issue: Politics

Bledsoe for Forbes, “Trump’s Blowhard Tactics on Climate Change and Storms Foreshadow A Political Blue Wave”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the last two years the U.S. has suffered from record hurricanes, rainfall, floods, wildfires and other disasters made worse by rising temperatures and sea levels. These extreme events, exacerbated by climate change, have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Now, as election day looms, the gross mishandling of these disasters is likely to exact a high political price on Donald Trump and other climate change-denying Republicans, helping to create a political blue wave that will swell Democratic numbers to a House majority, Florida’s Governorship, and other key prizes in the mid-terms.

There is political precedent for this. Recent history shows voters punish poor Presidential responses to natural disasters, and that such poor responses have a role in changing the public perception regarding the competence and characters of the ruling party.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Going Local: Progressive Federalism in the 21st Century

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Federalism – the division of sovereign authority among three separate levels of government (local, state and national) – is a distinctive feature of American democracy. The interplay between the three levels has profoundly shaped our country’s political, economic and social development.

During the 19th Century, progressive democrats like Jefferson and Jackson regarded the states as bulwarks of individual liberty, free enterprise and popular sovereignty. They resisted conservative attempts to establish a European-style central government, which they feared would be dominated by economic privilege.

Around the turn of the 20th century, however, the party they founded reversed course. Democrats increasingly saw centralizing political power in Washington as essential to tempering the social disruptions of industrialization, countering the growing economic power of corporations, and defending America in a dangerous world.

Now, in the 21st century, many progressives are questioning whether aggregating more power and resources in Washington is still the best way to achieve their ends. A key reason is that, with the federal government stalemated by extreme polarization, fiscal deadlock and bureaucratic bloat, the political initiative in America is increasingly shifting to other levels of government, especially to local and metro leaders.

Progressives and National Power

During the 20th Century, U.S. progressives helped to catalyze three great waves of political centralization:

The Progressive Era – As the century dawned, reformers in both parties warned that powerful new forces – industrialization, urbanization and the concentration of economic power in giant monopolies – were overwhelming the capacities of state governments. Woodrow Wilson orchestrated a remarkable flurry of progressive legislation that included the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve System, national child labor laws and tougher anti-trust regulations. Progressives also pushed successfully to increase popular participation in government, through primaries, referenda and initiatives, and direct election of U.S. Senators.

The New Deal – During the Depression, FDR promised “bold, persistent experimentation” to deal with the nation’s worst economic calamity. His New Deal expanded the scope of federal power dramatically, by launching huge public works and relief programs; regulating prices and wages; nationalizing income support and labor protections; establishing Social Security; and, multiplying federal agencies staffed by a new breed of college-educated technocrats. Washington also replaced laissez faire with Keynesian spending designed to manage the business cycle.

The Great Society – The nationalizing impulse intensified after World War II, reaching its peak in LBJ’s Great Society. This period of expansive liberalism saw the federal government assume responsibility for problems that had previously been left mainly to states and local authorities: racial injustice, poverty, illness, gender inequality, urban decay, educational inequity and pollution. Proliferating mandates and regulations vastly extended Washington’s reach and often made state and local governments seem like subsidiary arms of the federal government.

The assumption that underlay each of these waves – that nationalizing policy would best serve progressive purposes – was very often true. No one wants to go back to a time when giant monopolies crushed competition and bought state legislatures; when the doctrine of “states’ rights” sanctioned racial subordination; or when industries produced unsafe food and polluted our air and water with impunity.

But we live in a different world. Power today flows out of Washington. Urban America – centers of economic and social dysfunction a generation ago – has now become the nation’s prime catalyst for innovation. Brookings Institution scholars Bruce Katz and Jenifer Bradley have aptly dubbed this upsurge of local initiative and creativity the “metro revolution.” This phenomenon illustrates one of the great advantages of America’s flexible federalism: If one level of government stops working, the locus of public problem-solving shifts elsewhere.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) believes it is time to rethink the default assumption of progressive federalism as we’ve know it – that the arrow of progress always points toward centralizing power. Here are five reasons to think the arrow now points the other way:

First and most obvious is the political impasse in Washington. The inability of our national leaders to forge consensus or compromise, especially on the biggest challenges facing the country, has given rise to a new truism: the more dogmatic and polarized our politics, the less productive our government. That’s why political leaders who want to get things done are increasingly drawn to local government instead of Washington, where lawmakers are turning into fundraisers.

