EUROPE'S POPULIST EVOLUTION

Europe's populist movement, which for the longest time existed on the fringes and in the shadows, has evolved into politically powerful organizations challenging liberal democratic institutions and jeopardizing the continued existence of supranational organizations like the European Union. Populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the "pure people" and the "corrupt elite." Populists hold that politics should be an expression of the "general will" of the people. They are pro democracy, but anti liberal democracy. They support popular sovereignty and majority rule, but reject pluralism (a conviction that various religious, ethnic, racial, and political groups should be allowed to thrive in a single society) and minority rights. Populist movements have a history of memorable and charismatic leaders, from fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, dictators like Stalin, reactionaries like Franco, to revolutionaries like Che Guevara. Europe's post World War II populist movements morphed into established political parties on the right (mostly in northern Europe) and on the left (in countries like Greece and Italy). Herman Van Rompuy, former president of the European Council, called populism "the greatest danger for Europe." An out-of-control migrant crisis, an influx of identifiable - mostly Islamic - immigrants, and the recent devastating terrorist attacks, have served to intensify populist sentiment, and enhanced the growing dominance of political organizations that articulate related concerns.

Populist parties tend to be anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, and anti E.U.. They successfully use islamophobia to mobilize its supporters. One of the earliest post-war organizations expressing these views was the "National Front" in France. Its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, began the movement in 1972 on a platform of French nationalism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration and euroskeptic. The party was openly racist and xenophobic. His daughter Marine was elected to succeed him in 2011, and managed to grow the movement into the third most powerful political party in France. Polls covering the 2017 presidential elections show her competing effectively with current president Francois Hollande. While the "National Front" operates in opposition to the traditional parties, hard-right populist parties in Hungary and Poland recently managed to expand their political base and transition into governing majorities. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run Hungary since 2010. Orban styled himself as the sole defender of Christian Europe, and has called for blocking migrants to keep Europe Christian. "Fidesz" won a two-thirds majority of seats in the 2010 parliamentary election, which allowed Orban to pass a new constitution with little or no input from opposition parties, and which included his right-wing "illiberal" viewpoints. Under his guidance, and contrary to E.U. rules, Hungary built a fence on its border with Serbia and Croatia to effectively keep immigrants out. Poland's radical right-wing anti-immigrant and euroskeptic "Law and Justice Party," under Jaroslaw Kaczynski, came to power in October 2015. Since being elected, it has used its muscle to stack Poland's judiciary, undermine its constitutional order, and take full control over public media. Its "reforms" have placed it firmly in the fascist camp, and squarely in conflict with the E.U.'s "Copenhagen criteria" which stipulate conditions for membership, even though Poland has been a member state since May 2004. Kaczynski has defiantly declared that "Poland will not bow to the E.U. on its reforms."

While these populist parties already dominate their respective national governments, this may just be the onset of things to come. Others are becoming increasingly more prominent. Kristian Thulesen Dahl's "Danish People's Party" has grown to being the second largest party in Denmark. Geert Wilders's "Party of Freedom" in The Netherlands, and Heinz Christian Strache's "Freedom Party of Austria" currently rank third in their respective countries. Polls preceding next year's national elections in The Netherlands suggest that Wilders' party could end up winning the elction and leading a governing coalition. While all of these and other parties proclaim their support for the same set of populist principles, and although they are euroskeptic, they also claim seats in the European Parliament. As of 2014 one-third of the members elected to that body represent political organizations opposed to the E.U. and its reach.

Van Rompuy's opinion that populism is the greatest danger for Europe appears to have merit. When populism becomes the dominant ideology in national parliaments, Europe's future could be in jeopardy.  A few weeks ago, in a referendum, the Dutch rejected the European Union's trade and political treaty with Ukraine. This result effectively cancelled the agreement, since approval requires unanimous consent from all 28 member states. All others had voted in favor. Geert Wilders called the vote "the beginning of the end of the E.U." On June 23rd Britain goes to the polls to decide whether it should remain in the union. As of this week the group supporting to stay in polls just one percent ahead of the "brexit" contingent, which is led by the U.K. Independent Party. In the mean time, violent demonstrations like the one by 500 or so black shirted, Nazi-style, islamophobic goons flashing Nazi salutes at a vigil in Brussels right after the attacks there, can't make Europeans familiar with the excesses of the 1920's and 30's feel very comfortable.

