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. July 2, 2024 | |
|
After the far-right National Rally (RN) led the first round of France's legislative elections on Sunday, leaving President Emmanuel Macron's coalition in a distant third, the final three years of his term have been cast into new doubt.
Macron had dissolved France's National Assembly and called snap elections after a surprisingly strong RN result in European Parliament elections last month. At Le Monde, columnist Solenn de Royer writes: "The French president's brutal dissolution of the Assemblée Nationale on June 9 has resulted in the dissolution of his own majority … Beyond the severe electoral defeat inflicted on the presidential camp, further reinforced by the high turnout (66.7%), it's Macronism, in its essence, that self-dissolved on Sunday. Macron's original promise—that the French should 'no longer have any reason to vote for the extremes'—has in fact been swept aside, a dark stain on his record."
Ahead of the July 7 runoff round, New Statesman columnist Wolfgang Münchau notes that many of the runoff elections will feature three candidates, not two, leaving the RN in better position to win seats unless Macron's coalition can cut deals with the hard left to narrow the field. A legislative majority for the RN would see its 28-year-old leader, Jordan Bardella, become prime minister.
As for broader implications, Münchau writes that the first-round result "is also a defeat for [Macron's] brand of pro-Europeanism. … Macron's centrist radicalism during his first campaign [in 2017] was seen as an antidote to the two big events in Western politics of that period: the election of Donald Trump as US president and Brexit. Seven years later, Brexit is a reality; Trump is looking like he's on his way back. Macron is on his way out."
Note to readers: The Global Briefing will be on hiatus this week for the July 4 holiday. We'll return to your inboxes next Tuesday, July 7.
If you missed its premiere, this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on CNN you can see Fareed's new special report, "America's Mess With Mexico." In it, Fareed delves into conundrums over immigration, drugs and democracy in a country of huge but often overlooked importance to the US. |
|
|
The reaction from President Joe Biden's supporters has been damning. After his stumbling, at-times-incoherent performance in last week's presidential debate, The New York Times' Ezra Klein argues that the left's current predicament is a result of today's weakened political parties. The Democratic Party, Klein writes, would replace Biden on November's presidential ticket if it were "doing its job." The New Yorker editor David Remnick, joining prominent calls for Biden to step aside and allow a different Democrat to seek the White House, writes: "At this point, for the Bidens to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly."
And yet, The Economist writes that Biden is unlikely to step aside, and the party is incapable of convincing or forcing him to. "Right now, the Democratic Party is paralysed by the sunk costs of the president's re-election bid, the lack of a charismatic vice-president, and, above all, a fear that disagreement only benefits [former President Donald] Trump's chances," the magazine concludes. "It will probably work in cowing the president's own party. But it is a flawed strategy for convincing voters."
The New Yorker's Jay Caspian Kang, another Trump critic, makes a counterargument: "I don't think it's possible to clearly say one option [replacing Biden] is much better than the other [keeping Biden on the ticket], but I would argue, almost by default, that acting in a rash manner without a real contingency plan tends to lead to bad results, especially when you're dealing with inept actors [i.e., the Democratic Party]. I would feel differently if there were one obvious replacement for Biden or even two but the task of whittling down a field of contenders in four months feels like a principled protest rather than a measured and pragmatic strategy. By the slimmest of margins, I find myself opting for the known bad candidate over the chaos of the unknown. … The situation is certainly dire, but the irony here is that the Party's foolishness and Biden's arrogance, stubbornness, or blindness, means that we are stuck with him. There is no realistic Plan B." |
|
|
America Is Now a Kingdom? |
That's what Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion, after the court's conservative 6-3 majority ruled that former President Donald Trump enjoys "at least presumptive immunity" for any allegedly criminal acts he may have committed while acting in his official capacity as president. Trump has denied wrongdoing as Special Counsel Jack Smith has brought a case against the former president for his efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law," Sotomayor wrote of the precedent.
The case will have bearing on this November's election, in that it will delay Smith's prosecutions of Trump until after Election Day. The ruling does not exempt former presidents from prosecution for acts in their capacities as private citizens, The Economist notes: "Other matters in the indictment, the court said, such as allegations that Mr Trump pressed Mike Pence, his vice-president, to reject the electoral-college vote, are a grey area. Along with communications with 'state officials and certain private parties', as well as tweets and other messages to the public about the riot on January 6th, these acts are less clearly within the bounds of a president's official conduct. They should be presumed protected but 'present more difficult questions', Chief Justice Roberts wrote, that should be sorted out by the lower courts."
Arguing in favor of the ruling, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that a functioning presidency depends on this kind of immunity: "Without immunity and prompt pretrial determination thereof, former presidents could face years of court proceedings fighting novel charges predicated on public speeches; negotiations with state, foreign or congressional leaders; or executive orders lacking clear statutory authorization such as vaccine mandates, eviction moratoriums or actions opening the border. Clever prosecutors could conjure up indictments based on opaque criminal statutes such as conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction of justice, mail or wire fraud, racketeering, and false statements or misrepresentations." |
|
|
Despite the pessimism engendered by last week's presidential debate, on Sunday's GPS Fareed made the case for optimism in the Western world order. As autocracy advances, Fareed pointed out, polling shows that people around the world generally prefer liberal, Western values to their autocratic alternatives when given the choice. |
|
|
The Stakes in Iran's Presidential Runoff |
Iran's presidential election has advanced to a runoff after Sunday's vote narrowed the field of candidates to two. Iranian elections are not considered free or fair, but The New York Times' Vivian Yee explains the results and key takeaways: "The runoff on July 5 will offer voters a final choice between a reformist former health minister, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, and an ultraconservative former nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, neither of whom managed to get more than the 50 percent of votes needed to win the presidency. … That postpones for another week the question of who will steer Iran through challenges including a sickly economy, the gulf between rulers and ruled and a nearby war that keeps threatening to drag Iran further in. But despite belonging to two different camps, neither man is expected to bring major change to Iran, given that they must govern with the ultimate approval of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion argues the vote will, indeed, matter: "Iranian elections may be a sham, but they do affect policy. [Reformist presidents Mohammad] Khatami and [Hassan] Rouhani made different decisions—including how severely to impose hijab laws and whether to engage with the West—than did more conservative presidents, such as [Ebrahim] Raisi or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For Iranians deciding whether to turn out for round two of voting on July 5, the choice is between ensuring a marginal improvement in their situation and holding out for regime change, with all the potential for chaos and renewal that implies. If they stay away again, Jalili will almost certainly win." |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario