For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

“America First,” President Donald Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan, is apparently contagious. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposed a set of rules on Thursday that would make it tougher for refugees and immigrants to become Australian citizens. And last week, Turnbull announced plans to raise the barriers for migrants hoping to come to Australia for high-skilled jobs on a temporary work visa.

Among the citizenship rules the prime minister proposed on Thursday is an “Australian values” test, more stringent requirements for the citizenship test, and a four-year wait period. Hopeful citizens would also be expected to have a greater knowledge of English than currently required. In a statement, Turnbull explained his crack down on migration:

“We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest,” he said. “Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.”

Australia is a multicultural bastion, often overshadowed by the “melting pots” of America, Canada, and other Western nations. In fact, 27 percent of the population is foreign-born, double the foreign-born rate in the U.S. and England. Australia is represented by migrants from 200 countries. The new rules, which must be approved by parliament, would stiffen an already stringent citizenship process.

For instance, prospective citizens must already have solid enough English skills to take the citizenship test, which is only offered in English. Under the proposed new rules, three test failures would spell the end of an immigrant’s or refugee’s chance at citizenship. According to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 102,029 people took the citizenship test between 2015-2016. Nearly 3,500 people failed it over three times. Prospective citizens must also sign an “Australian values statement.” Here is an excerpt:

Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.

Around the world, populism and nationalism are on the rise. France may elect the populist, far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen. England left the European Union. Turkey’s president just effectively cemented his hold on power until 2029, a move likely to alienate Turkey from the West. But until now, at least to the outside world, Australia seemed to be eluding the populist trend. But some analysts see Turnbull’s proposals not as a turn toward nationalism, but as a way to placate Australia’s populists.

“These new laws are about trying to keep traditional coalition supporters from turning to the far-right parties,” Haydon Manning, a political analyst in Adelaide told Bloomberg. “Turnbull will be aware that he doesn’t have much to offer voters in the budget because the coffers are bare, so this is a way he can show that he’s still thinking about them and addressing their concerns about jobs and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Proposes a More Difficult Path to Citizenship appeared first on Law Street.

Populism takes on a different flavor depending on the soil in which it takes root. Last November’s stunning election in the U.S., and the rising profile of anti-establishment figures across Europe brought populist forces back to the fore of the Western political conversation. President Donald Trump captured the frustrations of Americans who felt left behind by globalization, whose wages have stagnated, whose communities have suffered from the flight of factories, and who are feeling robbed of stability and identity.

Populism has also taken hold across the pond: Last June, Britain shocked the European continent when it voted to separate from the world’s largest and oldest bulwark of liberal democracy in the West, the European Union. And while Dutch voters recently thwarted the ascent of the populist, anti-Muslim candidate Geert Wilders, upcoming elections in France, Germany, and possibly Italy could see populist forces surge again. But while populism is undoubtedly on the rise in Europe and the U.S.–and, frankly, in many other corners of the planet–the forces propelling populism’s rise are not identical.

An Ailing Social Contract

To Constanze Stelzenmuller, a fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institute, German populism is fueled by the fragmentation of society, and insecurity following the influx of nearly one million refugees in 2015. Germany’s populist sentiment is “more about people worrying about the stability of their institutions and the ability of the state to control a situation,” than a flailing economy, Stelzenmuller said at a recent Brookings event in Washington.

At the end of 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened her country’s doors to about one million Syrian refugees. That gesture flooded a country not only with human beings, but with a real or perceived threat to social cohesion, according to Stelzenmuller. Initially applauded by Germans and the international community, a year of major terrorist attacks across Europe, and some small-scale attacks in Germany, have brought a feeling of unease to a country that prides itself on stability.

“Germans have always taken social cohesion extremely seriously,” Stelzenmuller said, adding that “a lot of attention is paid to the health of the social contract.” But of course, not all of Germany’s social woes can be attributed to the arrival of some beleaguered refugees. Traditionally, Stelzenmuller said, Germans were defined by their membership in three institutions: religion, trade unions, and political parties. “All three of these institutions for the last two decades or so have been bleeding membership,” she said, “and that’s truly a significant thing.”

France, which will hold the first round of its presidential election in two weeks, might be experiencing a similar force that is turning populism’s gears. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which was once unabashedly anti-Semitic and racist under the leadership of her father, is attracting hordes of voters to her anti-EU, anti-immigrant message. She is widely expected to reach the second round run-off, featuring the two highest vote getters, on May 7.