DIVERSITY, MULTICULTURALISM AND JIHAD

On January 7, 2015, at about 11:30 local time, two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris and killed 11 people. During the following two days four more attacks took place resulting in 20 deaths, which included three perpetrators. During the evening of November 13, 2015 a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 130, and wounded hundreds. Eighty-nine were massacred while attending an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan Concert Hall in the 11th arrondisement near the Place de la Republique. The attacks at the Zaventem Airport and the Maalbeck Metro Station in Brussels on March 22 of this year killed 32 and wounded 300. No wonder Europe is on edge. Many blame the increased flow of immigrants from North Africa and the E.U.'s open border policy. However, in reality almost all of the perpetrators were born and raised in or close to the communities they attacked. Europeans are searching for answers. While the handwriting has been on the wall for a long time, many have only recently begun to acknowledge that their institutionalized response to increased diversity, usually referred to as "multiculturalism," created during the 1970's, may be the cause of, not the answer to social problems resulting from what some would consider a policy of allowing excessive immigration.

The core issue is the extent to which immigrants have assimilated, or were allowed to assimilate into their host country's dominant culture. Prior to World War II new-comers to European countries migrated mostly from within the European continent. They brought traits similar to those prevalent in the countries they came to adopt. Hence, they assimilated easily. During the years immediately following World War II many European countries attracted "guest workers" from Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey to compensate for an immense labor shortage. The idea was that, when no longer needed, these migrant workers would return to their native countries. During that same time period countries like France, Great Britain, and to some extent Belgium, attracted a flow of immigrants from their rapidly dwindling colonial possessions - the Caribbean, Pakistan and India for the U.K., and North Africa for France and Belgium. After the 1974 recession governments began to try to get rid of their foreign workers, many of whom had transitioned from a temporary necessity into a permanent presence. By then 30% of the migrant population was under 25 years old, and were born into their parents' "adopted" country. Fearing that these immigrants would dilute the national identity of their countries, governments encouraged them to preserve their own culture, language and lifestyle. The concept of multiculturalism was born and embraced. This did not represent a respect for diversity so much as a convenient means of avoiding the issue of how to create a common, inclusive culture. This policy ultimately resulted in the emergence of segregated communities.

Over time, immigrant neighborhoods developed into cohesive communities, using resources supplied by local governments, but separated from the national culture, and increasingly identifiable by race, religion, language, lifestyle and geographical concentration. The influx of new, predominantly Muslim, immigrants, often shunned by the lopcal population, grew, reinforced, and consolidated the identity of these communities. Second and third-generation youth growing up in this environment were confronted  with an identity crisis. Although they grew up in the country they lived in, they regularly encountered significant discrimination outside of their neighborhoods. (In France, in 2012, the unem ployment rate for youth of African descent under 25 was 42%). Aside from lacking affinity for their home cultrure, they had difficulty identifying with their parents' background. Kenan Malik, a columnist for the International New York Times, in "The Failure of Multiculturalism," suggests: " Many in France view its citizens of North African origin not as French but as Arab or Muslim. But second-generation North Africans are often as estranged from their parents' culture and mores - and from mainstream Islam - as they are from wider French society. They are caught not between two cultures, but without one." While searching for an identity of their own, many of these young people turned to radical Islam.

The very islolation of these separate communities obscured their inner workings, allowing mujahideen to fundraise, prepare and recruit for jihad with a freedom available in few Muslim countries. Michael Nazir-Ali, former bishop of Rochester, writes: "One of the results of multiculturalism has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up, and also to turn already separate communities into areas where adherence to Islamic extremism has become a mark of acceptability." The arguments about the purported "failure of multiculturalism" and the development of so-called "no-go zones" have recently entered the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. Irrespective of semantics, many of these segregated areas have become Muslim enclaves in which the enforcement of European laws is at best spotty. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, acknowledged that a form of apartheid exists in France. In fact, France lists 751 "sensitive urban zones," most of which developed as a consequence of multiculturalist policies. Molenbeek, the municipality in the Brussels-Capital region, where most of the perpetrators of the attacks in Paris and Brussels and Paris grew up, is one of these in Belgium. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these enclaves have become incubators for jihad. However, identifying the problem and assigning blame is only part of the process. European governments need to move beyond claiming that the problem does not exist, and develop solutions short of the drastic measures suggested by increasingly powerful populist parties. We should all hope that they have the capacity to do this.