Second is the cratering of public confidence in the federal government. Most Americans don’t trust Washington to do the right thing most of the time. This lack of confidence in the means by which progressives propose to solve the nation’s problems and help people get ahead is a huge obstacle. In contrast, 72% of Americans trust their local governments, making them more promising terrain for public activism.

Third, the federal government has lost its fiscal freedom. Today the cost of maintaining the government’s cumulative commitments exceeds expected tax revenues. With “mandatory” spending on entitlements relentlessly squeezing out space for new investments, U.S. officials in effect have slapped fiscal handcuffs on themselves. That squeeze will only intensify as America gets older. Says Emmanuel, “We’ve always said there’d be a day when all the federal government does is debt service, entitlements and defense. Well folks, that day is here.”

Fourth, after four generations of nationalizing policy, Washington really has gotten too big, too bureaucratic and too rule-bound. The federal government is mired in the sludge of duplicative, overlapping and outdated laws and regulations that have accumulated over decades. Saddled with industrial-era bureaucracies and colonized by powerful interest groups, the vast federal establishment today is better at protecting the programmatic status quo than at sparking progressive change.

Fifth, digital technology, networks and globalization have combined to attenuate Washington’s ability to manage the national economy so that it delivers mass prosperity. Even as they create an increasingly integrated global economy, these forces also seem to be driving political fragmentation around the world. The great sociologist Daniel Bell captured this dynamic nearly three decades ago:

The common problem, I believe, is this: the nation-state is becoming too small for the big problems of life, and too big for the small problems of life. It is too small for the big problems because there are no effective international mechanisms to deal with such things as capital flows, commodity imbalances, the loss of jobs, and the several demographic tidal waves that will be developing in the next twenty years. It is too big for the small problems because the flow of power to a national political center means that the center becomes increasingly unresponsive to the variety and diversity of local needs.

         In short, there is a mismatch of scale.

Today’s borderless economy is organized around vibrant metro regions, not nation-states. U.S. metros today are making the key investments – in innovation, modern infrastructure and human capital – that are renewing our economy’s dynamism and ability to provide broadly shared prosperity. They are developing their unique assets and comparative advantages to find niches in the emerging global knowledge economy. What they need from Washington is not standardized, one-size-fits all policies that are oblivious to local realities, but the flexibility and resources to tackle the nation’s problems from the ground up.

For all these reasons, it’s time to redefine federalism for the 21st century. Instead of turning reflexively to Washington, progressives should push for a systematic decentralization of decisions and resources to the creative Mayors and metro leaders who are making local government an effective agent of economic and social progress.

This isn’t a matter of eviscerating the federal government, as many conservatives would like. Washington must continue to do the things it is best suited to do: set fiscal and monetary policy; invest in science and technology, infrastructure and career preparation; make the rules for immigration, environmental protection and other cross-border issues, and of course take the lead on diplomacy and defense.

Nor does progressive federalism mean a preference for states over Washington – in fact, metro leaders say state governments often put bigger obstacles in their way than the feds. The real question is, how can the states and the federal government enable and be better partners with local leaders? What practical steps should they take to empower metro leaders to do more of what they are already doing – spurring job and business creation; forging regional collaborations and public-private partnerships; unlocking private and civic investment in local infrastructure and housing; improving education and career training; making their communities healthier and safer; and, making local governments more efficient and responsive to the people they serve?

Marshall for The New York Daily News, “Is Trump killing the Republican Party? It still looks like his divide-and-conquer politics is doing exactly that”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Led by a divisive and dissembling president, America appears to have arrived at peak polarization. At first glance, that would seem to favor Republicans, who dominate Washington and most state governments. But as next month’s midterm elections are likely to show, President Trump’s divide-and-conquer tactics are driving the GOP into a political box canyon.