Le Pen has tapped into the insecurity of voters who feel unmoored by globalization an the rapid flow of technology, people, and cultures. According to France’s ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud, France’s populist moment, similar to Germany’s, reflects a feeling of social uncertainty. “A lot of French feel that they are lost in the society today,” Aruad, the ambassador since 2014, said at the Brookings event.

A Flailing Economy

This rising thirst for populism, in Europe and the U.S., cannot be illuminated solely through a cultural lens. Economic forces–like globalization’s redistribution of jobs and economic systems transitioning from industry to service–play a large role as well, especially in the U.S. Trump’s ascension to the White House relied largely on white voters from rural swaths of the country. He parlayed their frustration at the loss of manufacturing jobs and plateauing–or dropping–wages into a narrow victory.

Nicholas Eberstadt, an author and a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, points to the long decline in work for men and a drop in workforce participation rates. This, combined with “an explosion of crime and punishment,” Eberstadt said, color America’s unique brand of populism. On the surface, the economic malaise that many feel is discordant with the country’s overall economic health. Wealth has been on the rise since 2000, for instance, and the unemployment rate is falling.

But, Eberstadt said, men in rural, predominantly white communities have not felt the windfall. In fact, the labor force participation rate among men ages 25 to 54 in the U.S. has precipitously dropped over the past few decades. Today, it is just above 85 percent, one of the lowest among developed countries, including France and Germany. This, Eberstadt said, combined with the rise in felony rates and the fatal opioids that help ease these pains, has led to “the feeling that people are stuck in a system which isn’t working for them.”

At the Brookings Institute, from left to right: Ambassador Araud, Stelzenmuller, Eberstadt. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

Given that it’s inherently global, interconnected, and far-reaching, the consequences of globalization are a shared element of European and American populism. “I think there is a general rebellion against free trade,” Araud said. Free trade, once-accepted as hugely beneficial for growing societies, can no longer be force-fed to people as a means for good. “You have to prove it to our citizens,” Araud said. Automation, he added, is another uprooting force.

For France, Araud said, the cultural and economic crises have bred an “unhealthy quest for authority.” Le Pen is the candidate that best suits the authoritarian mold, while Emmanuel Macron, the left-leaning candidate who is expected to oppose Le Pen in the May run-off, embodies the liberal democratic values of the EU. In addition, Araud argued, automation has spurred job loss in the manufacturing sector, and, perhaps equally as important, people “underestimated the destabilizing effect of the 2008 [financial] crisis.”

Despite the building populist clouds, Eberstadt sees silver linings. “I think that there is a lot of room for hope,” he said. Some prescriptions he has in mind include: encouraging the growth of small businesses; reforming the country’s “awful” disability programs; and reforming the criminal justice system, which, he said, has far-reaching effects in communities across the country. But initial steps in countering populism’s rise, he suggested, should start at the ground level. “The first step in hope is to be able to empathize with, and to understand the arguments of, those that are in the populist camp.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Populism on the Rise in the U.S. and Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen’s campaign officially began with a speech on Sunday, where she painted France in the same grim, dystopian hues that propelled President Donald Trump to victory in America. In front of thousands of supporters in Lyon, Le Pen delivered a screed against Islam, the European Union, and globalization. As the tides of populism, anti-globalization, and nationalistic fervor grip much of the Western world, France is the next liberal democracy that could retreat inward.

Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front party, opened her speech with a populist motto straight out of Trump’s playbook: “I’m against the Right of money, and the Left of money. I’m the candidate of the people!” she declared. As Le Pen spoke, a screen behind her read “In the Name of the People.” Images of the ideas Le Pen rails against flashed on the screen as well: criminal immigrants, jihadists, and, slightly out of place but equally as dangerous in Le Pen’s view–EU bureaucrats.

“After decades of cowardice and laissez-faire, our choice is a choice of civilization,” Le Pen, 48, said. “Will our children live in a country that is still French and democratic?” Le Pen praised Trump, called the EU a “failure,” and, citing the knife attack at the Louvre last Friday, said France is threatened by the “yoke of Islamic fundamentalism.” She promised to secure France’s borders, pull out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and renegotiate French membership in the EU, possibly even holding a referendum on membership for a so-called “Frexit.”

