Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Sign up here. June 21, 2024 | |
|
Fareed: Democrats Should Learn From the UK |
Britain's governing Conservatives (also known as the Tories) are predicted to suffer a wipeout in snap elections on July 4. In his latest Washington Post column, Fareed writes that the UK campaign offers "another glimpse of where politics is headed in advanced democracies. Democrats facing a resurgent [former President Donald] Trump this fall should pay close attention." The Conservatives suffer from a perceived lack of competence and questions over what they stand for, Fareed writes. Labour, meanwhile, seems to have benefited from tacking to the center. Labour leader Keir Starmer lacks charisma but has handled party strategy deftly, running on economic growth and better government services while avoiding "any hint of a woke agenda," Fareed argues. Fareed concludes: "To me, the lesson from Britain is that for the left to win it must stake out the center ground, ensure especially that it cannot be outflanked on immigration, and steer clear of overly ideological, woke politics that alienate many average voters. It is not a strategy that wins plaudits from the base. But it is likely to win elections, which is more important." |
|
|
What Happened to the Tories? |
Predictions of a crushing Tory defeat abound—as do observations of both broad and narrow mistakes by the party and its leader. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the July 4 elections while being soaked by rain. He ducked out of a D-Day commemoration to do a TV interview, a decision for which he later apologized. The New Statesman's John Elledge decries Sunak's political ineptitude. At the center-right British magazine The Spectator, Political Editor Katy Balls writes that Sunak's moribund electoral mission will be to limit Tory losses. Elsewhere at The New Statesman, Andrew Marr writes that as the Tories nosedive, Nigel Farage's right-wing populist Reform UK party looms as a credible force that could influence election results. Britain's Conservatives are, debatably, the most successful political party in any advanced democracy in the modern era. Margaret Thatcher was a towering figure, and after the interlude of Labour PMs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Tories have held (or shared) power since 2010—a remarkable run. So, what happened? At The London Review of Books, Tom Crewe blames short-term thinking. According to Crewe, short-term thinking permeated Conservative milestones: post-2008 austerity, Brexit, an erratic response to Covid-19, the Liz Truss "mini budget" that momentarily tanked the pound, and the dizzying series of Conservative governments that unfolded between Theresa May's choppy Brexit-shepherding tenure and Sunak's arrival. To Crewe, the Tories' decline is largely about economics and the downsides of their small-government ethos. Crewe writes: "Nowhere has the Tory Party's short-termism been more evident than in its policy of austerity and its cocksure Bullingdon-boy belief that it could avoid doing injury to itself while presiding over a carnival of national self-harm. The events and personalities I have described up to now are almost irrelevant. It is the disastrous stewardship of the economy and the public realm that has shattered Britain's self-image as a prosperous, successful, well-functioning polity. … The Conservatives have made the country poorer. Employment levels have been very high throughout these years, but the jobs created under the Tories have mainly been low-paid and insecure (the use of zero-hours contracts took off after 2010 and is at yet another record high). Wages have been stagnant. Average pay, adjusted for inflation, is less than it was in 2007. According to the [London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies], the total growth in average pre-tax pay 'between 2009/10 and 2023/24 is equivalent to what we previously might have expected in about 17 months.'" |
| |
Global warming is back in the conversation, as parts of the US suffer under an early dose of summer extreme heat. CNN's Alicia Wallace writes that outdoor workers have it especially bad. Hearing from Eva Marroquin, who cleans worksites in Austin, Texas, Wallace writes: "The blazing temperatures and searing sunlight have damaged her eyes, causing cataracts. Even worse, she says, she's lost fellow workers who have died from heat-related injuries."
That calls attention to the US preference for air conditioning, the quickest remedy for summer misery and danger. At The Atlantic, Lora Kelley writes: "In the early 20th century, AC was generally reserved for public spaces [in the US]; around 1940, well under 1 percent of American homes had AC. … By 2001, about 77 percent of homes had AC. Now some 90 percent of American homes use air-conditioning, according to a 2020 federal-government survey. … The environmental cost of air-conditioning puts users in an impossible predicament. The United Nations warned last year that global energy used for cooling could double by 2050, and that it could make up 10 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions at that point. At least until more efficient cooling is widespread, AC will contribute to the rising heat that makes it essential."
Heat isn't the only climate problem on Americans' radars right now. Rising sea levels and more-intense pockets of rainfall have worsened routine flooding in Miami, Mario Alejandro Ariza writes for The Atlantic, observing that "Florida is entering a subtropical state of unreality." |
|
|
'The Mother of All US Presidential Debates' |
Next week's US presidential debate, to be hosted by CNN on Thursday, could be one of the most important in presidential-election history, writes Financial Times columnist Edward Luce. Elements of the format, like muting the candidate who's not talking and the lack of an in-person audience, may favor Biden, Luce writes. But slip-ups happen, and strong performances can tip races. "In 1980 Ronald Reagan's genial presence quelled doubts that he was a fanatic on trigger alert with the USSR," Luce writes. "Until that moment—a week before the election—Carter and Reagan's numbers were neck and neck. All Reagan needed to do was to come across as sane. He won by a landslide." In the end, the whole of the debate may weigh less on the November election than will the short video clips that emerge from it, Luce writes. Luce points to "TikTok, or Instagram Reels, on which many Americans will get their exposure. In March, Biden gave an energetic State of the Union speech. Millions only saw the 15-second clip where he mangled the name of a murder victim. The perception gap between Americans who watched the speech and those who saw tiny snippets was vast. Biden is certain to produce a few clippable Bidenisms next week. Are these the impressions on which the future of US democracy hinges? The dispiriting answer is maybe." At CNN Opinion, Julian Zelizer agrees, writing: "Like it or not, quips and gaffes have tended to be the most impactful elements of televised presidential debates since they started in 1960, when Sen. John F. Kennedy squared off against Vice President Richard Nixon. While appearances certainly matter, the candidate who delivers the most clever remark, or utters the worst line, stands to move the needle the most." |
| |
| You are receiving this newsletter because you signed up for Fareed's Global Briefing.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe or sign up to manage your CNN account | |
® © 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
1050 Techwood Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