His strategy is brutally simple: convince culturally insecure white Americans that they are losing “their” country to minorities, immigrants and politically correct liberals. Trump’s scare tactics enabled him to secure a victory in the Electoral College in 2016, despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million votes. Since then, however, he’s done nothing to expand his party’s appeal.

By doubling down on his fractious formula of nativism, white identity politics and America First nationalism, Trump has tightened his grip on blue-collar whites and evangelical Christians — and on Republican politicians terrified of getting crosswise with pro-Trump zealots. But Trump’s White House reality show appears to be hurting GOP candidates in some places, especially white-collar suburbs.

Polls show that Democrats are poised to claim many of the 25 GOP-held House Districts Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. In 21 of these mostly suburban districts, reports The Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein, Trump’s approval rating is an abysmal 38%. “Not only did a staggering 70% of college-educated white women in these districts disapprove of Trump’s performance, but so did 58% of college-educated white men, usually a reliable Republican constituency,” notes Brownstein.

Continue reading at The New York Daily News.

Kim for USA Today, “Socialists won’t be on many ballots this fall. Moderate Democrats are surging.”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democratic primary voters didn’t buy the ultra-left’s ‘free-for-all’ agenda. What’s happening is not so much a liberal surge, but a moderate one.

Candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists and the progressive left have pushed hard this cycle for a campaign agenda heavy on government giveaways, such as free health care (“Medicare for All”), free college, guaranteed jobs and perhaps even free money (“universal basic income”).

Few of these candidates, however, will be on the ballot this fall. Rather, the insurgent left has been broadly rejected in one primary after another — and by Democrats theoretically predisposed to this pitch.

In Michigan, for instance, “establishment” candidate Gretchen Witmer beat Medicare-for-All advocate Abdul El-Sayed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination by 22 points, while in Kansas, a former professional mixed martial artist defeated a congressional hopeful endorsed by Democratic Socialists Sen. Bernie Sanders and rising superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Longtime Delaware Sen. Tom Carper easily beat back a progressive challenger, while in New York, Gov. Mario Cuomo defied his own dismal approval ratings to crush opponent Cynthia Nixon by 30 points.

These progressive losses have moreover occurred despite higher than typical turnout, which is another sign of the ultra-left agenda’s lack of appeal: What’s happening is not so much a liberal surge, but a moderate one.

Continue reading at USA Today.

Marshall for New York Daily News, “New Old Labour: The U.K. party’s tight embrace of retrograde ideas, and what it might mean for Democratic Socialists in the U.S.”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democrats, like progressive parties across the transatlantic world, are struggling to find an answer to populist nationalism. Could that answer lie in reviving another old political creed, socialism?

Some young Democratic activists, inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, are flirting with “democratic socialism.” But they have nothing on Britain’s Labour Party, which consummated its on-again relationship with socialism in Liverpool last week.

The occasion was the party’s annual conference, which I attended when not wallowing in Liverpool’s trove of Beatles memorabilia. The gathering presented an oddly incongruous picture: a reinvigorated party with lots of young faces hawking old ideas.

The Merseyside Conference also capped Jeremy Corbyn’s improbable odyssey from Labour’s hard-left fringe in the early 1980s to party leader today. Having survived media ridicule for his retro views, several attempted ousters and a recent imbroglio over charges that he’s tolerated anti-Semitism among left-wing Labour members, Corbyn at last seems to have his party firmly in hand.

Continue reading at New York Daily News.

In Memory of John McCain

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sen. John McCain deserves more than a tweet.

Yet that’s all our graceless and petty president could muster to mark the death of an authentic American hero and patriot. Perhaps that’s because John McCain was everything Donald Trump is not -– unflinchingly honest, brave, selfless, and respectful of others, including his political opponents.