Recent polls suggest Le Pen’s populist message is connecting, and will likely fuel her to the run-off round of France’s two-stage election process. The first round, a popular vote contest between a handful of candidates is set for April 23; the second, a run-off between the top two vote-getters, is two weeks later. While her nationalist, anti-elite ethos is certainly resonating, Le Pen’s greatest boon could be her opposition.

Seen until recently as the likely victor in the spring election, Francois Fillon is embroiled in a nepotism scandal that is threatening his candidacy, though he is staying in the race. But between the crumbling Fillon and the ascendant Le Pen is a third candidate who could win the day: Emmanuel Macron. The 39-year-old independent centrist is running on a starkly different platform than Le Pen–pro-EU, pro-globalization, pro-immigration–that could ultimately capture the majority of ballots.

Like Le Pen, Macron, a former banker and economics minister, is running as an outsider. In fact, his party, En Marche! (Let’s Go!) is less than one-year old. In his campaign kick-off speech on Saturday, Macron, in front of 10,000 supporters, spread his message beyond France’s borders, and reached out across the Atlantic: “I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: from now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland – France,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Presidential Hopeful Marine Le Pen: “I’m the Candidate of the People!” appeared first on Law Street.

On October 25, France began dismantling the infamous migrant camp in the city of Calais nicknamed “the Jungle.” The camp was home to thousands of migrants and refugees and has been a source of division and animosity for the surrounding area. However, it is not just Calais that will be affected. In fact, the decision to shut down the camp actually speaks to larger trends both in France and in Europe at large. As the migrant crisis continues, many countries in Europe have had a hard time accommodating the influx of people.

Read on to find out more about what exactly is happening in Calais, where the refugees living there are headed next and how this all fits into the larger backdrop of national and continental politics.

Background

Migrants began settling in Calais, France way back in 1999. The camp survived several closure attempts, including one earlier this year. All the while the population grew, totaling more than 9,000 people, according to recent reports. Many people settled there on their way to the UK, as the camp is located near a tunnel between the two countries.

Read More: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

What’s Happening Now?

When authorities decided to tear down the camp, the next question was what exactly that meant for its inhabitants. Before the camp was cleared, there were thousands of people living there and at least 70 operating businesses. The plan is to move all these people and whatever they can carry with them to several sites across France. To expedite this process, the camp’s inhabitants were broken up into four groups: adult men, families, minors, and other vulnerable groups. During the removal process, conflicts and fires broke out as some were reluctant to uproot.

The video below depicts the deconstruction of the jungle:

Where are the Refugees Going?

Those leaving the camp were transported by bus to more than 450 individual reception centers across the country. These centers are generally abandoned hospitals, hotels, and army barracks located in many small towns. Once there, refugees are able to apply for asylum, but if their requests are denied they will face deportation. Not everyone is being forced out, unaccompanied children were allowed to stay in converted shipping containers as the rest of the camp was taken down. Days later, the remaining children were moved to various reception centers throughout the country. But NGOs have warned that since being resettled, many children are living in unsuitable conditions and are being forced to work.

Refugees there have already demonstrated a clear persistence to stay put if possible, with the goal to ultimately make it to England. England is currently set to accept some 200 children from the camp who have proven relatives in the UK, although it has promised not to accept any more.

Breaking down the Calais camp has also reignited the debate over immigration and refugee settlement. In England, politicians have been resistant to accept more refugees even as French President Hollande asks them to take on a greater share. British politicians, however, have been steadfast in their refusal, some have even been calling for dental exams to prove that children claiming refugee status are indeed children and not adults. And many small town residents in France have taken to the streets to protest the settlement of refugees in their communities.

Political Impact

At the forefront of the protests in France is the Front National, a nationalist political party led by Marine Le Pen. Le Pen’s party has spearheaded efforts to protest the settlement of immigrants in small towns. However, Le Pen’s party is certainly not alone. This development is emblematic of a trend across Europe where far-right parties, who oppose immigration as one of their central tenets, are on the rise.

Read more: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

This includes countries like Greece, Hungary, and Poland where dissatisfaction with the EU and the rising number of migrants has led to far-right parties securing large portions of parliament and in some cases the governing coalition. Some of these groups, such as the FIDESZ-KDNP in Hungary, have gone even further, espousing anti-Semitic views and seeking to criminalize homosexuality.

