris becomes president.
To many observers, Trump, with his idiosyncratic leadership style and childish sense of humor, may seem silly. But it is a mistake to think that he does not represent a serious movement in American culture. Trump is the distillation, and perhaps the last gasp, of the values that were once dominant among white Americans: white supremacy, anti-elitism and an isolationism which is founded on the idea that foreigners are untrustworthy and really just not worth dealing with.
These voters see a new America composed of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, as well as groups that have been here somewhat longer like Catholics and Jews, as a threat to the white, Protestant America that they belong to and that traces its roots back to English colonists like the Pilgrims and the Virginia Company. They fear that these “newcomers” will be less resistant to ideas like globalism and socialism which, to them, are anathema.
Never before, at least since World War II, have the anti-democratic and racist components of American society been so close to winning power and threatening the basis of American democracy. Never before, either, has Russia (and perhaps China and Iran) been so able to influence the conversation in the US through disinformation and psychological operations.
Why do whites feel so disaffected? Racism is a factor, but so is the increasing gap in wealth that has many working-class Americans in the interior of the country feeling excluded. Social mobility is low, and universities have become elitist — racially diverse, yes, but largely stocked by the children of the wealthy. Meanwhile, staffers drawn from this elite, and not elected politicians, are the ones who actually draft the laws. Perhaps understandably, rural voters feel like they have to “take their country back.”
Yet if the wealth gap is the problem, Trump is the wrong solution. Trump represents a kind of protectionism and mercantilism that seeks to perpetuate the economic status quo. Harris, on the other hand, wants to increase the dynamism of the economy by moderately redistributing wealth. Capitalistic economies like the US tend to do best when capital is more widely dispersed. It is economic ossification — not foreigners — that are the real threat to white, working-class voters.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the US, election day is just over a month away. Voters across the country — or, more realistically, in a small handful of swing states — will decide whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris becomes president. To many observers, Trump, with his idiosyncratic…” post_summery=”Former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not just a loudmouth. He represents the deep concerns of a large part of the American population which feels excluded from power as America’s population grows ever more diverse. In many ways, the Trump vote is the last gasp of the white supremacy, anti-elitism and isolationism that once defined America.” post-date=”Sep 29, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Colossal and Historic American Election” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-colossal-and-historic-american-election”>
FO° Exclusive: Colossal and Historic American Election
Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, has suffered its worst week in its 40-year history. Hezbollah boasts a vast arsenal of rockets and increasingly accurate precision-guided missiles, and tens of thousands of fighters.
Although they belong to different sects of Islam, Hezbollah has solidarity with fellow-Iranian-backed Islamist militant group Hamas. In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, Hezbollah has targeted Israel with rocket strikes. They succeeded in displacing 60,000 Israelis from their homes. Since Israel is small and much of it is uninhabitable desert, this interdiction of a significant part of the north is a serious threat.
On September 17 and 18, Israel upped the ante and conducted a stunning operation blowing up thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah. At least 37 people died and thousands were wounded. One of the wounded was the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. When Hezbollah called a clandestine meeting of 15 elite officers on September 21, an Israeli air strike killed off all of them.
The attacks demonstrated just how pervasive Israeli intelligence’s penetration into Hezbollah’s command control and communications is. Israel appears to have disrupted Hezbollah’s ability to coordinate itself. The militant group has so far failed to mount an effective response. Hezbollah operatives have launched many missiles, but they’ve been uniformly unable to penetrate Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system.
The devastating strike has called into question Hezbollah’s legitimacy as the most powerful force in Lebanon. Will Hezbollah risk total destruction by fighting a full-scale war with Israel, or will they decide to take the strikes on the chin?
What is the way forward for Jerusalem?
The Israeli strikes were a historic tactical victory. But will Israel achieve strategic victory? The present situation recalls Israel’s devastating 1982 air assault on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then based in southern Lebanon. Israel succeeded in demolishing the PLO. But, in so doing, it created a power vacuum within a destabilized Lebanon that enabled Hezbollah to rise to dominance. Israel had replaced one Islamist group with another more radical one.
If history repeats itself, Jerusalem may not want to see what replaces Hezbollah. There is no telling what that would look like, but a post-Hezbollah Lebanese militia would likely be less technologically sophisticated and thus harder to infiltrate, as well as more desperate and thus potentially willing to use chemical weapons.
