TRYING TO UNDERSTAND DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL VICTORY – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

It’s been a week since Donald Trump’s stunning victory over Hillary Clinton and most people are still in shock. Pollsters, journalists, political pundits, citizens in general: everyone got it wrong. This article seeks to do four things: Explain how it happened, why it happened, what’s at stake, and lastly, some concluding thoughts on how Trump might be defeated in 2020.

HOW IT HAPPENED

To understand politics in America one starts with demographics. And in America, any discussion of demographics starts with race, something the Republicans have been good at exploiting since the 1960s’ with their opposition to civil rights legislation. Add gender, college education, geography (rural versus urban) and social conservatism as other factors and you get an even more interesting picture. Here are some revealing numbers:

• 58% of whites voted for Trump;
• Non-college educated whites preferred Trump by a margin of 39%;
• 53% of white women voted for Trump;
• 49% of whites with college degrees voted for Trump as opposed to 45% with college degrees who voted for Hillary;

These numbers helped Trump take 306 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 232, making it a clear and decisive victory, at least in regard to the electoral map. Apologists for Clinton argue she attained more popular votes than Trump, but even there, it was by a slight margin. In short, many pollsters and journalists saw Clinton winning by a more decisive popular vote, while potentially taking two thirds of the electoral votes.

The America political process is based on the electoral-college system, making 270 votes the magic number for attaining power. It’s the only country in the world with such a system, and no doubt yet another example of American exceptionalism. How it works is simple: Each state is allotted a certain number of votes, and the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote receives the entire block of electoral votes. While this system may seem undemocratic, it certainly gives individual states a certain political importance with regard to choosing a president, regardless of size. Call it federalism at work.

Clinton lost three key states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all states which President Obama easily carried in two presidential races. These states have a combined total of 46 electoral votes. Had Clinton taken them she would now be the president elect. So why didn’t Clinton win any of these states?

WHY IT HAPPENED

All three states are largely white and blue collar. And as it turns out, white blue collar workers did not take to Hillary Clinton’s message, assuming she had one. A look at the electoral map shows Clinton doing poorly in states that are close to 80% white, except for New England and the Northwest (Washington and Oregon). It seems that Hillary Clinton like George Herbert Walker Bush is a bad campaigner. Yet no one expected her to lose so convincingly. For starters, she had the backing of the party establishment as opposed to Trump who had the entire party establishment opposed to him from the very beginning. In the end, voters rejected both party establishments.

Clinton never excited the electorate despite being the first woman with any real chance to become president. But more importantly, she came with a lot of baggage which the Sanders people made clear during her bid to seal the party’s nomination. At the top of her liabilities was the inability to use good judgment. Let’s start with the war in Iraq. Unlike both Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama, then senators from Vermont and Illinois respectively, Hillary Clinton supported George W Bush’s ill-fated decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The consequences for Iraq and Syria are there for everyone to see. Both Iraq and Syria are mired in a vicious civil war which has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions stateless, while making it possible for terrorist groups like Islamic State to rampage through both countries. Most experts agree that while Saddam Hussein was certainly a dictator, he at least kept Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds from slaughtering one another.

Then there’s Libya. Clinton encouraged a reluctant President Obama to help overthrow Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, by bombing key sites. Again, the end result is a vicious civil war where thousands have died and all semblance of civil society has collapsed. Throw in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision not to beef up security at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi while under attack, resulting in the death of her ambassador, and we see yet another example of bad judgment on her part.

But Hillary Clinton’s ability to make bad judgment calls continued even once out of office. Witness Clinton’s subtle criticism of President Obama for his handling of the Syrian conflict. She simply wasn’t able to contemplate that a greater US presence and overthrow of the Assad regime might have made matters ten times worse.

Both the Russians and Iranians are heavily involved in helping the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, stay in power. Did it ever make sense to create a scenario where US planes might shoot down a Russian plane? Would a greater US presence not simply have escalated the level of violence and possibly led to the complete breakdown of the Syrian state? Few people doubt Assad is a dictator. But is a country divided along sectarian lines ready for democracy?An argument can be made that a Clinton victory would have re-ignited a new cold war between the US and Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a travesty and a violation of international law. But is it worth risking a war with Russia? What more could President Obama have done as Clinton seemed to suggest, whether in Syria or Ukraine? Of course we could also talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails. This like everything else about her shows bad judgment rather than any illegal activity. A Harvard educated lawyer should know better than to use her personal server for governmental matters or to delete emails in the way she did.