This rise is not solely confined to the poorer eastern portions of Europe, several nations, including France, have seen a growing backlash against immigration and immigrants. For example in Sweden, often held up as a golden standard of liberalism, the rise of the far-right Swedish Democrats, a party that strongly opposes immigration, led to the formation of a tenuous coalition government between the Social Democrats and the far-left Green Party.

In the upcoming elections in Germany, a far-right party may gain seats in parliament for the first time since World War II. Following mass reports of sexual assault last New Year’s Eve in Cologne, the Alternative for Germany Party, which has hard-line positions on immigration and strongly opposes Islam, grew in popularity. Perhaps the most significant example is in Austria, where the leader of a nationalist party has a very realistic chance of winning the presidency in the December runoff election. If successful, he would be the first far-right head of state elected in Europe since World War II. Migration also played a prominent role in the UK’s decision to leave the European Union earlier this year.

European Refugee crisis

Much of this reaction to the refugees in Calais is actually part of the larger reaction to a wave of immigrants flooding Europe in general. Europe has several demographic factors that make it an ideal place for immigrants, namely a shrinking native population and an increasing need for caretakers as its population ages. In addition, in terms of personal safety and economic prospects, many migrants see Europe as a significant improvement relative to their home countries.

In 2015, more than a million people arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Of those, about 476,000 have applied for asylum in Germany. While Germany received the most in total, on a per capita basis, Hungary, Sweden, and Austria have received more. Not coincidently, those three have seen a notable rise in far-right parties, all with platforms seeking to dramatically curtail immigration.

In Slovakia, Macedonia, and Hungary border walls have been erected to prevent migrants from getting through. France, Germany, Austria and Sweden, several of the most popular destinations, have instituted border checks. Norway has gone perhaps the furthest, though, by actually confiscating migrants’ valuables to pay for their care. Aside from these individual efforts, the EU as a whole has also worked on a deal with Turkey where, in exchange for billions in aid and reconsidering that country’s EU application, Turkey will prevent more migrants from entering Europe. The following video looks at the migration crisis in Europe:

Conclusion

What tearing down the Jungle actually means is unclear at this point. Particularly because it has been tried before, yet the camp has remained in place for almost 20 years under a range of politicians. What is more telling is the spirit behind the most recent decision to tear down the camp. While refugees are being offered the opportunity to be resettled, many migrants may not be granted asylum and will likely face deportation. Moreover, the situation in Europe has dramatically changed as far-right political parties are seeing their influence and popularity surge.

The refugee crisis has engulfed the continent. While many were first met with open arms, the mood has shifted and now many places are erecting barriers and denying entrance. This has coincided with a rise of far-right parties across the continent (as well as anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in the United States). Tearing down the Jungle, if it lasts this time, is symbolic as much as anything. However, the exact message being sent, whether hostile or not, remains unclear. The important thing to watch now is how those living the camp are resettled and how residents react to an influx of refugees.

Resources

CNN: Calais ‘Jungle’: Demolition of Massive Migrant Camp Begins

Law Street Media: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

NBC News: France Begins Evicting 6,000 Migrants From ‘Jungle’ Near Calais

Vox: France’s ‘Jungle’ Refugee Camp is Being Dismantled and Residents may have Nowhere to go

Reuters: ‘A Lot of Controversy’ Around Resettling Calais ‘Jungle’ Refugees

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The New York Times: How Far Is Europe Swinging to the Right?

BBC News: Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe Explained in Seven Charts

BBC News: How is the Migrant Crisis Dividing EU Countries

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Calais, Europe is Still Struggling to Deal with Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Iceland’s election was on Saturday, and while certain mainstay parties were represented on the ballot, an unexpected challenger also had a place there: the Pirate Party, an anti-establishment party that garnered roughly 15 percent of Iceland’s support.

The Pirate Party is just one of the many populist parties that have emerged in Europe since the global financial crisis, but it does not identify as right or left wing, choosing instead to label itself an anti-establishment movement that will attempt to combine the best of both parties. The party operates on a platform of direct democracy, net neutrality, and civil rights, and is an offshoot of the Pirate movement founded in Sweden a decade ago. However, while the Swedish party was primarily preoccupied with copyright law, the Icelandic version embraces a much broader swath of issues and has gained more traction, thanks in part to the release of the Panama Papers.

