11 August 2020

The Prospect Interview #141: How can nations atone for their sins?

 Why do some countries succeed in confronting their pasts, and others fail? Authors Ivan Krastev and Leonard Benardo join the Prospect Interview this week to discuss the question of the summer: how do nations come to terms with the historical crimes they’ve committed?

Ivan and Leonard write an essay on the (unsuccessful) Russian case in this month’s issue of Prospect, in which they trace the curious recent rehabilitation of Joseph Stalin in recent years. What does it take for a country to face up to its history—and what do they make about Britain’s ongoing debate on the statue of Winston Churchill?

listen to the podcast

Freakonomics: How the Supermarket Helped America Win the Cold War (Ep. 386 Rebroadcast)

 Aisle upon aisle of fresh produce, cheap meat, and sugary cereal — a delicious embodiment of free-market capitalism, right? Not quite. The supermarket was in fact the endpoint of the U.S. government’s battle for agricultural abundance against the U.S.S.R. Our farm policies were built to dominate, not necessarily to nourish — and we are still living with the consequences.

listen to the podcast

Foreign Policy: It’s a New Europe—if You Can Keep It

 The lockdowns that stopped the virus in Europe have had a devastating economic impact. Again, the American habit of dramatizing data by means of annualizing rates of change disguises the fact that economic implosion in Europe has been every bit as bad, if not worse. The U.S. economy fell 9.5 percent in the second quarter of 2020. Germany’s contracted by 10 percent. In Spain, the collapse was twice as bad, at 18.5 percent. (If Spain reported its data in the American style, it would be down 65 percent on the year.) [...]

In the process, the more conservative voices of Northern Europe extracted serious concessions. Unfortunately, those came at the expense of some of the more progressive and innovative budget elements, including spending on joint efforts in the areas of health care and green investment. Thankfully, the package is up for debate in the European Parliament, which is, step by step, asserting leverage over Europe’s politics. Earlier in the crisis, the Parliament favored a far more expansive plan, and hopefully it will make adjustments to the July compromise. [...]

This summer, there was certainly nothing inevitable about the way the deal was done. It did not seem likely. Credit goes to the European Commission for raising the stakes, upping the original suggestion by Merkel and Macron to an ask of 750 billion euros, on top of the regular 1.1 trillion euro ($1.3 trillion) multiyear budget. (It was the Commission’s officials who dug up the legal precedent that would allow the EU to justify massive borrowing.) Among national governments, one has to admire the Spanish and Italians, who began the long march toward a constructive European response back in March and suffered through the demeaning objections of Northern Europeans without walking away. The best that can be said for the Dutch and the Austrians is that they gave way in the end. Perhaps the shameless defense of the narrowest conception of national interest by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz will serve some useful purpose in dampening criticism from their domestic populists. [...]

It was not by accident that as the crisis deepened, the French government started its latest approach to Berlin not via the chancellery but by working its connections to the Social Democrats in the German Finance Ministry. In a desperate effort to revive the flagging political fortunes of the Social Democrats and his own chances of party leadership in 2019, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz had become the leading German proponent of European reform, pushing ideas both for unemployment insurance and banking. Both had been met by stony disapproval from the CDU and a nein from the chancellery.

read the article

The Guardian: Trumpism has taken over: but what happens to the Republican Party if Trump loses?

 The debate has been fueled by hints Trump’s current iron grip on the party might weaken. Republican leaders roundly rejected his idea of postponing the election because of the coronavirus pandemic. In negotiations over the latest economic stimulus package, they brushed aside his proposals for a payroll tax cut and a new FBI building.

Meanwhile Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, signaled to vulnerable Republican senators in tough election races that they can distance themselves from Trump if they deem it necessary, according to CNN. [...]

Second, the end of Trump would not necessarily mean the end of Trumpism. Nine in 10 Republicans still approve of the job he is doing as president, according to Gallup. A SurveyMonkey poll for Axios last December showed Republican voters’ favourite picks for 2024 led by Mike Pence, with Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr in second place, followed by Nikki Haley, Ivanka Trump, Marco Rubio and Mike Pompeo. [...]

In a recent interview with the Guardian, the Democratic strategist Paul Begala argued that a crushing defeat for Trump would be a catalyst for Republicans to reassess and revivify, just as Democrats did after three clarifying defeats in 1980, 1984 and 1988. But Stevens believes it will take more than one election. [...]

Thomas Patterson, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, argues that the party is caught in five traps of its own making, which Trump has only deepened: a steady movement to the right; demographic change; influence by rightwing media blunting its ability to govern; big tax cuts that created a split between its working-class supporters and marketplace conservatives; a disregard for democratic norms and institutions.

read the article

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: How Lukashenka Won And Won And Won And Won And Won

 The election in 1994 that brought Alyaksandr Lukashenka to power in Belarus was arguably the first and last election in the former Soviet republic that met some Western norms. In fact, a U.S. commission hailed it as a “first step toward more pluralistic democracy and a free market system.” [...]

But after the vote, Lukashenka wasted little time dismantling Belarus’s fledgling democratic institutions. In 1995, Lukashenka called a referendum that included four questions on whether to make Russian an official language; whether new national symbols should be adopted, including a flag that largely resembled the Soviet-era republic banner; whether there should be closer economic integration with Russia; and whether changes should be made to the constitution making it easier for the president to dissolve parliament. [...]

The high-profile disappearances included top Lukashenka opponents: Yury Zakharenka, the former interior minister; Viktar Hanchar, the former chairman of Belarus's Central Election Commission; and Dzmitry Zavadski, who once worked as Lukashenka's personal cameraman. The disappearances have never been solved.

read the article

Axios: Poll: 1 in 3 Americans would decline COVID-19 vaccine

 35% of Americans say they would refuse a coronavirus vaccine, even if it was free, approved by the Food and Drug Administration and available immediately, according to a Gallup poll released Friday. [...]

81% of Democrats said they would be willing to have a vaccine, while 47% of Republicans said the same. Independents fell in the middle, with 59% reporting they would get vaccinated for the coronavirus. [...]

76% of 18-29-year-olds reported willingness to receive a vaccine, as well as 70% of those 65 and older. But middle-aged Americans between 30-49 years old and 50-64-year-olds reported only 64% and 59% willingness, respectively.

read the article