A BROKERED CONVENTION COULD PRODUCE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES

The GOP is in a bind. Its elders and strategists are attempting to do whatever they can to prevent its frontrunner, Donald Trump, from amassing enough delegates to win their party's nomination for President outright when they meet at their national convention in Cleveland, Ohio in July. While strategizing obstruction, Republican Party regulars agonize over how a contested convention would develop, or, if it decided to broker the outcome, who would take the lead and at what cost. Throughout our political history brokered conventions are nothing new. However, they did not always develop as intended.

The 1880 Republican convention in Chicago opened with three candidates fighting for the nomination. A draft movement attempted to nominate ex-President Ulysses Grant for a third term after a four year absence. Grant's opposition supported either Maine Senator James Blaine or Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman. The convention deadlocked for 35 ballots. Grant remained 66 votes short of the nomination. On the 36th ballot the anti-Grant vote switched to dark-horse candidate Ohio Congressman James Garfield, who was nominated, and assassinated only months after inauguration.

The 1912 Democratic convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland. At the time Democratic rules stipulated that the winning nominee needed to secure two-thirds of the delegate vote. The principal candidates were House Speaker Champ Clark of Missouri and Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey. Both had won several primaries. Clark entered the convention with a plurality of the delegates, and received 440 votes on the first ballot, against 324 for Wilson. Nobody even received a majority of the delegates until the 9th ballot when the New York delegation, with support of the powerful and corrupt Tammany Hall, shifted its support to Clark. This gave Clark the majority, but drew staunch opposition from William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democratic presidential candidate and leader of the liberals, who denounced Clark as the candidate of Wall Street. He threw his support behind Wilson, who gradually gained support and finally won on the 46th ballot.

In 1920, during the Republican convention, Ohio Senator Warren Harding trailed badly during the first eight ballots before the convention adjourned for the day. Half a dozen party leaders met that night in a "smoke-filled" room. They collectively decided to throw the nomination to Harding, who subsequently won the election in November, but later died in office.

The big turnaround came after the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. President Lyndon Johnson had recused himself after coming within seven points of losing the New Hampshire primary to Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and after Senator Robert Kennedy proclaimed his candidacy a week later. Subsequently, Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, entered the fray, but refused to run in primaries. He collected delegates in state caucuses where party leaders acted behind closed doors. Senator Kennedy was killed June 5, leaving McCarthy as the only remaining anti-Johnson, anti-war candidate at the convention. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and President Johnson's White House aides cleared the process for Humphrey, and helped him win the nomination on the first ballot. In the mean time, for the entire nation to follow on national television, more that 10,000 demonstrators and 23,000 police and national guardsmen battled in the streets surrounding the convention hall. The National Guard had been ordered to shoot to kill if necessary. Protesters were openly beaten. Tear gas even reached the convention delegates, and presenters inside accused police of using Gestapo tactics. Although public opinion tended to support Mayor Daley, the Democratic Party subsequently reformed its rules and required all states to select delegates in open primaries and public caucuses.

Thus far Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has accumulated about 47% of the awarded pledged delegates. If he continues on that pace, he would end up with a significant plurality, but about 100 delegates short of the 1,237 delegate majority needed to win the nomination outright in Cleveland. Unless Trump's supporters manage to shift a sufficient number of uncommitted delegates to their candidate to secure the nomination on the first ballot, the convention would technically become brokered. During subsequent ballots most delegates would no longer be required to vote based on their state's primary results, and things could get ugly - potentially worse than what we saw in Chicago in 1968.

There will be more than one thousand Trump delegates in the convention hall. Donald Trump has already warned that, if he were denied the nomination, millions of his supporters would feel disenfranchised and are likely to riot. In addition, Ohio is an open-carry state. Guns are allowed in public places. Besides, more than 53% of Cleveland's population is African-American, an ethnic group which recently demonstrated aggressive opposition to the Republican frontrunner and his supporters. Also, if Trump is denied, he could exit the convention and run as an independent. If he succeeds in becoming the nominee, establishment Republicans may start a third-party campaign. A myriad of variables that may interact and develop into unintended outcomes. So yes, the GOP is in a bind. Many mainstream Republicans are openly hoping to get beyond this election cycle without major damage to their party, and, I imagine, some are wondering whether Cleveland is really the best place for the Republican Party to hold its convention this year.