TIME TO REFLECT

The end of the year 2022 is finally in sight. Many of us will heave a sigh of relief. This year has been consequential and memorable in many ways. It is customary that during this time of the year, when numerous holidays converge, we reflect on what got us here. We traditionally review what transpired during the past twelve months that we consider worth remembering. Although our memories of historic events, statistics, legislative transitions and cultural shifts are admittedly selective, it is worthwhile to identify some of these. While the impact of an inflation surge deserves to be mentioned as dominant for struggling families, the consequences of sweeping price increases resulted substantially from some of the preeminent events playing out across the globe. The Covid-19 pandemic remained the undercurrent in people's lives for much of the year. January saw a global roll-out of vaccines, the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions and the reopening of international borders. By the end of that month 10 billion vaccinations had been administered. However, sadly, at that point more than 300 million people had already died from the disease world wide. Also in January, China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.A., all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, issued a rare statement that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought. A month later, on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin subtly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, and ordered Russia's nuclear deterrent forces to be on "special alert." His invasion prompted the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. By mid November, 15.7 million Ukrainians had been displaced. In addition, General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that both sides had suffered more than 100,000 fatalities each. In the mean time, NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join the organization. Their membership application is being processed, while it announced the deployment of an additional 40,000 troops to its eastern flank. Among the prominent people we lost this year were: Queen Elizabeth II, Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jiang Zemin, and a significant number of entertainers like: Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton John, Jean-Luc Godard, Angela Lansbury, Jerry Lee Lewis and Loretta Lynn. While in our country the political balance of power shifted slightly, a number of globally significant countries experienced a more significant ideological shift. Israel, Sweden and Italy elected far-right leaning political parties to run their government. In Brazil, right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro lost to left-wing populist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In the U.K. the principle players kept shifting every few weeks. Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister on July 6; Liz Truss was appointed on September 6; Fifty days later, Ms. Truss was replaced by Rishi Sunak. Thus far, he remains in place. Finally, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, was elected to an unusual third term. And, not to forget, Queen Elizabeth's son Charles was officially proclaimed King Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms on September 10. A smattering of other notable events include: - The first successful heart transplant from a pig to a human patient took place in Baltimore, Maryland on January 7. The patient died two months later, but his death was not considered caused by organ rejection. - The International Panel on Climate Change concluded that many impacts are on the verge of becoming irreversible. - On May 6, the first Monkey Pox virus was detected in London, England. By the end of July the virus exceeded 17,000 in 75 countries. - The Ukrainian Folk-Rap group named "Kalush Orchestra" won the Eurovision song contest with the song "Stefania." - An earthquake between Pakistan and Afghanistan killed at least 1,163. - A heatwave across Europe in mid-June killed at least 20,000. - More than 42,000 Americans died from gun violence. - The world population reached 8 billion. - U.S. life expectancy dropped to 76. Culturally and politically our country still suffered from the consequences of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at our Capitol. The Select Committee investigating the attack is due to produce its final report by the end of this month. Our mid-term elections included significant participation by followers of ideas which essentially opposed our democratic traditions and values. Fortunately for the country, the majority of voters declined to support this movement. Unfortunately, prominent supporters of these anti-American ideas in support of this insurrection can't seem to stop their verbal assaults. It is not comforting or promising when the leader of this movement, who declared his candidacy for the job he lost in 2020, suggests that our Constitution ought to be suspended. Neither does it bode well when a prominent supporter claims that if she had been in charge of the insurrection it would have succeeded, because everyone would have been armed. These are not insignificant ideologues. These are major players, claiming significant political support from their political base. So, the end may be near for this year. However, there remains significant residual carry-over for 2023. Happy New Year!

