PROGNOSES OF ECONOMIC DISASTER ARE GROSSLY OVERRATED

Predictions of the imminent end of the world as we know it have been made for centuries. What they all have in common is that none of them have come true. Former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, has a lot in common with some contemporary clairvoyants like John Hagee, Mark Blitz, David Meade, Ronald Weinland and Jean Dixon, when he predicted devastating outcomes for the U.S. economy if he was not reelected president in 2024. Earlier this year, on January 6, during an interview with Lou Dobbs, Trump even expressed the hope that the economy would crash during this coming year so he would not have to be "Herbert Hoover," who, during his first year in office was confronted with the stock market bubble bust, which led to the Great Depression. A few months later, he warned that our economy would enter a depression akin to the world-wide Great Depression of 1929-1939. He admonished that if Harris wins the election, the result would be a Kamala economic crash, a 1929-style depression. And he predicted that "when I win the election, we will immediately begin a brand new Trump economic boom. It will be a boom." During the previous Trump administration, inflation remained relatively low at 2.1%. The economy, Gross Domestic Product, grew at an average of 2.67%. Biden's grew 3.4%. The deficit worsened by trillions, topping $3.1 trillion during the pandemic. Unemployment increased to 6.4%. The Trump economy lost 2.7 million jobs during his presidency. Biden added 15.4 Million jobs. Our trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008, increasing 36.3% from 2016. Our national debt increased by 39%, from $14.4 to $21.6 trillion, reaching $27.75 trillion by the end of his term. The number of citizens without health insurance increased by 4.6 million. And, during his second year, Bloomberg News concluded that the Trump economy ranked number 6 out of 7 presidents preceding him, based on 14 metric of economic activity and financial performance. Our current, admittedly post-pandemic, economic situation looks much stronger. GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.1%. Inflation is down to 2.89%, the lowest since 2021. Unemployment tops at 4.3%. In 2023 our trade deficit narrowed to the smallest in 3 years. And the stock market, in which 57% of Americans contribute to a 401(k) is at an all time high. Although not entirely impossible, it appears difficult to give credence to Mr. Trump's prophecies of a return to a devastating depression akin to the crash of 1929 if he fails to reclaim the presidency. His record fails to support his ability to manipulate economic progress. During the Great Depression, real GDP fell 29%, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%, consumer prices fell 25%, wholesale prices dropped 32%, 7,000 banks, nearly 1/3 of our banking system failed, and the Dow dropped below 200. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of the investment firm Westwood Capital, sees it this way: "Donald Trump's greatest worry right now is that the economy is actually in very good condition. He understands that his free ride now is dependent on [the voters] bad memory of inflation. As that fades over time, in November he could be up against a candidate who [assisted] in stewarding a very strong economy, and the memories of inflation will have long passed." Theo Wierdsma

COUNTING THE VOTES

Joseph Stalin famously remarked that in an election, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." While stakeholders in our democratic system insist that our votes count, in reality, given our electoral system, which consistently features two major political parties, in many states the result of a presidential election contest is fairly predictable. There are currently only seven states in which the outcome remains competitive: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. And it is precisely in those states that followers of former President Donald Trump have taken Stalin's remarks to heart. Individual voters in every state essentially vote for a slate of electors that are nominally committed to a specific candidate. To win the presidency a candidate needs to amass the majority of 538 electoral votes, distributed to states based on their size, from across the country - a total of 270. To maintain its continued viability, our system depends on the peaceful transition of power following each and every election. The 2020 election was peaceful until Mr. Trump's supporters invaded Congress, dozens of lawsuits challenging the outcome across the country were dismissed, and a scheme introducing alternate slates of electors was foiled. However, a significant slice of the GOP base continues to pursue the issue, and it appears to be prepared to preemptively react to potential defeat in this year's election. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to definitively affirm that he would accept the election results no matter who wins. He suggested he would, but only if "it's a fair and legal and "good" election." Many of us read into this to mean that he will accept the results if he wins. He continues to maintain that the only way he can lose this fall is if Democrats cheat. While continuing to rehash the 2020 election, the former president, on his social media platform "Truth Social," called for the Constitution to be terminated. He also proclaimed to a conservative Christian group that, if they vote for him, they won't have to vote again after four years, because "we'll have it fixed so good." Troubling words indeed. After four years of listening to Trump's regular drumbeat that he won the 2020 election, the GOP base is mobilizing at unprecedented levels to monitor the election under the pretext that the process is unfair and corrupt. Nearly three dozen officials who have refused to certify elections since 2020 remain in office, and will play a role in certifying the presidential vote in nearly every battleground state this fall. Since 2020, county level officials in key states have tried to block the certification of vote tallies in both primary and general elections - unsuccessful thus far. According to election and national security experts, former president Trump's efforts to undermine confidence in this year's election are reminiscent of the tactics he used during the 2020 campaign, and indicate how he could again seek to invalidate the results if he loses, setting the stage for another combustible fight over the presidency. According to Joshua Matz - an attorney on the board of CREW, (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), "the legal ground game that was brought to bear against the election in 2020 was junior varsity compared to what we are going to see this year. There is now a much better organized, much more sophisticated, far better funded and far more intentional effort to thwart the smooth and steady certification of election results required by law." We should be strapping in. Our system could be under assault again. Many officials who count the votes in battleground states are primed to dispute the outcome. Theo Wierdsma

WILL IMPLICIT GENDER BIAS AGAIN IMPACT ELECTION RESULTS?