Her close ties with Wall Street also upset many in the Democratic Party. In short, she was seen as a defender of powerful economic forces as opposed to one who would protect the interests of blue collar workers. In other words, socially progressive but fiscally conservative, or what we use to call a Rockefeller Republican.

Hillary Clinton thus had the enthusiastic support of Wall Street, Venture Capitalists, Free Trade Advocates, and Silicon Valley. Minorities also voted for her, but not in the same numbers or by the same margin that voted for President Obama. But most importantly, she lost the white working class vote which her husband, Bill Clinton, easily took. Her support among young people was also not as strong as it could have been. Arguing that someone should vote for you because the alternative candidate is frighteningly worse is not a recipe for winning a presidential election.

WHAT’S AT STAKE

Let’s start with Donald Trump’s personal qualities. He’s been described as sexist, racist, and misogamist. Is this a role model for the nation’s young people? Is his style of campaigning suddenly the new norm? Do personal qualities still matter?

Trump is also criticized for not having any political experience. This is his first elected job, something that would be considered inconceivable in countries with parliamentary democracies, like Canada and the UK. Eisenhower also never held political office before assuming office as President, but he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II.

Trump denies global warming, has said he won’t respect the Paris Accord on climate change, and is threatening to reduce the power of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

He prefers what he calls Fair Trade to Free Trade and has suggested that he may scrap or at least revisit NAFTA. Trump is also not likely to support the Trans Pacific Partnership. Is the end of globalization around the corner?

Trump as everyone knows is on friendly terms with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. This means no new cold war will likely occur between these two superpowers. But this relationship has the Baltic States worried. Is a Russian invasion imminent? Will the US simply stand by and watch this occur? Will the US respect it obligations as a member of NATO and defend member states from foreign invasion? Is the alliance with NATO effectively over? Does Trump’s coziness with Putin mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a fait accompli? Who Trump selects as his foreign relations team will no doubt provide answers to these questions.

More frighteningly, there’s the real possibility that Trump’s unthinkable victory may make it possible for extreme groups like the National Front in France, led by Marine Le Pen, to one day assume power. Trump won by appealing to white working class voters who feel marginalized by the country’s political and economic elites. Isn’t that how white working class voters in France feel? Trump’s voters also distrust the presence of so many foreigners, in this case, Hispanics. Don’t millions of French voters feel the same way about Muslim immigrants from North Africa? The unthinkable has occurred in the US (Trump) and Britain (Brexit). Why can’t it happen in France?

As for China, expect frosty relations with regard to trade issues. Trump has repeatedly criticized China for allegedly engaging in unfair trading practices, and may see trade restrictions with China as a way to re-vamp manufacturing in the US. A rapprochement with Putin may also lead to a US/Russia attempt to curtain Chinese influence whether in Asia or the rest of the world.

On the domestic front, we can expect Trump to nominate judges hostile to legal abortions, affirmative action, gun control, and environmental protection. Nominees will also likely be pro-business, anti-union, and weak on environmental protection. The US Supreme Court is evenly split between 4 conservatives and 4 liberals. With the Senate in Republican hands, a President Trump can now nominate a conservative judge to replace Antonin Scalia. Add the fact that 4 of the remaining judges are well over 75 and we have a scenario where the US Supreme Court may be dominated by conservative judges for the next 20 years.

And lastly, he has threatened to deport 11 million illegal immigrants though he hasn’t said how he’s going to do it, or how he’s going to get the Mexican government to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexican border. Trump claims at least 3 million of them are criminals. Did any of them receive a fair hearing or trial?

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The American electorate has spoken and we’re hopefully all listening whether in the US or abroad. For starters, voters showed a lack of enthusiasm for both candidates. Family dynasties are out. Jeb Bush never had a chance in the Republican primaries much to the complete surprise of the Republican establishment. Many no doubt voted for Trump simply because they could not tolerate a compromised candidate like Hillary Clinton. The same occurred vice versa.