FIFA WORLD CUP BY THE NUMBERS

The 2022 FIFA World Cup, currently under way in Qatar, is on target to break all records. These include elements of its inception, preparation, execution and the ultimate place it will assume in the history of international sports events. Many wonder how a tiny Gulf state with little footballing history ended up hosting the biggest event the sport has to offer. Qatar is one of the world's smallest nations, with fewer than 3 million inhabitants. However, it also ranks as the world's 4th richest nation based on GDP per capita. Its selection stirred controversy from the very beginning. It was selected ahead of bids by the U.S., South Korea, Japan and Australia. Opponents exposed the lack of existing infrastructure and the region's intense heat in the summer when World Cup tournaments are traditionally held. Its bid was considered "high risk." Nevertheless, it triumphed with 14 votes against 8 for the U.S. in the final round of balloting. Given the country's immense wealth and the intense pressure it applied to be selected, "bribery" emerged as a prevalent charge. The country contracted David Beckham, a well known popular British player, who had represented England internationally 115 times, including at 3 FIFA World Cups, as ambassador to promote its culture, tourism and its hosting of this year's World Cup. For Beckham's efforts. Qatar is paying him $277 million over ten years. FIFA's president at the time, Sepp Blatter, initially welcomed the selection as showpiece of the event going to "new lands." Twelve years later he changed his mind, admitting during an interview with a Swiss newspaper that "Qatar is a mistake ... the choice was bad." "It is too small a country. Football and the World Cup are too big for this." In preparation for the World Cup, and to contradict charges of owning a deficient infrastructure for the event, Qatar's finance minister, Ali Shareef Al-Emadi, reported that his country had spent $500 million per week on roads, hotels, stadiums, and airport upgrades since its selection in late 2010. It built seven new soccer stadiums, an airport, hotels and shopping malls. All in all Qatar spent $229 billion to prepare for this event, making it the most expensive World Cup ever. By comparison, Brazil spent $19.7 billion in 2014, Russia $16 billion in 2018, South Africa $7.2 billion in 2010 and the U.S. $500 million in 1994. The return on this kind of massive investment will not come close to covering the expenditure. Expectations are that FIFA stands to gain $7 billion in revenue - generated from T.V. broadcasting rights, marketing, ticket sales and hospitality rights. Long term revenue for Qatar is estimated to be between $17 and $20 billion, anticipating future tourism, improvement of its global reputation and promising development of and investment in expansion of its natural gas export industry. The country currently ranks second in the world in this industry behind sanctions burdened Russia. Comparing costs and revenue numbers of this year's event with the World Cup organized by the U.S. in 1994 comes across as an apples and oranges correlation. That year's event was hosted in a number of cities. Los Angeles, which hosted the final that year, netted $623 million. New York, San Francisco and Boston combined reported a revenue of $1 billion 45 million. While the total cost of organizing the 1994 Cup reached $500 million, this year's prize money alone amounts to $440 million. Just to qualify, clubs received $1.5 million; the top two finishers in group play get $9 million each; winners of the round of 16 earn $16 million; Quarter finalists get $17 million; 4th place finishers $25 million; 3rd place gains $27 million; second place $30 million and the overall winner receives $42 million. Moreover, Fox has added another $425 million for the rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments. And Nike, among others, added another $60 million in sponsorship dollars. One of the downsides to all of this spending by host countries has been that almost all end up with massive debt caused by overspending on infrastructure and stadiums. Many are left with construction that serve little purpose after their World Cup comes to a close. A clear illustration of this is the $1 billion Brazil spent in 2014 on building the Mane Garrincha Stadium in Brasilia. It is now being used as a bus depot. In addition to financial liabilities, being the focus of much of the world has its drawbacks. Something Qatar to its detriment experienced. The country's use of 1.7 million migrant workers for 90% of its entire workforce, mostly underpaid, while 6500 reportedly died in the process, severely undermined its proclamation of success. So, why do this when the cost benefit analysis is unlikely to pencil out? Hosting the FIFA World Cup is viewed as an honor. Soccer is the world's most popular sport with over 5 billion fans. The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event on the global calendar - even ahead of the Olympics. More than 5 billion people are expected to watch this year's event in Qatar, with more than one million turning up to watch the games in person. By comparison, the Beijing Olympics "only" drew in 4.7 billion viewers. This result would not only be a record for the World Cup, it would propel the 2022 World Cup into being the most watched sporting event in history. If, as predicted, the event reaches 5 billion viewers, 65% of the world's population would be watching. Much to think about and compete against for the U.S., Canada and Mexico who are scheduled to host the FIFA World Cup in 2026. Theo Wierdsma