On June 3 of this year Mexico elected Mexico City's Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo its first female president. By doing so it joined dozens of other countries that have been led by a female executive at some point in their history. Nevertheless, there still are a significant number of nations that have never had a woman at their helm. Gender bias continues to reign in multiple places. More than 100 countries, including the United States, have never been led by a woman. Sri Lanka became the first country in modern times to elect a female prime minister, backing Sirimavo Bandaranaike in the country's 1960 election. Throughout the 1960s, Indira Gandhi of India and Golda Meir of Israel rose to leadership positions in their respective countries. Dozens of others would follow throughout the succeeding decades. In 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be a major party's presidential nominee in the U.S.. In 2020, Kamala Harris became the first woman to become Vice President of our country. Both women cracked the "glass ceiling," but, thus far, neither managed to shatter it. With current President Joe Biden bowing out of the race for president this year, and after the ascension of Vice President Harris, who is slated to become the candidate of the Democratic Party and who is competing in a tight contest with former President Donald Trump, the question already being raised is: Are we ready this time to elect a female president, who, by the way, also happens to be a member of an ethnic minority? In 2015, in a survey conducted one month after Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy, 63% of respondents declared to be ready for gender change at the top. Sheryl Sandberg, former C.O.O. of Facebook, went on record a few years later, declaring that "some great progress" had been made during subsequent years. However, after President Biden dropped out of the race, a poll designed to assess the electorate's beliefs surrounding "gender bias," and Vice President Harris' chances in November, concluded that the sentiment expressed in 2015 had actually dropped by 9%. Respondents agreed that both Harris and Trump were equally qualified to do the job, but 30% said they were not ready to vote for a woman, and 41% assumed that more than half of their fellow countrymen would not be willing to vote for a woman over a man even if the two candidates were equally qualified. Respondents to a survey conducted by the PEW Research Center, in July of 2023, were asked to compare their opinion about the relative leadership qualities of men vs, women. While considering leadership characteristics, on the majority of evaluated traits - 53-60% of participants indicated that gender did not matter. Interestingly, while expressing their opinions about a fairly significant number of attributes, contributors expressed the opinion that, when considering some leadership characteristics, like: working out compromises, maintaining a respectful tone in politics, being honest and ethical, standing up for what he or she believed in and working well under pressure, women would actually do better than men. Even though the outcome generated by this polling sample appears rational, it does not translate into national acceptance. Our country has struggled to overcome gender bias in electoral politics. The condition generally stems from an unconscious or implicit bias. Some of us unconsciously assign certain attributes and stereotypes to candidates based on preconceived assumptions or prejudices about gender rather than facts, competence and performance. For many this reflects a psychological disorder which, over time, we seem to have culturally normalized and generally accepted. Although several nations unquestionably demean the role and status of women, throughout history multiple societies and cultures have been able to bypass, or perhaps never had, concerns about placing women in executive positions. Witness for instance: Catherine the Great of Russia (1729-1796), Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut (1507-1458 BC), or Queen Liliuokalani - the last monarch of Hawaii. More recently we experienced quality leadership from Angela Merkel in Germany, Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and now Mexico's newly elected President Claudia Sheinbaum, who is joining the ranks of active female leaders of state and prime ministers around the world - eight in Europe alone. We should be less concerned about our cognitive biases and preconceptions, and be more focused on substance and competence. We should at least allow history to take its course and permit our glass ceiling to be shattered if a candidate is deemed qualified. Theo Wierdsma

PROJECT 2025

Our political landscape continues to be in flux. We are currently still preoccupied with the aftermath of the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday, July 13. However, we tend to have a short attention span. Now that the Republican convention has run its course, banning other unfortunate interruptions, we are bound to refocus on prominent campaign issues. Our nation has survived multiple instances of assault on prominent politicians throughout our history. President Lincoln was assassinated; so was Garfield and McKinley. Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912; Franklin Roosevelt survived an assassination attempt; so did Harry Truman. John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. Governor and candidate George Wallace was assaulted in 1972. Gerald Ford faced two attempts within weeks in 1975. Ronald Reagan survived being shot in 1981. And the list goes on. Our proclivity for political violence seldom subsides. A recent Brookings Institution poll summarized that nearly one in four Americans currently believe that political violence is justified to "save" the U.S. Leaving this and the current history behind, we are about to refocus on strategic political campaign strategies, less violent, but still intense. While blueprints designed to entirely reconstruct our political environment may principally not appear violent, they could become so when a new administration attempts to install their components. A major such blueprint, and a controversial post election strategy is the "2025 Presidential Transition Project," a.k.a. "Project 2025." Project 2025 was designed to be a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch of our government. The project was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, specifically its president Kevin Roberts, assisted by 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54 member advisory board and more tan 100 conservative organizations. Even though former president Donald Trump denied any connection to the project, it is very much a Trump-driven operation. Many of its authors used to have significant roles in the previous Trump Administration. The project promotes a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals designed to reshape the U.S. federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican candidate win the 2024 election. Its aims are to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life; dismantling the administrative state; defending the nation's sovereignty and border; and securing God-given individual rights to live freely. The project proposes a presidential transition composed of "four pillars:" - A Policy guide for the next presidential administration - a "mandate for leadership." - A linked-in style data base of personnel which could serve in the next administration, composed of loyal conservatives from all walks of life. - Training for that pool of candidates - dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy." Training is made up of work shops, seminars, videos and mentorship. - And, finally, a playbook of actions to be taken during the first 180 days of the administration to "bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left's devastating policies." It is essentially a blueprint for what a second Trump administration could look like, dreamed up by his allies and former aides. "The centerpiece of the entire proposal is a 900-page plan that calls for extreme policies on nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, from mass deportations to politicizing the federal government in a way that would give a president Trump control over the Justice Department, to getting rid of entire federal agencies." (Washington Post, July 12, 2024). A few examples are: Move the Justice Department and all of its law enforcement arms directly under presidential control. Make reproductive care, especially abortion pills, next to impossible to get. Reconstruct the Border Patrol and Immigration Agency - complete Trump's wall. build detention camps and send the military out to deport millions of people already in the country - including DACA dreamers. Entirely eliminate the Education Department among others. In essence, it seeks to place the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control. It proposes that all Department of State employees in leadership roles should be dismissed by the end of January 2025, and be replaced by State Department leaders in "acting" roles, not requiring Senate confirmation.The project also aims to reclassify tens of thousands of federal civil service employees as political appointees in order to replace them with Trump loyalists. The list is exhaustive and runs the gamut from expanding our nuclear capacity ("the ultimate guarantor of freedom and prosperity") to ending same-sex marriage. Ultimately it proposes to make Christian Nationalism a core value of domestic policy and doing away with the separation of church and state. Democracy experts, political scholars and other commentators have described the project as dangerous and a precursor to authoritarianism. It serves us to remember that on April 7, 1933, the German government under Hitler issued the "Law for the restoration of the professional civil service," which removed Jews and anyone disloyal to the Nazi oligarchy from government jobs. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts was recently quoted as saying that: "We are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be." Perhaps these newly self-appointed revolutionaries should endeavor to lower the temperature. Theo Wierdsma

