PPI Proposes Countering China with Smart, Targeted Strategy-Not Tariffs & Trade Wars-to Secure American Competitiveness

The President’s blunt goal of reducing America’s trade deficit with China won’t address the threat of China’s high-tech mercantilism

WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report by Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade & Global Opportunity, proposing a smart, targeted long-term U.S. strategy to combat China’s state-directed technology mercantilism, instead of the unfocused protectionist approach being pursued by the Trump Administration.

“The Trump Administration is right to highlight the threat that China’s state-directed technology mercantilism poses to America’s economic future,” says Gerwin. “But the Administration’s strategy—based on duties that damage the American economy and ‘America First’ policies that alienate our allies—is flawed, and won’t change China’s bad behavior. Neither will doubling down on that ill-considered strategy through this week’s announcement of additional trade taxes on $200 billion in Chinese-origin goods.”

“Instead of tariffs and trade wars, the United States needs to pursue a tough, targeted, long-term strategy that enlists allies, enforces rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. We detail such a strategy in our new report.”

According to Gerwin, the linchpin of China’s future-oriented mercantilism is an extensive array of plans, policies, rules, and practices to enable the transfer and assimilation of foreign technology and intellectual property for China’s benefit. To achieve these goals, China is employing many unfair or illegal measures, including using foreign ownership restrictions and licensing approvals to compel American companies to transfer their technology, and directing and funding a highly coordinated effort by Chinese state-owned and private firms to acquire foreign tech firms. China’s conduct poses a threat to the United States, Gerwin notes, where IP-intensive industries alone support more than 45 million jobs and represent 39 percent of U.S. GDP.

But threatening duties on Chinese products is unlikely to upend China’s innovation mercantilism, Gerwin argues. Duties are likely to increase American consumer prices and reduce vital technology investments, while a tit-for-tat tariff war with China could cost an estimated 455,000 American jobs, most in less-skilled sectors. The Administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to trade is also alienating allies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere who should be natural allies in opposing China’s technology mercantilism. Finally, there’s significant concern that President Trump may undercut the long-term effort required to address Chinese mercantilism by, instead, focusing on short-term “wins.”

America should keep all options on the table in opposing China’s abusive innovation practices, including targeted and intensifying trade sanctions, writes Gerwin. But these tactics must be part of a smarter, focused, long-term U.S. strategy that includes:

  • Working more closely with—and not needlessly alienating—trade partners who also face threats from China’s unfair technology practices;
  • Using the WTO much more aggressively to launch a bold series of WTO challenges to China’s multiple rules violations;
  • Leading a global effort to establish new rules and norms to address China’s unfair innovation practices that aren’t covered by existing global trade rules, including new rules to limit digital protection-ism and unfair competition by SOEs; and
  • Designating a single, high-level official to lead focused negotiations to seek specific and verifiable commitments from China on ending China’s use of abusive practices that harm American competitors in innovative industry sectors

Gerwin calls on Congress to play a more active role in confronting China’s high-tech mercantilism by:

  • Establishing a clear set of negotiating objectives for China that underscore the primacy of eliminating China’s abusive innovation policies;
  • Providing additional resources to support ramped-up investigation, consultation, and enforcement related to China’s unfair trade and technology practices;
  • Amending current law to broaden Executive Branch authority to use national security reviews, export controls, and other tools to address security and industrial base threats posed by China’s acquisitions and technology demands; and
  • Establishing an escalating series of sanctions that would kick in if China fails to make verifiable progress in eliminating abusive innovation practices, potentially including reciprocal restrictions on Chinese technology licensing, the withdrawal of U.S. scientific and technical cooperation, and/or targeted sanctions on Chinese products based on stolen or unfairly obtained American know-how.

###

 

read more here:PPI_China_2018

Confronting China’s Threat to Open Trade

A Smarter Strategy for Securing America’s Innovation Edge

In early April, reportedly after “zero substantive internal debate,” President Trump ordered the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider imposing additional tariffs on $100 billion in Chinese products. Trump’s order claimed that new tariffs were needed to retaliate against China’s threatened retaliation for tariffs that Trump had announced earlier.

Trump’s impulsive escalation was denounced by farmers, retailers, tech organizations, and others, and by bipartisan political leaders. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) put things bluntly: “This is nuts. China is guilty of many things, but the President has no actual plan to win right now.”