DUTCH TRADITION REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL

Several weeks ago I asked one of my brothers in the Netherlands to send me traditional literature depicting the Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) festivities that get under way around November 12 each year. While the U.S. prepares to celebrate Thanksgiving, one of our major holiday traditions, Dutch citizens, and especially their offspring, get ready to immerse themselves into what has been described as perhaps the most important Dutch annual celebration. As kids, growing up, we anticipated this perennial event with mixed emotions. A few weeks before the actual holiday, which is either December 5 or 6, depending on a convoluted mix of factors, Sinterklaas arrives from Spain on a steamboat filled with presents his team prepared the previous year. He visits with a white horse and an entourage of black-faced helpers, the "zwarte pieten" or black Petes. His helpers are traditionally portrayed by white people in full blackface, complete with oversized lips, dangling earrings and Afro wigs. Government officials and all media outlets welcome Sinterklaas officially. Press coverage is national, and the entire country generally plays into the folkloric narrative. After the saint's arrival, and leading up to the official holiday celebration, before going to bed at night, children place their shoes in front of the fireplace or under the chimney. They may insert carrots, hay or milk for Sinterklaas's horse to entice attention. At night Sinterklaas visits all the houses by traveling across the roofs on horseback. Black Pete will enter the houses by sliding down chimneys to place candy or little gifts into the shoes. When the actual holiday arrives major gift giving takes place. This may happen family style, or during large gatherings involving schools and other organizations. Sinterklaas will selectively review some kids' performance during the previous year. Naughty kids may be singled out for a symbolic beating, or end up in Pete's gunny sack to be transferred to Spain and converted into peppernuts. Hence the mixed emotions entering this folkloric festival. Parents tend to use this potential threat to control their kids' behavior during this time of the year. The story of Sinterklaas is based on the supposed history of the bishop of Myra, who lived in the 4th century A.D. There are many legends about the exceptional selfless acts of kindness he is said to have performed during his lifetime. The Catholic Church declared him a saint, and he is considered to be the patron-saint of children among many other designations, including merchants, archers, repentant thieves, brewers, pawnbrokers and others. At the end of the 19th century, the Sinterklaas character was given a servant, a young black man in the costume of a 16th century page. In 1850, the writer Jan Schenkman wrote a children's book: "Saint Nicholas and his servant." The servant had no name, but was inspired by the representations of the Moors in portrait art of the 17th and 18th century. This concept was adopted by other authors of children's books. The name "zwarte Piet" emerged first in a children's book of 1891. Sinterklaas is white, old, wise. Black Pete is a subservient helper, resembling concepts from Dutch colonial and slave running past. My brother responded to my request by letting me know that he had to search through antique book stores to get the documentation I wanted. He indicated that these days the term "zwarte Piet" was no longer acceptable and considered discriminatory. In fact, even though this folkloric celebration remains popular and continues going strong, the past decade the entire idea of black Pete as Santa's helper has morphed into a pitched culture war within Dutch society. Anti-racism activists denounce the racial stereotype, while others insist that the figure represents a harmless tradition, according to which Pete's skin is darkened by soot from sliding down chimneys with gifts. In 2013 the U.N. even decided to investigate the "zwarte Piet" controversy. That year the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination delivered a report to the Dutch government, essentially suggesting it abolish the tradition. In response, some Dutch politicians angrily retorted that they would rather the Netherlands pull out of the U.N. Although diminishing, the controversy has not significantly abated. Entire PHD dissertations have dissected multiple sides of the concept. Some libraries have actively removed relevant documentation, others refuse. Every year protests pro and con flare up in multiple locations. In some large cities, black Pete has appeared in multiple colors. In some case he shows up as "chimney-Pete," with dark smudges on his face - a compromise narrative that envisions Sinterklaas' helper as covered in soot because he came down the chimney. Opponents suggest that this is a lame movement from "racism" to "racism light." In general, people are tired of the perennially recurring discussion. However, most seem unwilling to give up on this cultural tradition. A 2021 "Statista research" study indicated that a little more that 80% of respondents do not believe that black Pete is a racist phenomenon. The same study also reveals that a growing percentage of Dutch consumers are beginning to adopt the commercial gift-giving side of Christmas as practiced in the U.S. However, very few, (only about 9%), are giving up on Sinterklaas altogether. Theo Wierdsma