THE GLOBALIZATION OF INDIFFERENCE

Even while serving as an altar boy in The Netherlands for more than a decade, I seldom really listened carefully to Papal communications emanating from the Vatican. It was not until I recently became aware of Pope Francis' plea to resist the world's temptation to descend into a state of globalized indifference that I paid attention to what he had to say. During a speech on the Italian island of Lampedusa, off the coast of Tunisia, on July 8 of 2013, the pontiff claimed solidarity with the many African migrants who had sought refuge there and remembered those who lost their lives in the attempts. He lamented that we had fallen into a global state of indifference. "We are now accustomed to the suffering of others , but it does not concern us - it is none of our business." This speech was given 11 years ago. Since then international migration has grown exponentially. The estimated number of international migrants has steadily increased over the past five decades. Estimates are that by 2020 281 million migrants - about 3.6% of the global population - were on the move, seeking freedom from war and conflict, to escape hunger and poverty, to find new economic opportunities and employment, or to flee from religious intolerance or political repression. On September 2 of 2015 the world was exposed to and shocked by a photograph of the body of a 2 year old Syrian refugee who drowned in the Mediterranean Sea during his family's attempt to reach Europe from Turkey. We even know his name - Alan Kurdi. Readers were aghast. Many expressed concerns about the mortal dangers confronting refugees traveling in that part of the world. Since then almost 30,000 deaths have been recorded. And between 2014 and 2018 another 12,000 people who died were never found. In 2023 alone, 8,565 refugees died on migration routes. In the U.S., between 1998 and 2020, 8,050 people died crossing the U.S. - Mexican border. And no, we did not know their names. The sheer numbers are overwhelming. However, empathy for the well being of migrants has generally been converted to populist and nativist anxiety about polluting traditional cultures or taking jobs and other resources away from domestic populations. The conversation has changed compassion into the logistics of managing the onslaught and the political calculations behind any kind of response. President Biden only recently issued a set of policies catering to both ends of the political spectrum during this election year. On one hand he announced new protections for undocumented spouses of American citizens, which affected about 500,000 people. On the other hand he installed restrictions on the flow of asylum seekers at the border. His likely adversary in this year's election, former President Donald Trump, has used border control as centerpiece of his campaign, designed to cement his political base. His significant promise has been that, if elected, he will use the power of his presidency to deport as many as 20 million undocumented people from the United States. He also laid out plans to build "vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers" for immigrants, essentially internment camps. His mantra is that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Periodic mass migrations of people have taken place throughout history. We are aware of the Barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the great migration from England of the 1630s, and the estimated 14 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims that were displaced during the partition of India in 1947 at the beginning of the dissolution of the British Empire, just to mention a few. For as long as immigration has existed, it has generated anti-immigrant sentiment. However, this time around the vast numbers of migrants paired with the effects of climate change, the pandemic and influenced by the political calculations of a growing nativist electorate have turned compassion into indifference. In the words of Pope Francis: "[Migrants] seek to leave difficult situations in order to find a little serenity and peace. They seek a better place for themselves and their families. How many times do those who seek this do not find understanding, do not find welcome, do not find solidarity? Instead of a better place, sometimes they found death." "We have lost the sense of fraternal responsibility. We are accustomed to the suffering of others, but it does not concern us. It's none of our business. We have forgotten the experience of weeping. We seem to have lost our capacity for empathy." Theo Wierdsma

TRUMP CONVICTION GENERATES DIVERSE REACTIONS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Donald Trump, our 45th president, was convicted of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records to conceal a hush payment to an adult porn star in a New York State court a few days ago. His conviction generated a barrage of responses, not only at home, but across the globe. Predictably, domestic responses followed party lines. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the verdict a “shameful day in American history.” Ohio Senator J.D. Vance referred to it as a “disgrace to the judicial system.” The operative words have been “historic” and “unprecedented.” As a result, Republicans in Congress have been quick to enlist themselves to Mr. Trump’s campaign of vengeance and political retribution. Non Trump supporters like John Bolton and former Republican Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, who suggested we respect the verdict and the legal process, were instantly bullied by Trump’s enforcers and told to “leave the party.” Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger summarized that: “The GOP is about to have a front runner or a nominee, who can’t vote for himself, who would be immediately discharged from the military in less than honorable conditions, [and] who can’t own a firearm.” However, what happens in the U.S. is consequential for what happens to the rest of the planet. Trump’s felony convictions in the middle of a closely contested election has become front-page news in many countries across the lobe. Foreign observers have already begun wondering if Mr. Trump, already a volatile force, would become even less likely to stay within the guardrails of normal politics and diplomacy if he wins the presidency again in November. As president, Trump often angered, flummoxed, or frightened national leaders around the world with sudden policy changes or unexpected announcements. But his brand of nationalist politics has won supporters on the global stage - particularly in parts of Europe on the political right. Right-wing anti-immigrant, nationalist politicians were quick to come to his defense. Viktor Orban - Prime Minister of Hungary - called him a “man of honor.” Matteo Salvini - Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister - expressed “solidarity and full support.” Nigel Farrage - pro brexit Trump supporter in the U.K. - suggested on social media that “Trump will now win big.” Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov elaborated that it was now clear to the entire world that U.S. authorities were trying to eliminate political rivals “by all possible legal and illegal means.” Most European and Asian countries appeared to hold off expressing strong opinions. Many in Europe reacted cautiously, remaining anxious about a possible Trump victory in November and remembering his unpredictability and undermining of existing alliances. The news did dominate newspaper coverage across Europe. Many giving the conviction front-page, above the fold, treatment. Most focused on how the guilty verdict would galvanize Trump supporters rather than discussing the historic nature of the conviction itself. Dear Spiegel - (Germany) - headlined “guilty!” Repeated 34 times. Build - a German tabloid - - asked: “Victory for justice, or dark days for America?” The U.K. Daily Star proclaimed: “Orange Manbaby is guilty on all counts.” The Economist remained very sober with a headline: “Guilty as charged: the Disgrace of a Former American President.” Many of us consider the historically significant importance of this judicial event, not having had a U.S. president convicted in a court of law. However, depending on how we look at this, it is not entirely unusual. All of our Founding Fathers who signed off on the Declaration of Independence were essentially convicted felons, accused of high treason and sedition by the British crown and sentenced to death. Besides, Mr. Trump is not alone among political leaders who face legal trouble and who are convicted by the judicial systems in their own country: Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted of illegal campaign financing and given a one year sentence. Silvio Berlusconi, who served Italy multiple times as Prime Minister was convicted repeatedly for tax evasion and sex crimes in Italian courts. And Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, who presided from 2003 to 2011, was convicted of bribery and spent 580 days in prison. He was re-elected to the presidency in 2022. Friend or foe - American voters will announce their verdict in November. Theo Wierdsma