Perceptions versus Reality: Regulating Digital Platforms

Digital platforms, also known as “online intermediation services,” are increasingly important for European businesses, bringing wide-ranging benefits to both individual consumers and to the participating companies. More and more new platforms are arising – in areas such as manufacturing and healthcare. Not surprisingly, as digital platforms have become more numerous and significant, they have come under the scrutiny of regulators. In particular, the European Commission has been examining the perception that European business users are being treated unfairly by digital platforms. The result was a recently
proposed new regulation “promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services.”

In this paper, we first analyze the economic and commercial constraints facing digital platforms. In particular, we focus on two economic imperatives: First, platforms have a strong incentive to maintain user trust. Second, platforms have a strong incentive to keep transaction-related costs under control.

Populism Watch: Combatting Protectionist Policies with a Positive Plan for Economic Progress

At the G7 Summit last week, Donald Trump’s fixation on tariffs, as well as his withdrawal of support for a Group of Seven communique, made waves. The President’s protectionist agenda could do serious and lasting damage to the U.S. economy, American workers, and the international relationships we’ve spent decades building. In response, pragmatic progressives should champion a genuine alternative economic platform focused on growth, expanded opportunity, and strengthening U.S. strategic alliances.

A 2016 report by the Progressive Policy Institute offers an approach to boosting the U.S. economy and middle class prosperity without threatening relations with key allies. The report, Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism, edited by PPI President Will Marshall, puts forth an optimistic plan to strengthen America’s economic and fiscal security–while improving vital trade and security ties with America’s G7 partners. The report speaks specifically against the kinds of protectionist policies Trump has instigated, instead encouraging the democratization of trade, the free flow of data across global borders, and the support for innovative trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The report begins with a review of the specific economic challenges faced by the United States, including slow growth since 2000, stagnating wages and living standards, and a shrinkage of the middle class. These problems cannot be fixed by trade wars and isolationism, but rather, as the report explains, require a series of positive changes in American economic and regulatory policies.

The report proposes spreading innovation across the economy through the adoption of a new ‘Innovation Platform’ aimed at stimulating public and private investment in new ideas and enterprises. It also urges improving the regulatory climate impeding greater innovation in non-digitized industries and investment in small and new businesses. The report also proposes creating business incentives to offer more flexible work, including paid leave and overtime, for gig-economy workers. The plan also includes ways to increase renewable energy creation, modernize public works, improve K-12 education, and narrow the wealth inequality gap with universal pensions.

PPI’s blueprint underlines the issues that can arise from embracing populist policies, such as mistrust in democratic institutions and threats to economic and national security. The report is a reminder that smarter, optimistic policy alternatives to populism and nationalism can benefit all Americans, as well as our allies in the G7.

Three Threats to Liberal Democracy

President Trump petulantly attacked U.S. allies at the G-7 summit in Quebec, then dashed off to Singapore to heap praise on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. You couldn’t ask for a more vivid illustration of the illiberal spirit that shapes his “America First” doctrine.

But Trump is hardly alone in embracing hyper-nationalism. According to PPI President Will Marshall, illiberal nationalism is the common thread running through the three most potent threats to the democratic world: the rise of national populism, especially in Europe; Russia’s reversion to despotism at home and adventurism abroad; and, the emergence of China’s autocratic capitalism as a plausible alternative to market democracy.

Marshall elaborated on the dangers of neo-nationalism in comments prepared for the Biennial Colloquy on the State of Democracy, organized in Rome this spring by the Centro Studi Americani. That commentary follows:

PPI Statement on Trump Administration’s New China Tariffs & China’s Announced Retaliation

Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to the Trump Administration’s announcement of new tariffs on Chinese-origin imports and China’s announced retaliation:

“China’s technology mercantilism is a serious threat to America’s economic future that requires a tough and effective American response, but the Trump Administration’s announcement today of $50 billion in duties on Chinese-origin products is not even close to that response.

“Making American businesses and working families pay billions in new trade taxes won’t change China’s bad behavior. Instead, China will respond—as it has already announced—with billions in targeted retaliatory tariffs that will make it much harder for American manufacturers and farmers to export there. It cannot be overstated—these tit-for-tat tariffs will destroy jobs and devastate communities throughout the United States.

“Responding to China’s unfair trade practices and technology theft with “America First” protectionism is a terrible mistake. The Administration’s deeply flawed and poorly focused strategy—based on duties that damage America’s economy and “go-it-alone” trade policies that alienate vital allies—will have large-scale and long-term repercussions.