COUNTING THE VOTES

Midterm elections have traditionally been ho-hum affairs, generally favoring the party out of power and featuring a significantly lower turnout than presidential elections. Nevertheless, this year's election could well be the most consequential in years, possibly defying political history. With minuscule Democratic majorities in both chambers, all 435 House seats and 35 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs, control of Congress is definitely in play. Perhaps more importantly, the 2022 midterms may also well be the first election ever in which the elections themselves are on the ballot. While President Biden is not up for reelection per se, the midterms will be a referendum on the first two years of his administration and the performance by his Democratic party. Basic issues like the economy and inflation, crime and gun policies, climate change, immigration, and the increasingly more prominent reproductive rights, AKA abortion, issue will encounter a vastly different approach in Congress depending on which party wins control. But, after all, Mr. Biden will still be president wielding veto power. Odds makers tend to agree that the Republican Party will most likely end up as the majority in control of the House of Representatives. It takes 218 seats to win control of the House. Right now Democrats hold 221 seats, Republicans have 213. They need a net gain of 5 seats to unseat Nancy Pelosi and others, and presumably install Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Anyone interested in keeping track of the votes in all 435 Congressional districts as they happen, will need an interactive computerized spreadsheet. Fortunately for us, multiple media outlets will help us take care of that. However, keeping track of the Senate races is more interesting and manageable. We currently have a 50-50 Senate. This includes 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents voting with the Democrats. Twenty-one seats currently held by Republicans and 14 held by Democrats are in play. Of these, most appear secure for their respective incumbents. Only a hand full are considered "toss-ups" in which either party has a legitimate chance of winning. Anyone interested in keeping track of the electoral outcome of this race ought to focus on Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and, possibly, Ohio. The Arizona contest is between Democratic incumbent, former astronaut, Mark Kelly, who is considered vulnerable against Trump backed venture capitalist Blake Masters. In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is thought to be the most likely sitting Senator to lose her seat to Republican challenger, former state attorney general, Adam Laxalt. Pennsylvania exhibits an interesting contest between Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is supported by the former president, and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, who recently recovered from a massive stroke. Current Republican Senator Pat Toomey decided not to run for reelection. Georgia has also been in the news lately. Republican candidate, former running back, Herschel Walker will attempt to unseat Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock. This contest appears to be key to the GOP strategy to retake the Senate. However, Mr. Walker, who is running on a family values, strict anti-abortion, platform, allegedly reimbursed a former girlfriend for the cost of an abortion - a charge he denies. This race is still too close to call. Finally, in Ohio, U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, will attempt to take the state's senate seat away from the Republican party, defended by their candidate J.D. Vance. Incumbent Rob Portman also decided not to run for reelection. The Republican party could win all of these toss-ups and claim control of the Senate. Democrats are defending three out of five, and would enhance their dominance over the Senate by claiming victory in the two states abandoned by their incumbents. While these contests will likely determine the balance of power in Congress for the next few years, the arguably most consequential electoral battle is being fought over control of the electoral process itself. In many places the choice is between Democratic and Republican supporters of our democratic traditions, and those still asserting that the 2020 election was stolen and that American elections are deeply flawed. The latter movement, emboldened by open encouragement from former president Donald Trump, is no longer an aberration on the fringes. In many constituencies the influence of these so-called election deniers is overwhelming and permeates all levels of government. On ballots across the country, the Brookings Institution identified 345 candidates who have expressed election denial beliefs. These are candidates, across a variety of races during this election, who perpetuate ex-president Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many election deniers are congressional incumbents who voted to reject certification of the presidential election results. This group of candidates will be on the ballot in virtually every state and make up more than half of all Republicans running for congressional and state offices. According to the Cook Political Report and a Washington Post analysis more than 170 election deniers are running in districts or states where Republicans are expected to win. If they succeed, especially at state levels, they could have the power to interfere with non-partisan election administration and put our free, fair and secure elections at risk. Governors, Attorneys General and Secretaries of State set the rules, run the elections, supervise the counting of ballots and control certification of results. In some extreme cases bills have already been introduced which, if passed, would give legislators the power to reject election outcomes and replace winning candidates with those more to their liking. Across the country, 13 of 27 secretary of state races, 10 of 30 attorney general contests and 19 of 36 campaigns for governor have openly declared election deniers on their respective ballots. Few are shy admitting that their main objective is to have more control over certification of elections and control the outcome of the upcoming 2024 presidential contest. More than 100 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was very blunt when he proclaimed that "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." A disturbing number of recent converts to this philosophy seems to be ready to agree. Arizona candidate for Governor Kari Lake is not alone when she insisted a week or so ago that she would only commit to accept the election results if she wins. If this becomes a trend, we are in trouble. To quote another politician, courageous, highly principled Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney makes it clear: "If you care about democracy, and you care about the survival of our republic ...we cannot give people power who have told us that they will not honor elections." Theo Wierdsma

WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN EUROPE?