The Navy flyer was no saint, and never pretended to be. McCain also could be impulsive, stubborn, cantankerous, and as opportunistic as any candidate in pursuit of his political ambitions. I still find it hard to forgive him for inflicting Sarah Palin on the nation. But McCain knew his faults and often turned his wicked sense of humor against himself. He managed to live a deeply purposeful life without taking himself too seriously. That’s an appealing combination.

Although McCain was genuinely conservative, he was too intellectually honest to toe anyone’s party line. He earned his reputation as a political maverick by working across party lines to advance what he saw as a national interest that transcends mere party allegiance. His bipartisanship was not that of a moderate who splits the difference, but that of someone who always puts the country first. Right up to the end, he stood as a vivid reproof to gutless Republicans who fail everyday to stand up to Trump’s toxic assaults on American ideals and institutions.

Although we were on opposing political teams, we at PPI had the pleasure of working with Sen. McCain on a variety of causes. These included enlarging national service (which he personified); defending and leading the world’s community of democracies; creating a nationwide “cap and trade” system for carbon emissions; and, eliminating “corporate welfare” by closing special tax breaks for business. I sometimes accompanied Sen. McCain to the annual Munich Security Conference, where he advocated for the collective defense of liberal democracy with passion, intelligence and wit.

John McCain possessed in abundance an old-fashioned quality that, in these low, dishonest times, our elected leaders need more than ever – a sense of honor. We were fortunate to count him as a friend, and will miss him.

Populism Watch: Immigration Propels France in World Cup, But Splits Europe

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

France erupted into celebration following their victory in the World Cup. The success of the multicultural soccer team offered a moment to reflect on the benefits of international migration. The win was also a fulfillment of Macron’s call for more heroes to unify the country. Amid division sowed by populists and nationalists, Macron communicated this call at the funeral of nationally exalted (and half-Belgian) singer Johnny Hallyday last year. Within France’s soccer team, 15 out of a total of 22 players came from families which had recently arrived from non-EU countries. These countries included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Morocco, Angola, and Algeria. The multi-faith team also included muslim players such as Paul Pogba, Ousmane Dembele, N’Golo Kante, Adil Rami, Djibril Sidibe, Benjamin Mendy and Nabil Fekir. The win was a bright spot in an otherwise turbulent time for the EU, engendered by anti-immigrant agendas.

Immigration continues to roil transatlantic politics. While the U.S. fixated on Trump’s child separation policy, the EU dealt with immigration challenges of its own. In a counter to the EU system, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini proposed a union made up of nationalist, populist, and anti-immigrant parties across Europe. He described the network as“a League of the Leagues of Europe, bringing together all the free and sovereign movements that want to defend their people and their borders.”These leaders would include France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Nigel Farage, who lobbied for the referendum that resulted in Britain leaving the union, and others. Not to be accused of only protecting the borders, Salvini set his sights inward. Locals reported authorities had cleared out an official Roma camp, and cited concern for the future of the Roma population in Italy.

The EU summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on reducing the immigration challenges which form a prominent platform for populist parties. The summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on redistributing and lessening the flows of migrants arriving by boat to the EU’s southernmost countries. Populist and nationalist parties which run on anti-immigrant platforms include Italy’s 5Star / the League Coalition, Germany’s Christian Social Union, and France’s National Rally (previously the National Front).

At the summit, EU leaders agreed to:

  • Share the responsibility of refugees arriving in the bloc on a newly voluntary basis,
  • Increase financing to Turkey, Morocco and other North African countries to prevent migration to Europe,
  • Support the development of regional disembarkation platforms for people saved at sea, aimed at “rapidly and safely”distinguishing between economic migrants and asylum seekers.

EU leaders also discussed the creation of an external migration management facility to be included under the next EU long-term budget. The plan would need sign-off from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the International Organization for Migration. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel called specifically for alignment with all international legal standards regarding the facility. In 2016, Merkel led the creation of a similar program, in which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğanagreed to take back migrants who had reached Europe in exchange for billions in euros to cover basics for Syrian refugee in Turkey. Germany also took in some Syrian refugees. In its first year of operation, Doctors Without Borders highlighted the “devastating human consequences of this strategy on the lives and health”of those sent to Turkey. Other examples of offshore immigrant processing facilities, such as the Australian detention centers on the islands of Nauru and Manus, have been sites of human rights concerns,hunger strikes, and other challenges.