The white working class which once aligned itself behind the Democratic Party no longer feels the Democrats represent their interests. Hispanics and African- Americans meanwhile showed up in low numbers, feeling no doubt that their support by the Democrats is taken for granted. Indeed, the last president to seriously make any attempts to help the poor and the working class was Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969). Since then the Democrats have become moderates, meaning socially progressive and fiscally conservative, which is not a way to galvanize the electorate.

But the Republicans should not be gloating. They just narrowly won Pennsylvania and Michigan. Republican fortunes are perilously tied to white voters who today make up 70% of the electorate. But America is set to become a majority minority state by the end of this century. At that point it might become impossible for the Republicans to ever win a presidential election. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians can’t be ignored once they’re in the majority.

A key ingredient to Trump’s victory was his ability to appeal to social conservatives. A Trump voter is most likely to own a gun, oppose abortion, do military service, live in a small town, attend church on Sundays, and be opposed to equal rights for same-sex couples. He or she is also less concerned about climate change, likely doesn’t own a passport, and is more likely to be an isolationist and protectionist with regard to trade. A Trump supporter is finally more likely to have negative views on immigration, especially illegal migration, and to feel unconformable living in a multi-ethnic country where no one ethnic or racial group dominates. Interestingly, the states carried by Donald Trump could, if they were ever to secede from the US (except for Alaska), form a nation with a contiguous border.

So what should the Democratic Party do in the meantime? Is there a candidate who could defeat Trump in 2020? Absolutely and her name is Elizabeth Warren, senator from Massachusetts, and former Harvard University law professor. Senator Warren is clearly a progressive on both social and economic issues, has consistently questioned the power of large financial institutions, and unlike Hillary Clinton, comes with no baggage. She also has a compelling personal story, having been raised in a working class family and experienced poverty. Elizabeth Warren would appeal to those working class voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who helped elect Donald Trump. Add Sherrod Brown, a liberal senator from Ohio, another key electoral state, and you have a formidable team for Trump to confront in 2020. The only question is whether the Democratic Party’s establishment and supporters on Wall Street are willing to step aside and allow the progressive wing to present a liberal ticket. Only time will tell.

 

THE FUTURE OF THE WEST: Part Two – By PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

As I sat down to write this piece last week Europe was shaken by yet more terrorist attacks: the first was in (Munich) Germany, a country that has largely avoided terrorist incidents, when a deranged 18-year- old went on a shooting spree, killing nine people, while the second act of savagery occurred just outside Rouen, France, when two terrorists murdered an 85-year- old Catholic priest in a church by slitting his throat.

Europe seems to be going from one crisis to another. But is Europe’s future as bleak as the media and some analysts suggest? Add Britain’s decision (Brexit) to leave the European Union, a low birth rate, abysmal economic growth, and failure to fully integrate immigrants (most of whom are Muslim), and one is tempted to conclude that Europe is facing a deep abyss. Here’s why the situation is problematic but not as bleak as some policy experts might infer. It all comes down to what choices Europeans make with regard to some crucial questions.

Terrorism

We seem to be living in an age of terror as the following summary of events suggests: 

•  January 7, 2015, two terrorists force their way into the offices of a French magazine (Charlie Hebdo) in Paris, killing 11;

• November 13, 2015, gunmen carry out another mass shooting in Paris, including at a concert in the Bataclan theatre, killing 130 people;

• July 14, 2016, 84 people are killed when a truck is intentionally driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France.

These are all tragic events but Europe has seen worse. Terrorism is nothing new to Europeans, and neither are wars and religious conflict. Terrorist groups like the Red Brigade (Italy), Irish Republican Army (UK), and the Baader-Meinhof Group (Germany), came and went. Their actions in the long term had little effect on European society. Europe survived and these groups became minor footnotes in European history. The same will occur to the fanatics attempting to terrorize Europe today.

The fact of the matter is that the last 71 years have been among the most peaceful in European history. Except for the brutal implosion of Yugoslavia in the 90s, Europe has seen little violence. European civilization has never had it so good. No two countries are at war; most national boundaries are etched in stone; and terrorist acts are sporadic at best.