The handwriting was on the wall: the headlines could not be ignored: "Italian voters appear ready to turn a page for Europe." (NY Times); "Election will test Italian's cautious optimism." (Gallup); "Right-wing alliance seen as likely winner as Italians vote." (Reuters). News media across the spectrum warned the world that Italy, the E.U.'s third largest economy, was about to elect a Fascist alliance to run its next government. As predicted, it happened. So, now what? People ask "why?" How could this happen? Is Europe about to return to a darker past? The outcome of this election, although uncomfortable for many, should not come as a total surprise. Continental Europe, a landmass significantly smaller than North America, has been home to at least 20 hard-right political parties. Many of these have roots in a Nazi or Fascist past, and most all proclaim Neo-Nazi or Neo-Fascist leanings. Virtually all proclaim frustration with their country's political establishment. They point out that Democracy is not terribly efficient. They resent globalization. They tend to hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic and racist views, and charge that liberal immigration policies are diluting their national identity. Most exhibit an inclination to be Eurosceptic, fundamentally opposed to the E.U. and European integration, even if their country benefits substantially economically from membership in the European Union. A growing number of hard-right nationalist parties have accumulated sufficient electoral support to enter governing coalitions in their host countries. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run the country for over a decade. It is staunchly anti-immigrant, openly intolerant of minorities and the liberal leanings of philanthropist countryman George Soros, and vocally critical of E.U. sanctions on Russia. Austria's far-right, anti-Muslim, "Freedom Party", founded in 1955 and rooted in National Socialism, is a dominant participant in the country's government. The right-wing opposition "AFD" (Alternative for Germany) political party is overwhelmingly supported in areas which prior to the country's reunification in 1990 were part of East Germany. As of the federal elections in 2017 it became Germany's third largest party. The "Sweden Democrats," once a fringe, anti-immigrant, party created out of a group of hard-line Neo-Nazis, recently received 20.5% of the vote and became the largest party in Sweden's new center-right majority in parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen, who presides over the "National Rally," a perennial candidate for president, received 41.5% of the popular vote in last April's run off election with Emmanuel Macron - a significant improvement over the 33.9% she received in 2017. And there are numerous others who have gained prominence: "Vox" in Spain, the "Danish People's Party," "Vlaams Belang" in Belgium, "Forum voor Democratie" and "Party for Freedom" in The Netherlands. And, outside of the European Union, the dominant "Swiss People's Party." Most of these are hard-right, nationalist, anti status quo, and ready to take the reigns of traditional democratic countries. That within this political environment another right-wing fringe party, the "Brothers of Italy" should manage to become a serious player is hardly surprising. Italy is the birthplace of Fascism. Following World War II, the country never repudiated Fascism and Mussolini in the way Germany renounced Nazism and Hitler. Rachelle Mussolini and Alessandra Mussolini - il Duce's granddaughter - are still prominent in Italian politics. However, labels don't necessarily reflect ideology. Georgia Meloni has said that she dislikes talking about Fascism. She is convinced that the Italian right "has banned Fascism over to history for decades" already. She expresses support for NATO, the E.U., Ukraine, and the sanctions on Russia. Although these are positions not necessarily shared by her coalition partners. Europe anxiously waits to see what will happen. Roberto D'Alimonte, professor of Political Science and an acknowledged expert on Italy's electoral system at the University of Florence, advises critics to remain calm. He rejects the believe that the country has moved to the right, and does not think that its citizenry considers Ms. Meloni a threat. According to him the country did not vote for Fascism. It was simply tired of an inefficient liberal government, and just wanted a change. His take is that the Italian establishment is more concerned with her party's lack of competence than with an authoritarian takeover. The fact remains that a century after Benito Mussolini's 1922 "March on Rome," which brought the Fascist dictator to power, Georgia Meloni will lead Italy's first far-right-led government since World War II and becomes Italy's first woman Prime Minister. Opinions aside, this remains a big political shift for a pivotal European country dealing with ongoing economic and political instability. Theo Wierdsma

ARE MONARCHIES STILL RELEVANT?