On the last day of the EU Summit, the impact of these immigration challenges on human life was made clear. The Libyan Coast Guard reported a boat filled with migrants bound for Europe had sunk. One hundred people were missing, and the bodies of three infants were recovered.

Bledsoe & Ritz for The Hill, “Democrats must bridge the generational divide to prevent climate and budget crises”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Amid the daily drama of President Trump’s tweets and scandals, it can be hard to focus on the most important issues for our future. An unfortunate consequence of this purposeful turmoil is that few serious solutions are being offered for addressing two of the greatest threats facing the United States: runaway climate change and unsustainable budget policies.

The resignation of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may end his days of plundering the environment and public treasury, but the Trump administration will continue doing both even in his absence, risking long-term national well-being for temporary political benefits. It’s critical that Democrats offer credible alternatives, especially if they hope to inspire younger voters who will bear the burden of these problems, because we cannot afford to dither on either issue much longer.

We speak from experience. One of us is a baby boomer who has spent most of his career working on energy and climate policy; the other is a millennial focused on the federal budget. Although our two fields may seem unrelated, both these existential challenges require our generations to work together to solve.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Populism Watch: In the U.S. and EU, Battles For Human Rights at the Border

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The entire transatlantic world is embroiled in heated debates over the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Trump’s decision to revoke his own family separation policy, after it sparked outrage across the country and drew scrutiny by members of both parties in Congress, put a spotlight on just how inhumane the treatment of migrants, including asylum-seekers, can be. In Europe, Italy and Malta refused to let a Doctors Without Borders boat carrying nearly 700 migrants to dock, prompting Spain to offer its ports. To the north, German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to seek stricter measures on migrants in Germany. Below, what to follow on immigration in the coming weeks.

United States: What impact will Congress have on the separation of families at the southern border?

Trump signed an executive order on June 20th to halt the separation of families at the southern border. The policy had resulted in children and babies taken from their parents and held in cage-like structures. Many prominent Republicans, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, and CNN National Security Analyst and previous NSA director Michael Hayden spoke out against the policy. Sen. Collins stated that the policy was “traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country.” However, a recent Quinnipiac poll suggests the family separation policy is supported by 55 percent of her fellow Republicans.

As Trump’s executive order could be short-term, Congress is still moving forward on a number of bills. Senate Democrats introduced the Keep Families Together Act on June 7th. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill in the House to limit separation at or near ports of entry on June 19th. The bills had 48 and 194 co-sponsors, respectively, as of June 21st. Republicans have put forth both a hardline approach by Virginia rep. Bob Goodlatte, and a so-called “compromise” bill that would end the separation policy and provide deportation protections and a path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, while allocating $25 billion in funding for Trump’s border wall, limiting authorized and unauthorized immigration, and continuing to detain asylum-seekers. Goodlatte’s bill failed on the House floor June 21st, and voting on the “compromise” bill was delayed.

Europe: How will the EU hold up amid refusals to let refugee boats dock?

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat played a game of “not it” when a boat carrying 692 rescued migrants attempted to dock in their countries. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez allowed the migrants to dock at his ports on June 17th, ending the impasse. As the boat was first spotted by the Italian coast-guard, Italy was obligated to take in the migrants until their asylum requests would have been decided, per EU policy. The ability of EU supporters to hold the union together amid these divisions could impact its future stability, and the state of intra-European relations. European leaders plan to meet Sunday to discuss this and other migration challenges.

Amid threats to the coalition between German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and right-of-center Christian Social Union, Merkel has agreed to seek stricter immigration measures ahead of an end-of-the-month EU summit. In response to the immigration challenges arising in Germany, Trump tweeted: “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” His statement is incorrect (crime in Germany at a 25 year low), ill-considered, and needlessly alienates a key European ally.