“Instead of instigating trade wars, the United States should confront China’s unfair trade practices with a targeted, long-term response that enlists our international allies, enforces current trade rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations on key issues, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. PPI will outline such a strategy in a new report to be released next week.

“Open global markets are manifestly in America’s interest. Given a level playing field, America’s innovative businesses can compete and win anywhere. In trade wars, nearly everyone loses.”

###

Populism Watch: 4 Things To Watch as the New Italian Government Moves Forward

In Italy, the first populist government in Western Europe was sworn in on June 1st. The win was secured by a coalition between the right-wing League and the eurosceptic 5Star Movement. Below, four things to follow in the coming months:

  1. How long can the coalition hold?

Amid divisions (the League is a right-wing party with a northern background, 5Star is an ideological mixed bag with southern roots) the two parties succeeded in holding together through the election. Their divides, such as differences of opinion on combating economic decline (the League has proposed precipitous tax cuts, while Five Star has supported funds for the unemployed) did not break the coalition. Yet support for the League has grown from 17 to 25 percent since March, while support for 5Star has plateaued at 32 percent. Of additional concern is Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Conte is a former academic, whose only government experience has been a stint on the government administrative justice council. What this means for the future of the coalition is yet to be seen. Italy has had over 60 governments since becoming a republic in 1946.

  1. The Impact of the Coalition on Stocks, the Euro, and Italian Public Debt

The coalition has put forth a 58-page agreement outlining its agenda. The plan could cost as much as €125 billion, a far greater sum than the €500 million the coalition has budgeted for it, according to a report by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. The plan includes a guaranteed income of €780 a month and a near-flat tax policy. Of additional concern is the coalition’s unpredictable impact on stocks, shaky support of the euro, and willingness to reduce public debt. The advancement, stagnation or decline of the Italian economy under the new government may impact future support for the coalition.

  1. Impact on New Arrivals

The future for migrants, immigrants, and asylum seekers within Italy is uncertain. Interior Minister Salvini has taken a harsh stance, saying “the good times for illegals are over – get ready to pack your bags.” Salvini has pledged to deport up to 500,000 immigrants without papers. Tensions between Italy’s native population and immigrants, particularly migrants, has risen steadily. The fatal shooting of Malian-born legal resident Soumaila Sacko, a trade unionist who protested working conditions for migrants, has done nothing to ease tensions.

  1. Impact on International Relations

Conte has explored lifting the sanctions placed on Russia following the crisis in Ukraine. NATO opposes the idea. In a speech to parliament on June 5th, Conte has pledged to both “reaffirm our convinced membership of NATO” and “support opening up to Russia” including reviewing the sanctions that “risk humiliating Russian civil society.” In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “I think the economic sanctions are important because they send a clear message that what Russia has done in Ukraine has to have consequences.”

These economic, immigration, and foreign affairs concerns will impact both the longevity of the coalition, and the future of Italy, the EU, and international relations as a whole.

Populism Watch: Europe, Populism and the Model of Macron

Change is afoot in Europe. On the same day last week, Spain ousted the populist Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in favor of the socialist Pedro Sánchez, while Italy welcomed the first populist government in Western Europe. In the coming months, PPI will track the tides of populism across Europe in real-time and provide updates on this blog.

One key country resisting populist forces is France. In electing Emmanuel Macron president, French voters rebuffed both the far-right populist Marine le Pen and the ultra-left demagogue Jean-Luc Melenchon. The key, argues Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall, lay in Macron’s ability to tap into the voters’ mood for radical change without embracing the populists’ reactionary demands. Instead, Macron derived his agenda from the pragmatic elements of both the Socialists and the center-right Republicans. Second, Macron’s economic agenda focused on reducing stagnation by simultaneously shielding individuals against market fluctuations while liberalizing France’s economy. Third, Macron forged consensus among progressives and traditionalists by fusing a hopeful and forward-thinking narrative with classic ideas rooted in the spirit of the European Enlightenment.

Following in Macron’s footsteps, the task ahead for progressives is to channel the insurgent mood in both America and Europe in more constructive directions. That means speaking to voters’ common hopes and aspirations, not the animosities that divide them.

Marshall for New York Daily News, “Trump’s petulant Iran deal pullout: He has no clue what comes next”

President Trump seems determined to keep his dumbest 2016 campaign promises. First, he pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is designed to create a strong economic counterweight to China.