WHEN INSULTS HAD CLASS

We all need a respite from the intense national and international political, military and economic environment we have become familiar with. I recently came across a series of annotated insults from a time when adversaries were more sophisticated publishing their opinions about each other, rather than reverting to our currently adopted habit of simply calling each other out using four letter epithets. Taking a break from the multitude of potential topics, I decided to take advantage of research done by multiple historical chroniclers and copy a number of these. Please enjoy: - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr - "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Winston Churchill - "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow - "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner about Ernest Hemingway - "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" - Ernest Hemingway about William Faulkner) - "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it." - Moses Hadas - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain - "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain - "To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add the sheep was a tautology." - Mark Twain - " God created war so that Americans would learn geography." - Mark Twain - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." - Oscar Wilde - "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend, if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill - "Cannot possibly attend first night. Will attend second ...if there is one." -Winston Churchill, in response - "I feel so miserable without you; it is almost like having you here." -Stephen Bishop - "He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb - "He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." - Samuel Johnson - "He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker - "He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more." - P.G. Woodhouse - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West - "Some cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go." - Oscar Wilde - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder - "If you were my husband I'd give you poison in your coffee." - Lady Astor to Winston Churchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." - Churchill's response - "I may be drunk, miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." - Churchill to Lady Astor or Bessie Braddock. -"A modest little person with much to be modest about." Winston Churchill - "He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln - "There is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." - Jack E. Leonard - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed - "You are a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain." - The doctor, (Doctor Who) - "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that full you. He really is an idiot." - Groucho Marx_ - "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang - "I do desire we may be better strangers." - William Shakespeare - As You Like It - "Well, at least he has found his true love" - what a pity he can't marry himself." Frank Sinatra about Robert Redford - "She got her good looks from her father, he's a plastic surgeon." - Groucho Marx about Elizabeth Taylor - "That woman speaks eighteen languages, and can't say "No" in any of them." - Dorothy Parker - "Thank you for your very amusing review. After reading it ... I laughed all the way to the bank." Michael Douglas to a critic who gave him a bad review My bank won't really care. I do hope you enjoyed these and endeavor to couch your criticisms in more sophisticated terms. Theo Wierdsma

ON THE BRINK - AGAIN

On April 1, Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, ostensibly targeting a meeting between Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants. The strike killed a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, six Guard Corps soldiers, five Iran backed militants, one Hezbollah fighter, one Iranian advisor, and two civilians. What was unusual of this attack was not that it was executed within the volatile middle eastern war zone. What was unusual was that, while previous Israeli operations inside Iran had been covert, this one was openly admitted to by the Israeli government. Besides, while previous strikes within Iranian territory would have been communicated with U.S. counterparts prior to execution, this one remained secret until Israeli planes were already airborne. Moreover, while virtually all covert attacks in the past were well out of its territory, this attack was well within the country's diplomatic premises, which, according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961, was accepted as inviolable. This meant that an attack on an embassy or consulate is considered an attack on the country it represents. So, given the situation on the ground, it would not seem unreasonable to anticipate impending responses to an openly admitted fatal attack. Iran's massive response, firing 170 weaponized drones and 150 cruise and ballistic missiles, may not appear to have been proportionate. However, it also appeared calibrated, measured, and was communicated in advance. Given the 620 miles separating the two adversaries multiple more aggressive strategies could have been employed. Its response was not meant to do much harm to civilians or significant damage to infrastructure. A well prepared, collaborative effort at preventing potentially significant casualties and damage successfully kept things calm. The question remained, why did we go through this at all? As a cynic - not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, nor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s theocratic government, the answer is not militarily, it is political. Both adversaries are extremely familiar with their respective military strength. However, each one should also be aware of domestic political dynamics. Let’s face it, it does not take a genius to calculate prospective responses to an admitted fatal attack. So, what were they thinking? Mr. Netanyahu seemed to have calculated that the U.S., even if not informed in advance, would support Israel no matter what the response from Iran would be. Given that only 15% of Israelis want him to keep his job following the war with Hamas, its continuation was essential for the prime minister’s political survival. Simultaneously, more than 60% of the Iranian population has polled to be opposed to the current regime. With elections to be completed on May 2, domestic imperatives were dominant when deciding on effective retaliatory responses. In both cases domestic political considerations may have featured in considering aggressive actions. Mr. Netanyahu has a history of exploiting national security belligerence to stay in power. During the run-up to the 2019 elections the “Washington Institute” observed that “to win reelection, Bibi Netanyahu is waging “wars” at home and abroad, launching air strikes against multiple middle eastern countries” With greatly diminishing popular support, and in need of shifting some of the international focus from the carnage in Gaza, it is not surprising that he continues to flaunt national security prowess to shore up his political acumen. His critics describe him as either a master strategist in complete control, or a hysterical politician in the twilight of his reign, doing everything he is able to to maintain his grip on power. Similarly in Iran, having been aggressively, fatally and openly accosted, the Ayatollah regime could not sit back and absorb Israeli aggression without losing significant support at home. But, having demonstrated its resolve and capability, the Iranian government notified the world that it is not seeking a further escalation with Israel after its retaliatory attack. At this writing, Israel’s war cabinet is still considering its options. Allies urge restraint. President Biden made it clear that the U.S. will not offer support for any retaliatory action by Israel. The Israeli Defense Force vows to retaliate. Israel Katz, the country’s foreign minister is busily posting on social media leading a diplomatic attack. House Speaker Mike Johnson outlined a plan to pass aid for Israel through Congress, separating it from support for Ukraine and Taiwan. The rest of us will keep our fingers crossed in anticipation of politicians deciding which way to move forward. Theo Wierdsma