After the Panama Papers revealed that Iceland’s former Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, and his wife held funds in offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands, the Pirate Party swooped as the voice of protest, organizing massive protests across the country. Freedom of information and the exposure of corrupt practices is a central theme of the Pirate Party’s agenda: Birgitta Jonsdottir, the leader of the party, is a poet who formerly provided legal assistance to WikiLeaks. Before the Panama Papers, the Pirate Party would never have been in the position it holds now, attracting international attention. Jonsdottir herself has expressed surprise during multiple interviews at how successful the party has become.

The Pirate Party did not win a seat at the table this weekend, largely because of concerns about the profound economic effects for international investors had the party won. However,  there could also be a shift in the political status quo now that the Party has stepped toward legitimacy by at points polling over 20 percent. The Pirate Party has ruled out forming a coalition with the current parties in power if it ever is elected, arguing that it doesn’t want its vote to be influenced or absorbed by the corruption of “the Octopus“–the wealthy families that Jonsdottir argues control the country. The party may not ever succeed in creating a more transparent and equitable democracy (and frankly, the party’s plan of action is more optimistic than realistic) but they will have perhaps opened the door for other outsider parties, not only in Iceland, but across all small European nations.

In the United States, where we have massive voting blocs aligned to our traditional two parties, third party candidates have rarely won elections, yet in Iceland, with a total population of only approximately 332,500, a smaller number of voters can have a greater impact on the election–which means the Pirate Party could set a new precedent for dozens of small-scale movements that want to transition into the formal government. The Pirate Party’s steps toward legitimacy may not impact U.S. elections but it can have an impact on countries with small, young populations–voters who are online, connecting with political movements through social media, and who are frustrated with the traditional party dichotomy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Election No One Has Noticed: Iceland’s Pirate Party appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a joke going around online that makes fun of one of the dominant explanations for Donald Trump’s rise in American politics. You’ll see it a lot on social media: people will take a news story depicting what can only be described as racism, and then joke about how economic anxiety explains support for Trump when clearly it’s not related.

Here’s a good, relatively mild joke about the Confederate flag from Jamelle Bouie, a writer for Slate:

Just some Trump supporters, waving the flag of economic anxiety. https://t.co/6RlnATpvSK

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) July 26, 2016

The joke here is, of course, that a lot of Donald Trump’s support has little to do with an individual’s economic circumstances. Shortly after Trump started rising in the polls during the Republican primary, the “economic anxiety hypothesis” was a dominant explanation for his success. Trump, the theory goes, speaks to those who have been left behind by globalization and free trade. And to an extent, that explanation makes sense–Trump constantly trashes “bad trade deals,” threatens companies that want to move jobs overseas, and claims that his economic agenda will focus on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

But over time, it has become pretty clear that economics can only explain so much of Trump’s support, so something else must to be at play too. So what, then, explains the rise of populism not just in the United States, but also in many countries in Western Europe? With Trump’s rise in American politics, Brexit in the United Kindom, and growing anti-immigrant sentiment growing as Europe’s refugee crisis surges, answering this question is more important than ever. Is it simply racism or is there more to it than that?

As it turns out, we have some new research that takes a look at that question specifically. Professors Ronald Inglehart from the University of Michigan and Pippa Norris from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government took a systematic look at two hypothesis–the economic insecurity and cultural backlash hypotheses–in their recent working paper to see what’s really going on.

Identifying the Rise of Populism

While their research focuses primarily on the rise of populism in Western Europe, they argue that the developments in Europe can help inform what is going on in American politics today. In their research, Inglehart and Norris identify populist parties in Europe, track their rise in many countries, and look at what factors led voters to support them.

Inglehart and Norris identify several patterns that illustrate and help explain the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past several decades. First, and most obviously, more votes were cast for populist parties, causing their representation in governments to increase. Candidates in populist parties on the right and left of the economic spectrum increased dramatically from the 1960s to the 2010s. Vote share for parties on the populist right rose from 6.7 percent in the 1960s to 13.4 percent in the 2010s, according to ParlGov data, which tracks voting patterns in many western democracies. Similarly, vote share for populist left parties rose from 2.4 percent in the 1960s to 12.7 in the 2010s. They also note that over time, cultural issues have become much more important to political parties than economic ones have.

What’s unique about the researchers’ analysis is their use of a cultural dimension to locate different parties on an ideological spectrum. Most people are familiar with the traditional left and right dimension, where right is conservative and left is liberal. But Inglehart and Norris build on that to argue that the traditional spectrum really only applies to economic issues, while a new axis should be added to capture how people divide on cultural issues. On this vertical axis, they put liberal cosmopolitanism at the bottom and populism at the top. In doing so, they acknowledge that populism has more to do with cultural values and that populist parties can pop up on both the right and left of the economic spectrum.