Then, he pulled us out of the Paris climate accord, essentially signaling that the United States will not cooperate with the rest of the world to combat global warming. Now, he’s made good on his threat to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal — like the other two deals, painstakingly negotiated by President Obama.

Trump’s actions constitute not only a repudiation of America’s international leadership role, but of international cooperation itself. Instead, United States seems to be adopting a strategically clueless policy of belligerent unilateralism.

Continue reading at the New York Daily News.

The App Economy in Vietnam, 2017

When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, that initiated a profound and transformative new economic innovation. While central bankers and national leaders struggled with a deep financial crisis and stagnation, the fervent demand for iPhones, and the wave of smartphones that followed, was a rare force for growth.

Today, there are 5 billion mobile broadband subscriptions, an unprecedented rate of adoption for a new technology. Use of mobile data is rising at 65 percent per year, a stunning number that shows its revolutionary impact.

More than just hardware, the smartphone also inaugurated a new era for software developers around the world. Apple’s opening up of the App Store in 2008, followed by Android Market (now Google Play) and other app stores, created a way for iOS and Android developers to write mobile applications that could run on smartphones anywhere.

Happy Holidays from PPI

It’s been a surreal political year, but PPI has much to celebrate this holiday season. Throughout 2017, we expanded our productive capacity and the scope of our political and media outreach significantly. For example, PPI organized 150 meetings with prominent elected officials; visited 10 state capitals and 10 foreign capitals, published an influential book and more than 40 original research papers, and hosted nearly 30 private salon dinners on a variety of topical issues.
Best of all, we saw PPI’s research, analysis, and innovative ideas breaking through the political static and changing the way people think about some critical issues, including how to revive U.S. economic dynamism, spread innovation and jobs to people and places left behind by economic growth, and modernize the ways we prepare young people for work and citizenship.
Let me give you some highlights:
  • This fall, David Osborne’s new book, Reinventing America’s Schools, was published on the 25th anniversary of the nation’s first charter school in Minnesota. David, who heads PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools project, documents the emergence of a new “21st Century” model for organizing and modernizing our public school system around the principles of school autonomy, accountability, choice, and diversity. David is just winding up a remarkable 20-city book tour that drew wide attention from education, political, and civic leaders, as well as the media. Because David is a great storyteller, as well as analyst, it’s a highly readable book that offers a cogent picture of a K-12 school system geared to the demands of the knowledge economy. It makes a great holiday gift!
  • Dr. Michael Mandel’s pioneering research on e-commerce and job creation also upended conventional wisdom and caught the attention of top economic commentators. Dr. Mandel, PPI’s chief economic strategist, found that online commerce has actually created more jobs in retail than it destroys, and that these new jobs (many in fulfillment centers in outlying areas) pay considerably better than traditional ones. His research buttresses the main premise of PPI’s progressive pro-growth agenda: that spreading digital innovation to the physical economy will create new jobs and businesses, raise labor productivity, and reduce inequality.
  • PPI challenged the dubious panacea of “free college” and proposed a progressive alternative – a robust system of post-secondary learning and credentials for the roughly 70 percent of young Americans who don’t get college degrees. PPI Senior Fellow Harry Holzer developed a creative menu of ways to create more “hybrid learning” opportunities combining work-based and classroom instruction. And PPI Senior Fellow Anne Kim highlighted the inequity of current government policies that subsidize college-bound youth (e.g., Pell Grants), but provide no help for people earning credentials certifying skills that employers value.
  • Building on last year’s opening of a PPI office in Brussels, we expanded our overseas work considerably in 2017. In January, I endeavored to explain the outcome of the U.S. election to shell-shocked audiences in London, Brussels, and Berlin. In April, we led our annual Congressional senior staff delegation to Paris, Brussels, and Berlin to engage European policymakers on the French presidential election and other U.S-E.U. issues, including international taxation, competition policy, and trade. PPI also took its message of data-driven innovation and growth to Australia, Brazil, Japan and a number of other countries.
Other 2017 highlights included a strategy retreat in February with two dozen top elected leaders to explore ideas for a new, radically pragmatic agenda for progressives; a Washington conference with our longtime friend Janet Napolitano (now President of the University of California system) on how to update and preserve NAFTA; public forums in Washington on pricing carbon, infrastructure, tax reform, and other pressing issues; creative policy reports on varied subjects; and a robust output of articles, op-eds, blogs, and social media activity.
I’m also happy to report many terrific additions to PPI in 2017. Rob Keast joined to manage our external relations and new policy development; Paul Bledsoe assumed a new role as Strategic Adviser as well as guiding our work on energy and climate policy; and Emily Langhorne joined as Education Policy Analyst. We will also be adding a fiscal project next year.
All this leaves us poised for a high-impact year in 2018. In this midterm-election year, our top priority will be crafting and building support for a new progressive platform — a radically pragmatic alternative to the political tribalism throttling America’s progress. That starts with new and better ideas for solving peoples’ problems that look forward, not backward, and that speak to their hopes and aspirations, not their anger and mistrust.
It’s a tall order, and we cannot succeed without your help and support. Thanks for all you have done over past years, and we look forward to working with you in 2018.
Happy holidays and New Year!