For Iran, the strikes are a wake-up call. Hezbollah was Iran’s insurance against Israel — the constant threat on Israel’s northern border deterred the Jewish state from being too aggressive against Iran. Now, Israel has shown this safety to be illusory and demonstrated that it is willing and able to kill Iranian leaders wherever they are, including in Iran itself.
If a hot war between Israel and Iran broke out, the Islamic Republic, which is already tottering due to internal strife, would probably topple. Still, victory might prove to be Pyrrhic for Israel. Since the start of its current engagement with Hamas, Israel has already seen its economy shrink by 20%. A larger war might leave Israel alive but just barely, impoverished and dependent on foreign protection.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, has suffered its worst week in its 40-year history. Hezbollah boasts a vast arsenal of rockets and increasingly accurate precision-guided missiles, and tens of thousands of fighters. Although they belong to different sects of Islam, Hezbollah has…” post_summery=”As Israel fights Hamas in Gaza, the Lebanese Islamist militia Hezbollah has threatened to open up a second front on Israel’s northern border. Israel has launched a decapitating strike against Hezbollah, disrupting its leadership using exploding electronics and targeted airstrikes. This has been a spectacular tactical victory. But, if the fighting continues to widen, will Israel be able to avoid a strategic defeat?” post-date=”Sep 27, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-middle-east-tense-as-israel-now-hits-hezbollah-hard”>
FO° Exclusive: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard
In this edition of FO° Talks, FO° Assistant Editor Elizabeth Tate sits down with Indian-American journalist Ankita M. Kumar to discuss the harrowing case of Dr. Moumita Debnath, a 31-year-old doctor found murdered at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The brutal crime has sparked protests and outrage, but even more disturbing is the attempt by college officials to cover it up. Ankita delves into the details of the case, the protests by doctors, and the political implications for West Bengal, including the role of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Together, they explore what this case reveals about the state’s leadership, safety for women, and the need for reform.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
FO° Talks: The Truth About the Rape Case That Sent West Bengal Into a Tailspin
In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The matter at hand is South Korea’s potential membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad.
The Quad is a grouping of four major Indo-Pacific democracies: the United States, India, Japan and Australia. It was relaunched in 2017 to counterbalance China’s growing influence by promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific through cooperation in security, infrastructure and trade.
Despite this ambition, the Quad faces significant limitations. Critics argue it remains a “talking shop,” where dialogue seldom leads to concrete action. Additionally, some members have limited bilateral experience working together, which hampers effective collaboration.
South Korea was notably absent when Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first conceived the Quad in 2007. Abe’s vision was geographically focused; he pictured a rhombus with its corners in Japan (north), Australia (south), the US (east) and India (west). The idea was to cover ground and secure critical shipping lanes. This left South Korea, located in the middle, outside the equation.
Yet, South Korea has considerable strengths. South Korea and Japan, are the only two economic powers in the region that can plausibly compete with China in building infrastructure rapidly and at scale. South Korea is also a strong defense partner of the US, with a technologically advanced military boasting half a million active personnel — ten times the size of Australia’s. Moreover, South Korea is a leader in global industries like shipbuilding, memory chips and electric vehicle batteries, making it not just a regional player but a global one. Most importantly and obviously, it is a vibrant democracy. For all these reasons, it merits membership in the Quad.
The broader context is the growing security threat posed by China, which seeks to control sea lanes in the East and South China Seas and use its economic power to influence its neighbors. While it makes sense for South Korea to join the Quad, it is unlikely to make provocative moves against China, its largest trading partner and greatest military threat, without a security guarantee from the US. Ultimately, the Quad (or Quint) seems destined to evolve into a military alliance.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The…” post_summery=”The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, consists of the US, India, Japan and Australia. The four powers want to counter China but have had trouble finding a common direction. Including South Korea, a strong democracy, US ally and key high-tech manufacturer, could breathe new life into the group — but only if it is willing to accept that taking a hard line against China will involve forming a military alliance with security guarantees.” post-date=”Sep 13, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad?” slug-data=”fo-live-can-south-korea-be-useful-to-the-quad”>
FO° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad?
If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured the candidacy nomination at the Republican National Convention soon after.