But back to the terrorist attacks. Olivier Roy, a prominent French academic, rightly reminds us that these acts are mainly committed by troubled youth living dysfunctional lives. And as Professor Roy further argues, the over whelming majority of European Muslims don’t support the acts of a few deranged terrorists acting out their frustrations by attempting to hijack a religion they don’t even understand or practice. In short, there’s no coherent and well organized attempt to overthrow European civilization as demagogues like Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump might lead us to believe.

Europe as an economic entity

The European Union is made up of 28 member states with an estimated population of 500 million. The EU’s aim is to promote the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. It has accomplished this goal by creating a single market across its territory, along with a common monetary union known as the Eurozone. Here are some basic facts: EU member states own the estimated largest net wealth in the world; 161 of the top 500 largest corporations are headquartered in the EU; 26 out of 28 EU countries have a very high standard of living according to the UN; EU states are among the world’s largest exporters of goods; and lastly, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy are among the top nine economies in the world. The current unemployment rate is around 9%, high by US standards, but a generous welfare system cushions the impact.

The big question of course is whether Britain’s eventual departure will hurt the EU. Most likely it won’t be an issue if we remember that both the Brits and the Europeans need one another as customers. The Brits have the largest economy in Europe after the Germans, and German industry needs a market for its goods.

Already Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and Teresa May, the newly appointed UK Prime Minister, have signaled a willingness to treat Britain’s departure in a rational manner. Retaliation by either side would lead to a mutual economic depression that neither side can afford. In any case, article 50 of the Treaty on European Union provides for a two year exiting period from the moment a departing country gives its official notice. This should give both sides ample time to cool down.

The other issue for the Europe Union, regardless of whether Britain leaves within the next two years, is how it defines itself. Is it truly evolving into a political union, a United States of Europe as one might call it, or is it simply an economic union, as the Brits understand it? Perhaps with Britain exiting the common market, Europe, led by Germany and France, might finally forge that political union.

But there will be a price to pay as smaller states may come to resent domination by its larger counterparts. Will some of them, led by Hungary, also choose to exit? Whether political union occurs will consequently depend on whether smaller states are provided with ample political power. A good example of shared power might be an upper house in the European Parliament where each state receives equal representation regardless of population. This is the case in the US where each state receives two senate seats (the upper house) regardless of population. Are larger states like Germany and France ready to share power with its smaller members? Of course this would also have to be a Parliament with real democratic powers as enjoyed by the US House of Representatives.

The original European Union (known in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community) was comprised of Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries (Luxemburg, Belgium and the Netherlands). Will the EU choose to shrink in size in an attempt to forge a more coherent and manageable federal state? This could very well be an alternative to an expanded EU. A union without a cash strapped country like Greece may be what taxpayers in Germany prefer. And the fact that countries like Hungary and Poland are electing right wing regimes intent on curbing civil liberties may make these states unacceptable to Brussels. Remember, the EU is an association of liberal democratic states. A clash of political culture may consequently result in states like Hungary and Poland choosing to leave or being asked to do so by larger states like Germany and France.

Immigration

Immigration is where the Europeans have got it wrong, at least in comparison to other western countries like the US, Canada, and Australia. Europe has a low birth rate and needs to find replacement workers. As a result, millions have immigrated to Europe, especially to Germany and France. The problem is not where these millions are coming from, but how they’re being received.

In France, for example, many are kept in satellite cities, creating subsidized ghettoes where integration becomes impossible. Well over a million refugees from Iraq and Syria have meanwhile entered Germany in the past year alone by crossing through Turkey, Greece, and Central Europe. These desperate souls are rightly provided with housing and health care. But Germany like France has the same problem: Are its policies integrating immigrants or creating parallel societies where immigrants live separate lives?

Countries like Germany and France walk a tight rope. On the one hand, European laws and a basic sense of decency and compassion require policymakers to provide asylum to both political and economic refugees. But they also have their constituents (aka voters) to worry about. Will increased immigration fuel the far right? That certainly seems to be the situation in France where millions consistently vote for the National Front. And the far right is also gaining support in Scandinavian countries fuelled by the arrival of Muslim immigrants and refugees. How European lawmakers deal with the immigration issue will to a large extent determine both the future of Europe’s economic prosperity and whether its citizens enjoy social harmony.