Defining Populism

Now, without diving too much into the jargon, it’s important to look at how the researchers define populism and its inverse, cosmopolitan liberalism. The researchers draw from past research to summarize populism as having three distinct characteristics: anti-establishment sentiment, authoritarianism, and nativism. Because populism can emerge on both the right and left sides of the economic spectrum, it’s helpful to think about it in terms of the values that stay constant, which are largely cultural. They conclude:

Populism favors mono-culturalism over multiculturalism, national self-interest over international cooperation and development aid, closed borders over the free flow of peoples, ideas, labor and capital, and traditionalism over progressive and liberal social values.

Cosmopolitan liberalism, on the other side of the spectrum, is essentially the opposite of that–favoring open borders, shared values, and diversity. Importantly, the researchers go on to note, “Social liberalism is also linked with support for equal rights for women and minorities, flexible rather than fixed gender roles, fluid gender identities and LGBT rights, environmental protection, and secular rather than religious values.” And with that, you have the crux of the cultural backlash hypothesis; as the issues that define cosmopolitan liberalism have taken hold in the West, populist parties may be popping up as a result.

After analyzing polling data, the researchers concluded that the cultural backlash hypothesis appears to explain the rise of populism more so than economic circumstances or perceived economic insecurity. They found a connection between different demographic characteristics, notably age and education levels, that was associated with voting for populist parties, but when you combine those demographics with cultural values, a clear fit exists. And while there was some overlap between economic insecurity and populist voting, culture appears to play a stronger role. They conclude, “The electoral success of [populist] parties at the ballot box can be attributed mainly to their ideological and issue appeals to traditional values.”

What Does it Tell Us About Trump?

Inglehart and Norris use culture to explain what happened over the past several years in many western European countries and go on to say that the same thing is likely underway in the United States. Populism in America appears to be following a similar trajectory, and if you look at the base of Donald Trump’s support you will see a similar group of values and demographics. As more evidence piles up to challenge the economic anxiety explanation, it’s important to look at how cultural views shape support for populists.

And yes, race or racial resentment likely plays into this as well. If you doubt that connection then you should watch this video from the New York Times showing the presence of hate at Trump rallies. But it’s too simplistic to just chalk things up to racism. As Brian Beutler at the New Republic points out, Trump has millions of supporters–probably somewhere around 40 to 45 percent of the American electorate–so assuming that they all plan to vote for him because they’re all racist is a stretch. But you’d also be ignoring a lot about Trump’s campaign over the past year or so to say that race hasn’t played a role.

As the West continues to move in a liberal cosmopolitan direction, there will be large swaths of people who lash out at social change through support for populist parties and candidates. In Europe, this backlash has been more pronounced as proportionally representative parliamentary systems make it easier for new parties to earn seats in government, but it’s clear that the United States is not immune.

These findings may be discouraging for many. After all, those who pushed for progress on issues like gay marriage and immigration didn’t anticipate Donald Trump in response. But understanding this pattern is important. Inglehart and Norris conclude: “The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.” These challenges are real, and they probably aren’t going away anytime soon.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Populism, How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Very few people are satisfied with politics nowadays. Polarization seems to have put Congress in a constant state of gridlock while inequality reaches unprecedented levels. The cycle of wealth and influence also appears to be self-reinforcing as the wealthy are able to influence the government to help protect their advantage. As a result, people have lost nearly all of their faith in public institutions–approval of Congress has reached new lows and people are more disaffected than ever before.

Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and professor at John Hopkins University, makes the case for what America really needs: reform. At an event hosted at the New America Foundation’s offices in Washington, D.C., Drutman presented a paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.” At the event, Drutman made the case for reform and outlined his bold plan to make government work in an era of political polarization and growing inequality.

Rather than upend the whole system, he calls for evidence-based proposals to realign it in with the common good and end government dysfunction. Rather than cut out the influence of interests groups and big business, maybe we need to establish balance–put people and general welfare interests groups on the same level as corporations.

Click here to read Drutman’s paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.”

The event left me with a question, and some answers–check out the two parts:

Part I: Do We Need a Political Revolution?

Part II: Lee Drutman’s Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government is Broken, Can We Fix it? appeared first on Law Street.