However, Trump took a hit in the polls when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic candidate. Harris’ replacement of Biden has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the election. A historical shift is happening before the country’s eyes.
Voter psychology is changing
The Marxist theory of base and superstructure can help define the shift. The base includes the modes of production that make up the structure of society. The superstructure refers to concepts not directly related to production — in other words, ideology and beliefs. Both the base and the superstructure continually bolster and maintain one another, and they are cyclically linked.
Harris managed to raise $200 million within eight days of the announcement. She has campaigned on policies different from Biden’s platform. All of this is the base of the election season. The superstructure, on the other hand, manifests in the changing psychological aspects of the voter population based on demographics, geographics and candidate perception.
With only 53% of the US population identifying as white — compared to the 89% at the country’s inception — the symbolism of Harris’ identity motivates different voter groups. She represents several minorities, as she is a black, South Asian-American female. It could be said that her popularity is reflective of democratization — leaders more representative of the voter population have a certain appeal.
Yet despite Harris’ success, Trump still remains popular among large demographics. Why? White, male and Christian populations have become increasingly aware of the shifting caste structure and their own loss of social power. Individuals within these demographics believe the identity of US society and government is at stake. Trump and his Republicans have taken advantage of this. They use racist attacks against Harris and her platform to appeal to the disenfranchised White voters.
The Electoral College might be a hindrance for Harris
While Harris’ entrance into the campaign has already garnered immense support, that support comes from populations geographically centered in already-blue regions. Harris simply gained “Back the Blue” voters previously discouraged by Biden’s campaign. Swing states remain unclear in their support.
Even if Harris wins the popular vote, it doesn’t guarantee a win in the Electoral College. Presidential elections in the US aren’t decided by a national popular vote like they are in France. Rather, US elections are determined by a college of electors from each seat. Every state has as many votes as it has delegates (two senators plus however many representatives) in Congress. Because of this, some states have more votes than their population would suggest.
Wyoming is the most extreme case. It gets three electoral votes because it has two senators and one representative. Yet the state’s 581,000 residents — less than 0.2% of the US population — control all these votes. Thus, a vote in Wyoming is 36 times more influential than a vote in California, where 39 million people control just 54 electoral votes. This means a candidate can win a popular vote but lose the electoral vote, leading to the loss of the presidency.
In practice, most states are reliably red or blue. California will almost certainly elect Harris, and Texas will almost certainly elect Trump, canceling most of California’s influence out. Thus, only a few states where Democrats and Republicans are equally balanced are likely to influence the election. And these states may well have different priorities than the rest of the nation.
A number of these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in the “Rust Belt,” a former manufacturing zone hit hard by deindustrialization. Trump has been able to capitalize on the disaffection of these working-class voters in the past. It is thus little surprise that Harris has chosen Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of neighboring Minnesota who is popular among factory workers, to be her running mate.
Harris must reshape voter perception of the Democratic party
Narratives and assumptions attributed to a candidate can influence the electoral college as well as the popular vote. People’s perception of Harris has definitely improved the Democrats’ chances in swing states. This is especially true for policy-conscious voters who look at personal rights issues like women’s access to birth control and right to abortion. Harris has vocalized her support for policies that protect them, in line with the majority of Americans.
However, many voters fault Harris for the Biden administration’s poor handling of immigration. Biden had entrusted Harris with addressing the causes of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, however, surged dramatically. In a televised interview, Harris spectacularly failed to explain herself to the audience, an embarrassment that caused her to retreat for some time from the public eye. As a presidential candidate, this reputation could hurt her chances in more conservative states, especially among laborers who are wary about being undercut by cheap labor from illegal immigrants willing to work below minimum wage.
Harris must change the narrative surrounding immigration, as well as the struggling US economy, if she wishes to secure the presidency. Simple demographics alone will not take any candidate into the White House. The future depends on both campaigns’ abilities to shape the public narrative.
[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured…” post_summery=”US President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the US presidential campaign and subsequent endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy has shifted election dynamics irreversibly. Changing voter demographics and policy support has indicated that the US is polling in Harris’ favor. However, the geography of the electoral college as well as disenfranchised white voters may prove to be barriers against a Democrat win.” post-date=”Sep 06, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-new-twists-and-turns-in-astonishing-us-presidential-election”>