The Rise of female politicians

Europe then has some choices to make and it seems to have made some good ones at least with regard to the empowerment of women. A case in point is Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2000, she is by far the most respected leader in Europe if not the world, and unlike Hillary Clinton, carries neither moral nor political baggage. Her treatment of the one million refugee claimants that have entered Germany in the past year is stellar and unparalleled, at least in recent history, and she remains the most popular and respected leader in Europe despite this influx. The fact that the leader of the world’s fifth largest economy is a woman should hopefully not go unnoticed by heads of large corporations that refuse to hire women for top positions.

Other important female politicians include Teresa May, newly appointed Prime Minister of the UK, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2011, and Federica Mogherini, the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Lastly, Italian mayoralty victories by Chiara Appendino (Turin) and Virginia Raggi (Rome) signal that even socially conservative countries like Italy are increasingly seeing the importance of gender empowerment.

Conclusion

To say that Europe is at a crossroads is to use a tired cliché. But Europe does have important policy decisions to make with regard to the future of the EU, immigration, and economic development. Perhaps Brexit was a sort of gift by the reluctant Brits to the rest of Europe. The UK was always a reluctant member, never fully in or fully out. Should some of the smaller states also leave if national autonomy is their primary concern? Consider this: The original six founding members would still constitute one of the world’s largest trading entities if it were in existence today minus the other member states.

Europe remains a liberal democracy based on the rule of law and one of the best places to live in the world. Its quality of life is unparalleled. Europe also does not have a Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin to deal with. Nor does it have the gun violence or conflict over social issues that one sees in the US, whether in regard to gay rights or abortion.

Europe may never evolve into a full federal state as many dream of. Yet the creation of a free market where people and goods can travel freely remains a great achievement. Whether the dream of a more politically unified Europe can ever emerge comes down to whether its leaders can deal with the thorny issue of immigration.

European leaders must remember why the EU was created. It wasn’t to solve the world’s problems. Never for example did its founders conceive of Europe as a place where millions fleeing a Shia/Sunni conflict in the Middle East would find refuge. But the EU is also part of the larger world community and has both legal and moral obligations to treat migrants with humanity. It also has, however, domestic political realities to deal with. Finding the right political balance will take political ingenuity. Let’s hope that leaders like Angela Merkel are up to the task.

 

THE FUTURE OF THE WEST: Part One – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

Events currently unfolding in the United States and in Europe have many citizens and lawmakers in the West worried. Change is setting in on both sides of the Atlantic, and change always unsettles the status quo. But are events in Europe and the United States as dire and troublesome as we think? Is the despicable terrorist act recently committed in Nice on Bastille Day a sign that French democracy is in peril of vanishing? Is Brexit the beginning of the end for the Europe Union? Will Russia’s de-facto annexation of Eastern Ukraine lead to a new Cold War? And what of the US election and the supposed rise of a demagogue like Donald Trump? Is America splitting into two nations, one progressive and the other a right wing pseudo “Christian” authoritarian state? Will the economy someday pick up, allowing the West to grow at more than 2% annually? Is there no shining light somewhere, a beacon of hope that life in the 21st century is not approaching the abyss? And will a single party authoritarian state (China) one day surpass the United States as a global power

To answer these questions one must study lessons from history, for an appreciation of history not only prevents us from repeating past mistakes, as the old adage goes, it also allows us to understand current events. Let’s start with the US before moving to Europe in next week’s blog.

The United States has seen its share of demagogues. Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon B Johnson, a progressive Democrat, in 1964, and lost in a massive landslide. Richard Nixon wasn’t (at least to many) a demagogue but was still a dangerous politician forced to resign over Watergate. No one, remember, is above the law. Have people been angry before? Try the 1930s during the Great Depression, when millions were out of work. The system did not collapse. President Roosevelt’s New Deal put millions back to work and the mood of the nation changed for the better. In the nineteen fifties the Cold War took full flight culminating with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Yet the Cold War would eventually end with the coming down of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