FROM VISIONARIES TO FUNCTIONARIES - LACKING INSPIRING LEADERSHIP, THE E.U. COMES UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE

War, migration, post pandemic recessions and farmers furious at climate change measures have turbo charged an accelerating populist advance in many of the 27 member European Union. What was once a committed supranational organization led by inspired and inspiring leadership is gradually losing political power under assault by nativist forces. Between June 6 and 9 its member states will select more than 700 representatives to the E.U. Parliament, an election which outcome could prove to be of vital importance to the efficacy of the union. As a supranational union, an international organization which is empowered to directly exercise some of the power and functions otherwise reserved to states, the European Union, in contrast to previous attempts at unification, has been remarkably successful. However, its successful transformation into an organization predominantly maintained by functionaries executing decisions and decrees emanating from compromises reached in the parliament and the European Council may also be its gradual political undoing. Prior to the post World War II period, virtually all attempts at unifying Europe were driven by hereditary authorities or military forces led by a political elite with pretentious visions. Examples include the Roman Empire essentially launched by Julius Caesar's adopted son Augustus in 27 BCE; the Holy Roman Empire, introduced by Charlemagne, king of the Franks, which lasted from 962 to 1806; and Napoleon's custom's union, essentially initiated to embargo the import of British goods. Following a series of annihilating European wars, a number of visionary leaders began seriously discussing the need to change Europe's landscape. During the 30 year war (1618 to 1648) 20% of the European population had perished. During the first World War an estimated 10 million European casualties were recorded. And the total number of military and civilian victims resulting from World War II was estimated at 20 million in Europe alone. From resistance fighters to lawyers and parliamentarians, the E.U. pioneers consisted of a diverse group of people who shared the same ideal: create a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe. The objective was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, in contrast with the destructive nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries that began in glorious patriotism and ended in war. Outstanding leaders of this group included: Alcide de Gasperi, prime minister of Italy who mediated between Germany and France; German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterrand; Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, French politician Jean Monnet and others. These were inspired professionals delivering an inspirational message. Although they did not necessarily conform to the traditional image of charismatic leaders, they were able to convince much of the electorate in prospective member countries that this was the way out of the doldrums of perpetual war. They were preaching to the choir while the devastation of war was still omnipresent. Their vision quickly took shape. The European Coal and Steel Community was initiated in 1951; the Treaty of Rome, which launched the European Economic Community was signed in 1957; the European Parliament came into being the following year, and further developments followed in rapid succession. Currently the bloc covers 27 nations, 450 million people and accounts for one-sixth of the global economy. It features deep political, economic and social integration, and includes a common market, joined border control, a common currency for most, a Supreme Court and regular popular elections. While its early successful growth spurt borders on being revolutionary, recent political developments in multiple member states threaten to diminish the bloc's continued political power. Countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Belgium and The Netherlands all elected right-wing populist or nativist leaning governments. The core issue for these is migration. This also happens to be a major challenge for the European Council, the Council of Ministers, which represents the individual members' governments and defines the E.U.'s overall political direction and priorities. The Council's attempt at forging an agreement on redistributing asylum seekers within the bloc is substantially opposed by these political movements which fear a further dilution of conventional traditions and cultures in their home countries. Since policy positions about sensitive issues require unanimity on the Council, its progress has effectively come to a halt. This issue illustrates the quandary the bloc's supranational decision making powers is facing. In 2014, 28% of representatives elected to its parliament were counted among those identified as Eurosceptic, opposed to increasing the powers of the E.U. and intent on reforming the union from within. This already considerable faction is predicted to grow significantly as a result of the upcoming elections. Consequently, the European Union's ability to construct foreign policy choices may well become diminished going forward, which, in turn, could affect its association with traditional political partners across the globe. The Union's charismatic underpinning has shifted from visionary idealists during the formative period to lackluster political support championed by charismatic native leaders who want to restructure the union or break it up from inside and ultimately reduce it back to simply become a common market again. Theo Wierdsma