Queen Elizabeth II, the only queen most everyone in the English speaking world ever knew, died at the age of 96. Upwards of two million people expressed their anguish, sorrow and respect observing the carefully choreographed and flawlessly executed funeral arrangements throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For most, the Queen's impressive regal funeral ceremony was largely appreciated. For many it must have felt like the passing of a greatly admired and respected family member. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the ascension of Elizabeth's son, Prince Charles, to King Charles III, however, came across as the pageantry from a bygone era. For some spectators the spectacle must have raised questions about the kingdom's orthodox attempt at portraying Britain as the last remaining vestige of traditional royal rule. While the display of pageant splendor surrounding the British royal family may well be the most elaborate of its kind in the western world, the institution itself is not the last remaining monarchical relic in modern times. There are still 43 sovereign states in the world that are ruled by a monarch as head of state. Of these, Europe features seven kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and, of course, The United Kingdom. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Vatican City is described as a theocratic elective monarchy. Most of these are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not influence the politics of the state, either because of convention or because it is explicitly forbidden by their constitution. None of these exhibit the elaborate demonstration of traditional pageantry displayed in the U.K. All of them have adapted to contemporary realities. None are seriously threatened with extinction. Almost all regularly receive 80% plus support from their constituency. This last point ought to be considered as one of the challenges newly minted King Charles needs to be concerned about. While the timing may be inappropriate, "republicans," organized in a persistent movement seeking to replace the monarchy with an alternative form of governance ruled by an elected head of state, are already erecting anti-monarchy banners advocating to "Make Elizabeth the Last." Support for King Charles' ascension to the throne is benefiting from the emotions of the moment. However, his challenges are rapidly mounting. Domestically, the republican movement feels that their time has come. Graham Smith, CEO of the campaign group "Republic," clarified that "the Queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the institution is in serious jeopardy." Charles is significantly less popular than his mother was. The word is already spreading that Britain's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, albeit 27 years ago, confirmed that, in her opinion, the monarchy should be abolished. If not abolished, chances are that significant reductions could affect the size of the realm. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which seeks unification with the Republic of Ireland, captured the largest number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly this year. In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party, already announced plans for another referendum on Scottish independence next year. And then there is the issue of the Commonwealth. King Charles becomes the titular head of state of 14 countries, or realms, in the Commonwealth. Doubtlessly influenced by pressure from Queen Elizabeth, the 2018 Commonwealth Conference agreed that Charles would get the role after becoming king. However, his position is honorary, not hereditary. While his role as head of state is symbolic, and while few things are expected to change, some suspect that the royal succession could strengthen existing republican movements in Commonwealth countries as well. Last year, Barbados already removed the British monarch as head of state, and transitioned to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial, indirectly elected, president. Jamaica's prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced that his country intends to leave the monarchy by the time of its next election in 2025. Belize, Antigua and Barbuda have indicated similar intentions. Support for a break with the monarchy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is still relatively minor. However, the sentiment is growing. Amongst the elaborate symbolism and pervasive historic, but archaic pomp and ceremony reminiscent of 16th Century monarchism, many "subjects" are revisiting the question whether the institution has enduring relevance and utility. Steadfast royalists answer this question in the affirmative. They argue that: Monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state can not; In politically unstable countries, like e.g. Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from civil war; Monarchs prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government - they encourage slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings; and, perhaps just as important, they are repositories of tradition and continuity - which is comforting to many. King Charles' challenge will be how to refashion the monarchy and maintain public support for it as a ceremonial institution at the center of British public life, providing an anchor at a time when the pace of change is bewildering to many. His expressed commitment to slim it down might include bringing it into the modern world, akin to what most continental European monarchies have done, safeguarding their continued existence in the process. Theo Wierdsma