Drafting Software Policy at DoD

We have been focusing in recent months on the expansion of the IT revolution from the digital industries, such as entertainment and communication, to the physical industries such as manufacturing, construction, and transportation.

But in some sense, the ultimate physical industry is the Department of Defense, and that’s why we found the latest National Defense Authorization Act, now moving through Congress, to be so interesting, and well, puzzling.

First, the bill *appears* to require companies to turn over the software source code for any products purchased by the Department of Defense. Second, the bill as written takes a strong position in the long-running debate between open source and proprietary software.

 § 2320a. Use of open source software

“(a) Software Development.—All unclassified custom-developed computer software and related technical data that is not a defense article regulated pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and that is developed under a contract or other transaction awarded by the Department of Defense on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section shall be managed as open source software unless specifically waived by the service acquisition executive.

“(b) Release Of Software In Public Repository.—The Secretary of Defense shall require the contractor to release source code and related technical data described under subsection (a) in a public repository approved by the Department of Defense, subject to a license through which the copyright holder provides the rights to use, study, reuse, modify, enhance, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.

“(c) Applicability To Existing Software.—The Secretary of Defense shall, where appropriate—

“(1) apply open source licenses to existing custom-developed computer software; and

“(2) release related source code and technical data in a public repository location approved by the Department of Defense.

By itself the requirement that all existing and future custom-developed software be treated as open source is odd, because most everyone acknowledges that open source and proprietary software both have their pros and cons. Indeed, the Internet seems to be living happily integrating a mixture of open source and proprietary software.  Sometimes proprietary software has problems, sometimes open source software does.  The Equifax hack, for example, was due to a problem in an open source component.  Shouldn’t any policy promote competition among all models, rather than pre-determine one outcome?

But I’m primarily concerned with the impact of these provisions on leading edge technologies such as the Internet of Things. The old model of a software program that runs on a single computer no longer holds.  Instead, more and more software development is focused on physical objects such as connected cars and trucks, smart watches, 3D printers and IT-intensive medical equipment, which all contain millions of lines of carefully-developed code.

This cutting-edge code is what gives American companies their advantage against foreign competitors, and what will power the next wave of the information revolution in the United States and around the world.

Does it really make sense to force these companies to make their software open-source if they make any changes requested by the Department of Defense? Does configuring a car’s software for DOD requirements trigger the “open-source” requirement? If a leading 3D printer company wrote altered its operating software to DOD specs, is that operating software now going to be open source?

As the Internet of Things moves forward, the Department of Defense needs the best applications of IT to the physical world that it can get.  Moreover, the best American companies need to be able to modify their technology to fit DOD requirements without worrying that foreign companies will lift their best ideas.

Marshall for The Daily Beast, “How Liberals Are Blowing It Worldwide-and How Macron Might Not”

Nearly everywhere you look, parties of the left are on the skids. That’s a big part of why Macron won in France. If he delivers, it’ll point the new direction.

Europe seems to be containing the fever of resurgent nationalism that propelled last year’s Brexit vote as well as Donald Trump’s improbable election here. Emmanuel Macron’s landslide victory over Marine Le Pen in France’s presidential election is just the latest sign that continental Europe isn’t catching the populist bug.

Not yet, anyway. Nativist and illiberal nationalist movements continue to make headway in many democratic countries. They could break through and take power—as they did in the United States last November—if mainstream parties can’t channel popular grievances toward constructive change.

As populists push political debate to the right, however, center-left parties are floundering on both sides of the Atlantic. Yoked to stale ideas and change-averse constituencies, they are failing to offer restive voters a radically pragmatic alternative to populist panaceas like cutting off immigration, seceding from the global economy and reverting to zero-sum nationalism.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast. 