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

After being incarcerated on death row for 35 years, and after surviving a multiple hours long botched lethal injection attempt 16 months earlier, on January 25 Kenneth Smith became the first person in the world to be executed with nitrogen gas. Alabama state officials described his execution as a model for other states looking for alternatives to lethal injection. Even though most witnesses to this morbid event, which took 22 minutes, described it as profoundly disturbing, several states began considering laws to adopt the use of nitrogen gas in their executions. A moral person might ask not how, but why? What really is the objective when we, as a society, decide to carry out a death sentence as punishment for crimes, even for those that cause irreparable harm like murder, sexual crimes and crimes against children? Typically, we recognize four purposes for punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and retribution. Deterrence is rooted in the idea that incentives modify behavior. If a crime is followed by a severe enough punishment, the offender will think before committing that crime. However, if people perceive that the odds of getting caught are low, they are less likely to be deterred. Incapacitation involves physically preventing an offender from committing a crime. Opportunities are limited in prison. They are expensive and temporary. Rehabilitation aims to change offenders into law abiding citizens through education, vocation training and other programming. However, some behaviors and individuals are more susceptible to rehabilitation than others. Retribution, really the only objective attributable to the death sentence, is effectively "an eye for an eye." It strives to impose a proportionate punishment validating victims and expressing societal condemnation of behavior beyond the pale. It is essentially "revenge." Thinking about the purpose for punishment can be a powerful mental tool to discuss whether something should be a crime and, if so, what type of punishment will effectively serve the interest of society. American culture assumes that crime deserves punishment. But if punishment is not tailored to serve a purpose it ends up being pointless suffering. Suffering for the offender and expensive for the tax payer. Over the centuries political elites have used the threat of punishment to control their adversaries. From the Roman and Greek time to the Middle Ages potential culprits faced the threat of stoning, burning, quartering, whipping, drowning and other violent acts. Subsequently, well into the 18th century, dominant elements used horrifying torture methods, like "brazen bull," "iron maiden" and "the rack" to force confessions, punish the accused and strike fear in the minds of potential offenders. Governments became gradually more civilized in their approach to punishing crime. For a long time the primary focus of state administered punishment became banishment or exile. Incarceration was not widely used to detain prisoners before trial or for imprisoning people without judicial process until relatively recently. In 1689 England even adopted a Bill of Rights which prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment." In December of 1791 the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution did the same. Today we are one of 55 countries in the world which still imposes the death penalty. We are joined by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the countries that execute the most people. Several other states, especially in Africa and Asia that apply a Sharia-based criminal code also continue the process - sometimes even for offenses like homosexuality. Most countries in our sphere of influence have rejected the practice. The European Union routinely reaffirms its "strong and unequivocal opposition to the use of the death penalty at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its member states will even consider extraditing criminals to the United States if they could face the death penalty in our system. Twenty-seven U.S. states still keep the ultimate punishment on their books. They tend to argue that it is legal punishment, which deters crime, and that, essentially, retribution is appropriate. Although opponents vehemently disagree, the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." (1976 - Gregg v. Georgia). It is difficult to argue, however, that the mere ability of the state to execute offenders for certain crimes is a deterrent. Typically, death row inmates spend a decade or more on death row prior to execution. (Kenneth Smith was incarcerated for 35 years before he was killed.) Nearly a quarter of inmates on death row in the U.S. die of natural causes while awaiting execution. And then there is the issue of convicting innocent people - in some cases to satisfy the need of a prosecutor to show results regardless of the facts. Since 1973 at least 197 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated. According to the Academy of Sciences, 4.1% of people currently on death row are likely innocent of committing the crimes they have been sentenced for. Again, revisiting our objectives when establishing the type of punishment we mete out for certain crimes should generate a wake-up call. Case in point is the situation in The Netherlands. For the past two decades crime rates in that country have fallen spectacularly thanks to its approach to law enforcement which prefers rehabilitation over incarceration. Dutch prisons are being converted into hotels and apartments because of the lack of prisoners. According to Rene van Swaaningen, professor of criminology at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam: "The Dutch have a deeply ingrained pragmatism when it comes to regulating law and order. Prisons are very expensive. Unlike the U.S. where people tend to focus on the moral arguments for imprisonment, The Netherlands is more focused on what works and what is effective." Theo Wierdsma

NAVALNY'S ASSASSINATION FOLLOWS WELL ESTABLISHED PATTERN

Seventeen years after he began his anti corruption, anti Putin campaign in Russia, Alexei Navalny was murdered on February 16 in the "Polar Wolf" penal colony in Kharp, about 1200 miles north east of Moscow. Those who revile the dictator ultimately responsible for this crass assassination used social media and political commentary to utter their venom about this, not entirely unexpected, turn of events. For those who revere the Russian dictator, silence has been deadly. A photograph depicting Navalny on a protest poster asked succinctly: "Who is next?" It is quite clear that Vladimir Putin is no longer concerned about keeping lethal pursuit of his critics and political opponents under wraps. This was already apparent when, in 2020, during a flight from Siberia to Moscow, Navalny collapsed after being poisoned with the nerve agent novichok. The entire world watched. Navalny's longevity in Russian detention centers may well have benefited from his strategic use of public media. Many others were not so fortunate. Putin's blatant, consistent and, to some extend traditional approach to silencing his critics profited from his career in the KGB (currently FSB). His rank of Lieutenant Colonel provided access to a cadre of professional assassins, and he made use of them. Some of his lethal targets included: Alexander Litvinenko - a former Russian spy who defected and became a prominent Putin critic. He was poisoned with Polonium 210 and killed in London. Boris Nemtsov was shot dead on a bridge near the Kremlin. Human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Barburova were assassinated. Pavel Antov, a Russian tycoon, fell from a hotel window in Rayagada, India. Yevgeny Prigozhin, mercenary leader of the Wagner group and failed coup leader, was killed in a plane crash. Mikhail Lesin and Dan Rapoport were both killed in Washington D.C.. And the list goes on. Putin prides himself on being the second longest serving leader of his country since Joseph Stalin. He has no qualms about using political assassination as a means of silencing his critics. His approach is considerably more subtle than that used by Stalin, who openly executed 750,000 during a two year period in the mid thirties and sent a million more to the Gulags. However, he is still effective. His political apologists in the U.S. seem to care less. After all, San Francisco is 6,000 miles away from Moscow. Political assassinations have been part of social reality since the emergence of communal social frameworks, as the leaders of tribes, villages and other types of communities constantly needed to defend their privileged status. The Egyptian pharaoh Teti during the 23rd century BCE, is thought to be the earliest known victim of assassination. During the Roman Empire, which lasted about 1,000 years, 37 known emperors - including Caligula, Claudius and Julius Caesar, were assassinated. During the Middle Ages several European monarchs and other leading figures were killed during religious wars or by religious opponents. We are obviously also not immune to this method of eliminating political adversaries. After the Civil War a wave of political violence swept the nation. Between 1865 and 1877, 34 political officials were attacked, 24 fatally. All in all, nine of our presidents have been targets of assassination attempts, along with one president-elect and three presidential candidates. Although the CIA has steadfastly denied that neither its personnel nor their directly controlled foreign agents, personally killed any foreign leader, it is undeniable that the agency featured prominently in deposing a string of political leaders outside of our borders. Some of the most notorious of the CIA's operations intended to eliminate foreign leaders included attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. During that ultimately failed operation operatives became very imaginative , using exploding cigars and a poison-lined scuba diving suit. Other attempted, but not executed plots, involved Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of the Congo, who was later assassinated by Belgian partisans, President Sukarno of Indonesia, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. After a Senate investigation, President Gerald Ford, in 1976, signed an Executive Order banning political assassinations. Subsequently, the CIA redefined their efforts by coining assassination as "murder for religious, ideological, political or emotional gain," prohibited under U.S. law. International assassination attempts were hence identified as "targeted killings - intentional killing by a government or its agents of a combatant who is not in custody, either out of self defense or because the target is a combatant in armed conflict." Our currently preferred method of execution is with the use of drones. Estimates are that we have killed hundreds, if not thousands of militants in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Libya. Exact numbers are difficult to come by. However, the method is not always precise and many non-combatants need to be counted among those killed by these modern weapons. So yes, Putin is an unprincipled killer. His termination of political opponents speak to our sense of civility. During a different century he might have gotten away with it without anyone noticing. Today, social media, even in Russia, will keep his feet to the fire. Somehow, however, we are more confident calling out individual situations. Navalny's murder is a focal event, much easier to concentrate on than the 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers that were killed and the 90,000 Russian soldiers he sent to their deaths, for which he is solely responsible. We tend to turn a blind eye to mass killings. Too many for us to consider, or have we become numb to these statistics? Sadly, there are those among us, elected or not, who apologize for this wannabe czar. By doing so, they are complicit. They should be held accountable. Theo Wierdsma