HISTORIC TRENDS FORECAST ELECTION OUTCOME

Democrats have recently grown more confident that their party may escape the predicted slaughter at the ballot box during the upcoming midterm elections this November. President Biden still receives negative approval ratings. Only 13 percent of Americans still believe that the country is on the right track. Seventy-four percent believe we are going in the wrong direction. Those voters blame Biden, even though most still favor him over Trump. Inflation, immigration, Afghanistan and supply chain are still major issues. And even though the president is not on the ballot and voters can't take their dissatisfaction out on him, they tend to take it out on members of his party, which hold incredibly thin majorities in Congress and have very few seats to lose. So, what prompted these somewhat improved confidence levels? One major issue dominating political campaigns this time around is the Supreme Court's decision to overturn "Roe v. Wade," which legalized abortion in 1973. The current court's decision conflicts with the opinion expressed by a significant majority of the population. Credible polls indicate that 61% of those interviewed believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, contrasted with 37% who believe the opposite. With at least 12 states subsequently banning abortion all together and states like Texas now passing legislation making abortion a felony punishable by life in prison, emotions are running high. In addition, recent significant legislative accomplishments, an increased attention on former president Donald Trump's manipulations during the transition, and heightened concerns about attacks on our democratic system of government, have given candidates even more to run on. The sequence of events have proven marginally beneficial for the Democratic party's prospects. According to several recent polls, President Biden's approval ratings surged from a low of 31% in July to a high of 44% in late August - his highest yet this year. The president is still "under water," but Democrats believe they see a trend. Nevertheless, Democrats would be advised to not be over confident. History tells us that during midterm elections the party in power generally does not do very well. Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House and an average of 4 seats in the Senate. Republicans only need to gain 5 House seats and 1 seat in the Senate to take over as majority party in Congress. To put the statistics in perspective, since 1934, the president's party has only twice managed to pick up seats during midterm elections. Bill Clinton added 5 additional seats in 1998, although Republicans maintained control of Congress. During George W. Bush's first midterm election in 2002 the Republican Party added 8 House seats and two Senate seats, only the third time since the Civil War that this happened. Some midterm losses, however, were very significant: In 1938 FDR lost 71 seats, even though Democrats retained the majority; Bill Clinton lost 52 seats in 1994 as a result of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign; Barack Obama ended up with 63 fewer seats in 2010; and Donald Trump received 40 fewer seats in 2018. Aside from contemporary politically salient issues, factors influencing midterm election outcomes include: redistricting, viable contestants, voter turnout, and, this time around, the "Trump factor." Every ten years, after the country completes a census, redistricting causes many legislative districts to change. Redistricting is an ugly process, which generally prompts multiple lawsuits. Some of these do reach the Supreme Court. However, the Court has declined to enter the political partisan fray, concentrating instead on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Nationally, Republicans currently tend to have the advantage. There are 28 states with Republican governors and only 22 governed by Democrats who control the process. It goes without saying that, in most cases, it is important who actually competes for eligible seats. As of now, 6 senators and 32 representatives are not running for reelection. Seventeen of these are running for other offices. The reputable Cook Political Report estimates that 32 House seats - 24 Democrats and 8 Republicans - fall in the "toss-up" category, meaning that these seats are most competitive, giving either party a chance of winning. In the Senate race, 14 Democrat controlled seats and 21 Republicans are up for election. Only four of these appear appear to be "toss-ups." Whoever turns out the vote usually wins. Voter turn out during midterm elections is generally 20% lower than participation in presidential elections. In general, Republicans tend to vote more consistently than Democrats. Nevertheless, major issues may determine who comes out to cast his or her ballot. While a number of weeks ago the focus might still have been on Covid, the economy, supply chain issues and others, Democrats are hoping that abortion, their recent legislative successes and the ever more conspicuous "Trump factor" may bring their supporters out in larger numbers this time around. While some of their support may have been fading, they expect that, instead of not coming to the polls at all, these subgroups decide to come out and make their voices heard after all. So, finally, the "Trump factor" cannot be ignored. While the former president has energized and enlisted substantial new numbers of voters to the GOP, his celebrity status has turned to notoriety after January 6, 2021. His insistence to continue as power broker in the party has developed negative consequences. Having Trump to run against helps Democrats even when he is not on the ballot. They can make the election about him. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged this during a recent speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. McConnell admitted that his party may not win back the Senate because of a "lack of candidate quality." He suggested that the former president was in essence on the ballot, but that some of his hand-picked Senate candidates were "looking gloomier" than some prognosticators might have predicted. And then there is Donald Trump's own counsel to his party, which he issued on October 13 of 2021: "If we don't solve the Presidential Election fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in '22 or '24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do." If enough Republicans listen to that, the party is in trouble, and Democrats may rejoice against all odds. Theo Wierdsma