Flashback Friday: PPI in Hindsight

Just over a year ago, PPI unveiled a big ideas blueprint with a prescient subtitle: Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism. We knew that progressives in the United States and Europe needed better answers to the economic and cultural grievances that have fueled the rise of a retrograde populism and nationalism around the world. We did not foresee that Democrats would fail to offer a forward-looking plan for jobs and shared growth, opening the door to Donald Trump’s improbable victory.

Which makes the themes and ideas in PPI’s sweeping policy blueprint more important than ever. Populism today thrives in the political vacuum left by center-left parties that offer no clear vision for reviving economic dynamism and hope. “Winning the economic argument will be essential to victory in the 2016 elections and it starts by getting the diagnosis right,” the blueprint noted. Instead, Democrats ran a campaign that leaned heavily on identity politics, wealth redistribution and centralized, small-bore solutions.

Unleashing argued that America (and Europe) are stuck in a slow-growth trap that holds down wages and living standards. And it offered bold prescriptions for building on America’s competitive advantage in technology and entrepreneurship to spread innovation – now concentrated in a vibrant digital sector — to the nation’s physical economy, which continues to suffer from low productivity. In addition, the document proposed creative ways to modernize the nation’s economic infrastructure, improve the regulatory environment for innovation, build middle class wealth and empower poor Americans to work, save and chart their own course to social mobility and inclusion.

Crucially, the blueprint also urged progressives to reject anger and victimhood and offer voters a confident account for how America can build a new, inclusive prosperity:

What America needs is a forward-looking plan to unleash innovation, stimulate productive investment, groom the world’s most talented workers, and put our economy back on a high-growth path, It’s time to banish fear and pessimism and trust instead in the liberal and individualist values and enterprising culture that have always made America great.

That was the road not taken in 2016. Now it’s the road to political relevance and success for progressives here and elsewhere.

 

Yarrow for Washington Monthly: Why French Presidential Candidate Emmanuel Macron Could Save Western Democracy

He’s the last best hope to stop the ethno-nationalist Marine Le Pen from capturing the presidency.

Why are this spring’s French presidential elections so important to the United States and the world?

Typically, few Americans pay attention to elections beyond our borders, although Britain’s “Brexit” vote last summer was potentially a harbinger of Donald Trump’s election in November. Likewise, for most Americans who think about France, it is as a romantic tourist destination, an occasionally annoying ally, and a country whose language we studied in high school. And, for those very few who think more about French politics and policy, the picture is of a succession of lackluster, often corrupt leaders since before World War II, rigid regulatory policies that have hurt the French economy for more than 30 years, and some social policies—like the French health-care and child-care systems—that could be a model for the United States.

This year is very different. For Americans, and Brits and others—deeply disturbed by rising xenophobia and racism, the go-it-alone nationalism that sees other countries as enemies and free trade as harmful, and the rise of “alternative facts” and disdain for a free press—the French election could be a dramatic turning-point. For those who support President Trump and Brexit leader Nigel Farage, a victory by Marine Le Pen, the far-right National Front leader in France, would be the third, and decisive, domino to fall in the overturning of the post-World War II order of liberal democracy.

Read more at Washington Monthly. 

Bledsoe for RCP: The Shared Illusions of Brexit and Obamacare Repeal

“Have your cake and eat it.”  With these six aggressively monosyllabic words, the redoubtable Boris Johnson came clean, almost despite himself, about the contradictions of Brexit, and perhaps those of today’s right-of-center populism altogether.  In time, the phrase may be seen as the defining utterance of the post-truth era in trans-Atlantic politics.

The Washington corollary was minted by an aide to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell regarding Obamacare – “repeal and replace.”  Less elegant, perhaps, but the inherent hubris and contradictions are much the same:  After throwing them off the system, we can then provide more than 20 million Americans health insurance, without patient costs, government expenditure or regulation, since our ideology forbids considering those policies.

Of course, in real life, and even eventually in politics, one must choose to either eat cake or have it.  Britain currently seems to have a slightly stale piece of cake, and a largely hungry populace.  Their American cousins, meanwhile, have a simple homespun saying: “You can’t replace something with nothing.” Yet, for the time being, that is precisely what congressional Republicans plan to do regarding Obamacare.

Continue reading at Real Clear Politics.