DEMOCRATS HAVE A MESSAGING PROBLEM

Special Counsel Robert Hur released a long anticipated report concluding his 15 - month investigation of President Biden's possession of classified documents when serving as vice president. While he opted against bringing criminal charges against the president, he did manage to ignite a political firestorm when he described the president as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Prior to being appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Hur served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland during most of the Trump administration. Unsurprisingly, the president's supporters attacked the characterization of President Biden as a political hack job. Vice President Kamala Harris slammed the report, calling it "politically motivated" and "gratuitous," more of a political assault than an unbiased legal document. During a hastily scheduled news conference following its publication, President Biden dismissed criticism of memory lapses and diminished mental acuity. Under the circumstances his need to respond may well have been the right approach. However, he did not do himself any favors by his less than forceful stage presence and by feeding concerns about cognitive decline when, during an interchange with assembled reporters he identified Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the president of Mexico. For Democrat operatives struggling to distinguish the substantive differences between their candidate and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, the message ought to be clear. A recent NBC - News poll indicates that 59% of voters expressed major concerns about the current president not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for another term. This compares to 34% of voters who had major concerns about former president Trump, who, by the way, is only three years the president's junior. Multiple backers of President Biden have pointedly suggested that Trump's gaffes significantly exceeded those accredited to Biden. Conservative attorney George Conway, during an interview with Anderson Cooper, claimed that he could easily produce a "five hour clip" or "weekend special" of "absurd, embarrassing and inaccurate statements" uttered by candidate Trump. He, for instance, confused Nikki Haley with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; he claimed that Biden could plunge the world into World War II; he confused Biden with President Barack Obama - stating that he was leading Obama at election polls; and he incorrectly identified Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban as prime minister of Turkey. The difference is not the content of the message, it is the messaging and the messenger. President Biden has a plethora of substantial accomplishments to flaunt. Donald Trump has nothing but bombast and empty rhetoric. Yet, his base supports whatever he produces. Years ago, during the run-up to the 2016 election battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I published a column discussing the power of charisma. My point of reference was sociologist Max Weber's work on charismatic authority. He identified three forms of charismatic leadership: traditional, charismatic and rational. Then, as well as today, traditional charismatic leadership, which focuses on patriarchy and hereditary leadership, like the monarchy, is irrelevant for our discussion. Charismatic authority, in Weber's analysis is based on the perceived, extraordinary characteristics of an individual fed by charm and personality. Perception being the operative concept. Leadership based on rational charisma is derived from significant hands-on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. This equates to competence. During that election Clinton clearly filled the "rational" category. She was the most competent candidate for the job. However, whatever other strategic decisions she has been accused of, her campaign suffered from what Time Magazine at the time coined "boredom." She came across as canned, unauthentic. programmed and robotic - a technocrat. Donald Trump, without a public record of policy and legislative competence, flaunted a more magnetic personality, enhanced by choreographed imagery and supported by, what has been called a grandiose narcissism, was able to have his followers "drink the Kool-Aid." As predicted, his charisma, even devoid of competence, won the election The message ought to be clear. While some dynamics have clearly changed during the past seven years, for the Democrats to have a chance at winning the upcoming election, referring subtly to the major accomplishments of the Biden administration won't do it. People not only need to know, they need to believe wholeheartedly. Biden supporters can't hide behind esoteric media reports that won't even stand the scrutiny of less inquisitive voters. Most of us want personality and ability. Historically, though, charismatic candidates survive lack of scrutiny and win elections. Charisma trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. We have many months to go to the next election. However, for some involved in this process, there is no time to waste. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO CONSIDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Fifty-six years ago, when I entered this country and when I first encountered U.S. politics, I remember thinking that our system of electing representatives to Congress did not seem very democratic. Granted, I was naive and I did not appreciate the intricacies of the "winner take all" system we used to select many of our political leaders. A few years later I struggled to explain this system to an international audience when I covered the 1972 electoral contest for a Dutch newspaper. This was the same year when Richard Nixon and George McGovern battled each other for the presidency. To an audience that grew up with "proportional representation," our system appeared archaic, unrepresentative and not terribly inclusive. Fast forward to the present, to partisan gridlock, popular exhaustion and even anger at the state of our political union. Polls are beginning to indicate that the majority of those participating appear ready for a change. A new national poll conducted by"Citizen Data" on behalf of "Project Democracy" finds that two-thirds of respondents wish that they had more political parties to choose from. Less than half feel closely represented by their congress person, and two-thirds don't feel represented by Congress at all. Our method of selecting representatives to Congress employs single member districts. Each state carves up its territory into the same number of districts as it is constitutionally allocated. After an election, in each district the candidate with the most votes wins and is elected to represent the entire district. This system has been the norm since 1842, and its use became law when the Uniform Congressional District Act was adopted in 1967. However, its implementation is not a constitutional requirement. While our Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives proportional to its population, it does not specify how those representatives should be elected. More than 100 countries use a form of proportional representation as their method of allocating delegates to their governmental institutions. This system aims to ensure that the number of seats won by each party is proportional to the number of votes it receives in an election. While there are different variations of this system, they all work by dividing the country into multi-member constituencies and apportioning seats to parties based on their share of the vote. In this system citizens vote for a party, which typically publishes a list of individuals that are elected in rank order based on the number of seats the party wins as a result of the outcome of the election. Both of these systems emerged from its own political history. Their relative selection at some point depended on the objective each country's political elite pursued. They each have their pros and cons. Our system of selecting representatives benefits from its simplicity. It usually gives a clear, quick election result, which traditionally allowed for stable government. Its disadvantage is that minority political viewpoints are shut out or have a reduced role. These outcomes result in a large number of "wasted" votes - one winner, but many, frequently frustrated and disgruntled losers. Proportional representation systems tend to produce greater participation by the electorate. Minor parties, or out of mainstream ideas, have a better chance of being represented. These systems are systemically more resistant to gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation. And, especially in developing democracies, inclusion of minorities in the legislature can be essential to establish social stability and to consolidate the democratic process. With the exception of electoral thresholds - the minimum percent of the vote any party needs to procure to gain representation, usually 3-5% - virtually all votes convert to seats in government. This results in far fewer wasted votes, and provides an outlet for minority viewpoints. A principle objection to P.R. systems is that they almost always result in coalition governments. This can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament. Very small parties can act as "king makers" holding larger parties ransom during coalition discussions. However, supporters see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties and cement agreements at the center of the political spectrum. This process tends to produce greater continuity and stability, fewer wasted votes and more democratic outcomes. Given that many of us have become frustrated by the inability of our current system to accomplish cooperative results, we ought to consider the advantages of a viable alternative. Theo Wierdsma

REFLECTION, ANTICIPATION AND TRANSITION

Traditionally, when one year transitions into the next, we are enticed to reflect on the past 12 months and attempt to project what might be in the offing going forward. We know what happened last year. However, since we live in a uniquely volatile period in history, predicting what we should anticipate during the next dozen months may prove to be challenging. It seems appropriate to begin by citing a few statistics which we are not excited about. Countrywide, last year, our homeless population surged to 653,000. This amounted to a 12% increase over previous years - the highest recorded increase in history. (Wall Street Journal). The number of gun related deaths exceeded 40,000 in 2023. All of these were carried out with weapons nobody envisioned when the Second Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. This was the tenth year in a row that the number of gun related deaths exceeded 39,000. Nobody expects this horrific statistic to change much this coming year. On the bright side, we escaped the recession many analysts predicted, even as the inflation rate dropped more than 50%, to 3.14% against 7.11% last year. In fact, during the final months of 2023 most economic indicators registered significant improvements. The stock market ended up at an all time high. The Consumer Confidence Report, a measure of how Americans feel about business conditions and the job market, rose to 110.7 - up from 101.0 in November - the largest one month jump since July. Overall, 71% of consumers polled said they felt positive about 2024, up from 64% a year earlier. Real GDP - a measure of the value added created through the production of goods and services - rose by 2.8%, better than expected. And consumer spending during the 2023 holiday season increased by 3.1%, the most significant change in years and in line with pre-pandemic spending levels. All this while, by historical standards, unemployment remained low. For most of us these latest statistics should be comforting, if not exciting. However, for those who view our socio-economic development within a political framework, this economic upturn may throw a monkey wrench into already well established electoral campaigns that are infused with a deep-rooted "negativity bias." Our highly charged political actors routinely tend to reject positive data which their perceived opposition is likely to flaunt. Resolution of significant geopolitical issues during the coming months will prove complicated and, while desirable, are not immediately expected. Tensions around the world can lead to trade disruptions, political instability and supply chain disruptions. All of these have the potential to erase some of the economic plusses of the past several months. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza continues unabated. The Gaza strip is devastated. Nearly 70% of the housing units have been destroyed or damaged. More than 22,000 Palestinians, more than half women and children, have been killed in the aftermath of the murderous rampage experienced by Israel on October 7, which killed around 1,200. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival, promises that the war could continue for several more years. Attacks by Iran backed, Yemen based, Houthi rebels on international shipping in the Red Sea further destabilizes the situation in the region, and threaten to expand the conflict beyond the current combatants. These have already affected supply chain issues. The war between Ukraine and Russia will soon enter its third year, while support for Ukraine appears to be dwindling among its Western supporters. No end in sight, while Putin is again running for president in Russia's mid-March election. Domestically we are confronting challenges on multiple fronts. Our Southern border continues to encounter what amounts to the greatest mass invasion of migrants since the Italian Diaspora in the late 19th and early 20th century. During 2023 alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents encountered nearly 2.3 million migrants. Most come from Central America, Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti, attempting to escape conflict, persecution, or large-scale human rights violations. Politicians point fingers, but they seem unable to agree on measures to stem the flow. Our political stalemate about these and other issues conveniently segues into the potential implications of the culmination of the current election year. A majority - 75% - of U.S. adults believe that democracy as we know it could be endangered. Although most disagree which one of our candidates poses the greatest risk. Almost 84% of Democrats foresee ominous consequences of the threat from a reemergence of a Donald Trump presidency, while 55% of Republicans believe democracy is already broken. More haunting is that 23% of those surveyed expressed the believe that "American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country." (33% of Republicans, 22% of Independents and 13% of Democrats). (Brooking Institute, Oct. 2023). Over half of the world's population, some 4 billion people in 64 countries and the European Union, will hold national elections. This is the biggest global election year in history. For many these will prove consequential. Far-right, functionally anti-democratic, parties are predicted to gain significant support. In at least eight European countries extreme right populists are already either the dominant or second most popular political party in their respective country. Anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim platforms makes you wonder if we are about to come full circle since the Fascist years of the mid-20th century. Democracy is on the ballot almost everywhere. Maria Ressa, an investigative journalist from the Philippines who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, was very blunt when she suggested that "We will know whether democracy lives or dies by the end of 2024." Happy New Year - may the force be with us. Theo Wierdsma