Given the continuing advance of populist, anti-immigrant sentiment across the Western democracies, we can expect fresh controversies to arise at national borders. Every country has a right to determine who it admits, and on what terms, and to enforce its immigration laws. But that right doesn’t relieve any country of the moral duty to treat immigrants – even unwanted ones – humanely and with some concern for their reasons for coming. That’s a lesson President Trump keeps learning, the hard way.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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.

Bledsoe for The Hill, “Keeping Pruitt could cost GOP Congress, Trump in the fall”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Despite repeated and flagrant abuses of taxpayer trust and sweetheart deals from energy lobbyists, any of which would have doomed previous cabinet members, embattled Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to still have the support of President Trump, even though White House aides are urging he be fired.

The president’s theory seems to be that Pruitt’s mission to dismantle environmental protections at EPA and investigations of him will fire up the right-wing base turnout in November.

This sounds like wishful thinking. It’s far more likely that headlines about Pruitt’s taxpayer abuses right up to election day will help mobilize college-educated suburban swing voters disgusted by the Trump’s administration’s ethical corruption and rejection of science in favor of polluters.

Leading pollsters say these are just the voters Republicans need to keep Congress. Losing them could be just enough to bring about a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, creating potentially inescapable entanglements for president himself.

Continue reading at The Hill.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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.

Marshall for POLITICO, “How Emmanuel Macron Became the New Leader of the Free World”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In addition to being Trump’s ideological opposite, the French president is a beacon for progressives hoping to find their way back to the halls of power across the democratic world.

Europe’s most dynamic political leader, Emmanuel Macron, pays a state visit to Washington this week. The French president has struck up a surprisingly cordial relationship with President Donald Trump, especially when you consider that Macron has emerged as the West’s most formidable opponent of the kind of populist nationalism Trump channels here.

Speaking last week to the European Parliament, Macron warned of a “European civil war” and urged the European Union to defend liberal democracy against a surging tide of illiberal nationalism. “Faced with the authoritarianism that surrounds us everywhere, the answer is not authoritarian democracy, but the authority of democracy,” he declared.

The JFK-style antithesis was a reminder that U.S. presidents used to give stirring speeches like this in Europe. But that’s not happening today because Trump identifies more with the other side—with right-wing nativists and neo-nationalists who want to keep immigrants out; raise barriers to global commerce; weaken or leave the EU to protect “national sovereignty;” and, especially in Eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland, undermine internal checks on strongman rule.

In effect, Macron has stepped audaciously into the vacuum created by Trump’s abdication of America’s historic role as keeper of the liberal democratic flame. Although some have anointed Germany’s Angela Merkel the new “leader of the free world,” she’s been preoccupied with shoring up a weak coalition government and stanching defections from her conservative base to the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

In addition to being Trump’s ideological opposite, Macron can be viewed as something of a beacon for progressives hoping to find their way back to the halls of power across the democratic world. As a progressive, young outsider who rode a wave of voter revolt against the governing establishment, Macron managed to capture the populist’s insurgent spirit without embracing their reactionary demands. That, in a nutshell, is the task facing other progressive parties as they struggle to expand their popular appeal.

Continue reading at POLITICO.

Bledsoe for USA Today, “Democrats must embrace shale gas boom to win elections and climate battle”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democrats don’t have enough power to shape climate change policy. They can win the midterm elections if they embrace the shale oil and gas boom and their role in it.

Millions of Americans are rightly urging immediate, serious action to address climate change on this Earth Day weekend. Democratic candidates should carry a winning version of this message right into the midterm elections: They must denounce the climate nihilism of the Trump administration, and highlight the stunning clean energy revolution Democratic policies have done much to create.

But these candidates should be smart about how they respond to climate change provocations from President Trump, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt and others. In the swing states and districts they need to win back Congress, Democrats must also vocally support the shale natural gas boom that has been overwhelmingly good for American consumers, workers and the climate.

When voters are presented with an agenda that emphasizes a transitional role for domestic gas and oil along with renewable energy as part of climate protection, they will support Democrats over Trump’s climate denial and coal-dust memories.

Continue reading at USA Today.