The US is changing demographically but this phenomenon has been going on for well over a century. Millions of southern and eastern Europeans arrived in Ellis Island more than a hundred years ago. They helped build the nation’s burgeoning new industrial economy. The nation’s infrastructure, including railways, subway lines, bridges and roads were to a significant extent built by overworked and underpaid immigrants, but who nevertheless prospered in comparison to what life was like in the old country. And like today, the “native population” (aka White Anglo Saxon Protestants) complained about all those foreigners with foreign customs changing the nation’s fabric. Most of them would eventually get over it! Today much the same phenomenon is occurring, only the immigrants are largely coming from Latin America and Asia. Yes they’re non-white and this adds a new dimension, but America has a way of redefining itself, regardless of the pockets of resistance that remain in certain regions. The fact that the nation’s most prosperous cities and regions all have diverse populations proves the following point: diversify or perish!

What of America’s economy? The country’s unemployment rate currently stands at 5%. Not too shabby by world standards. But what really stands out is America’s ability to transform and revolutionize its economy. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Intel are all examples of US based high tech companies that have transformed our economy and the way we live. America’s universities and economic model promote entrepreneurship and prosperity by marrying science and technology with finance. No other country does it as well as America.

Of course the picture isn’t totally rosy. Millions have stopped looking for work. Add the many earning meager wages in a service oriented economy that pays low wages and you have a problem that policymakers need to tackle with if the US is to bridge the gap between the rich and the shrinking middle class. The sad reality is there are losers in this new economy. There are millions of unemployed blue collar workers, many of whom are white males who will likely vote for Donald Trump, mistakenly believing that a financially compromised casino owner with a ridiculous hairdo has the answers to their economic plight. And many of course are African Americans, who, let’s be honest, have never been able to truly benefit from the American Dream. Whether the New Economy will succeed in creating an egalitarian society will no doubt depend on the ability of policymakers and politicians to find a way of integrating everyone into the new economy, regardless of education, class, or race.

What of China? Will China overtake the US, at least on the economic sphere? Remember Japan back in the eighties? It was set to surpass the US but is today a nation in economic and demographic decline, which brings us back to the issue of diversity. Japan is 95% ethnic Japanese and refuses to open itself up to immigration despite a low birth rate. The US in contrast deals with its relatively modest birth rate by bringing in millions of immigrants. Diversity leads to economic prosperity, something which countries in the West do better than their counterparts in Asia.

Today the issue is China. Will it surpass the US? Many experts point out that the Chinese economy will soon become the world’s largest, surpassing that of the US. But China has its own problems to contend with. It too like Japan has an aging population, and like most Asian societies (except for Singapore) is not culturally geared to receiving immigrants. China also has severe environmental issues to deal with as can be seen by the smog conditions in cities like Shanghai and Beijing. And it remains the world’s largest authoritarian state. Will the Chinese Communist Party’s attempt to retain power last forever? History shows that most prosperous societies eventually adopt a two party system within a liberal democratic framework. Taiwan and South Korea are two prime examples, with Singapore possibly taking the same route in the foreseeable future. But most worrying for the authorities in Beijing is the growing gap between the poor and the rich. Income inequality, along with political corruption, we know from studying Chinese history, has always been a source of instability for Chinese rulers. And China has plenty of both. So yes, America has its economic problems, but they pale in comparison to what its biggest competitor, China, has to face. Millions of wealthy Chinese seek to emigrate to the West for a reason. In short, they realize that a system that is not based on liberal democratic values and the rule of law has an uncertain future.

American Democracy is not in peril as many think despite the nation’s divisions. Yes about 50% of Republican voters support Donald Trump. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of women and minorities don’t like “The Donald”, and they constitute two thirds of the electorate. The only reason he’s still in the race (as a long shot at best) is that many voters see Hillary Clinton as morally and politically compromised. Her decision to support George W Bush’s decision to invade Iraq has drawn the wrath of young people who are tired of needless foreign interventions. While her coziness with Wall Street, including receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street firms, has drawn hostility from the Democratic Party’s left flank. But win she will come November. And while she may definitely not be the best candidate in America to succeed Obama, she brings both experience and mental sanity to the office.

In the end, as the political scientist Joseph Nye reminds us, the United States has both Soft Power and Hard Power. Americans just need to make sure that elected officials, whether in the White House or in Congress, give the former as much importance and attention as the later.

Next Week: Part Two - Europe