Suchergebnisse

After news of the reported explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines broke a year ago today, the media was ablaze with speculation, mostly in the direction of the Russian government."Everything is pointing to Russia," blared a POLITICO headline two days after the explosions. Quoted in the piece were a number of foreign commentators including the former president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, saying that only Russia had the means and motives to do it. "We still don't know 100 percent that Russia was responsible," said Olga Khakova, deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council. "But everything is pointing to Russia being behind this." U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told BBC on Sept. 30 that it "seems" Russia was was behind the sabotage.By October the Washington Post Editorial Board was raising the alarms about more attacks against "the West.""This is the kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor, though NATO did not say officially what everyone suspects unofficially: The author of this strike against Europe's stability and security was Russia. Now, the United States and its allies must meet a new challenge: threats to critical infrastructure, just as they are about to try to get through winter without Russian oil and gas."Aside from a Twitter-impulsive former Polish foreign minister gleefully suggesting the U.S. did it, the mainstream media commentariat had no inhibitions about openly blaming Russia through the fall of 2022.A year later, however, the world still does not know "who done it." Some critics suggest the probes may be getting into politically uncomfortable territory, with recent German reports pointing to a Ukrainian military connection to the blasts. "Whether it's instinctive or by direction, there is a clear attempt to simply bury this story completely," said Anatol Lieven, the director of the Quincy Institute's Eurasia Program, comparing the seeming lack of U.S. media interest to George Orwell's "memory hole" in the novel "1984." "Obviously that is because the main theories that have been advanced for the responsibility of the sabotage, if true, would be imminently embarrassing for Western governments."Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have been conducting separate investigations. In a joint statement on Sept. 30, Denmark and Sweden told the United Nations Security Council in a letter that the leaks were caused by at least two detonations with "several hundred kilos" of explosives. By late last year, however, European sources were quietly dismissing Russia's role in what was being deemed as a sabotage, saying there was "no conclusive evidence" that would lead to Moscow.Since then there has been reporting by Sy Hersh that the United States coordinated the attacks, using a secret expert U.S. Navy diving team. This was largely ignored, refuted and scoffed at by the mainstream media and officials in the West. Soon after, it was revealed that German investigators were pursuing a second theory: that it was the work of a pro-Ukrainian outfit, either rogue or Ukrainian government-connected. Swedish investigators believe, by the way, that the attack could only be the work of a state actor.Leaked CIA documents earlier this year show that the U.S. had intelligence that the "Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces," at least three months before the actual explosions. What we don't know is if the Ukrainians actually went through with it, though at least one unnamed U.S. official said the CIA "warned" Ukraine not to.Most recently, an exhaustive investigation by 19 Der Spiegel writers reported that all roads were indeed leading to Ukraine. At least that is what German investigators are telling them. From their report Aug. 28:Investigators from the BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office), the Federal Police and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor have few remaining doubts that a Ukrainian commando was responsible for blowing up the pipelines. A striking number of clues point to Ukraine, they say.And the possible motives also seem clear to international security circles: The aim, they say, was to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue for financing the war against Ukraine. And at the same time to deprive Putin once and for all of his most important instrument of blackmail against the German government.How far up the chain it goes nobody yet knows, or if other state actors were involved. After the story of the CIA leaks, Zelensky vehemently denied the charges."I am president and I give orders accordingly," he said. "Nothing of the sort has been done by Ukraine."But the mystery continues and there seems to be no urgency — save for Der Spiegel's intensive reporting — to push the issue further, at least in the U.S. press. That's likely because, as Lieven and others contend, there is no political gain, only embarrassment if the U.S. is behind the attack, as Hersh alleges, or Ukraine is, as the German inquiry seems to be unraveling. For his part, Russian President Putin believes the U.S, not Ukraine, is the culprit. Others, including the German defense minister have suggested the Kyiv theory is a "false flag" to blame Ukraine. "It seems very strange" that NATO governments, with their massive intelligence capabilities — particularly Washington's global reach — "seem unable to get to the bottom of this," Jacobin reporter Branko Marcetic tells RS."But even stranger still is the seeming lack of Interest and discussion from these countries' various media establishments and politicians, about an attack that destroyed a major piece of a NATO ally's infrastructure."To be fair, as Der Spiegel notes, the German investigators "cannot conduct investigations in Ukraine, and it isn't expected that Kyiv will provide much support. The German authorities have also shied away from submitting a request to Ukraine for legal assistance because doing so would require that they reveal what they know."Meanwhile, who has benefited from the permanent shutdown of Nord Stream 1 (the EU was importing 35 percent of its natural gas from this pipeline until it was shut off after the invasion) and Nord Stream 2 never going online (which the U.S. had swore would never happen)?"The United States without a question (has benefited)," asserts Lieven. "It made it much more difficult for Germany to ever move back into an intensive energy relationship with Russia and made German and other European countries even more permanently dependent on imports of liquified natural gas from the United States."Nord Stream pipelines, which run from Russia to Germany, are majority owned (51 percent) by Russian Gazprom, along with German, Dutch and French stakeholders. In 2022, Europe became the primary destination for U.S. LNG exports in 2022, according to the Energy Information Association, accounting for 64 percent of total exports. Four countries — France, the U.K., Spain, and the Netherlands — accounted for a combined 74 percent of those exports. Aside from the U.S., Germany is also getting gas supplies from Norway and the Gulf States. Meanwhile the West's break from Russian energy beyond the Nord Stream rupture has done serious damage to the German economy. But the torrent of responses after the Sept. 26 attack blamed Russia because, as was the line, Moscow wanted to strike fear into the West. President Putin did it because Moscow was "weaponizing energy" and that it was "desperate." None of that has been walked back and without any real attention to what really happened, no one truly feels the need to.In fact, in its own anniversary recollections, the Washington Post barely mentions that this narrative was repeated for another month after the explosions."Whether or not that's the full story is hard to say at this point," Marcetic said, pointing to the Ukrainian connection, "but the fact that a state that is receiving unprecedented levels of military and financial support from NATO has been accused of carrying out an attack on a NATO ally is obviously significant. Yet this is another data point in this war that many clearly would rather not discuss or acknowledge even as it pertains directly to burning issues like Ukraine's possible entry into the alliance."The mystery, as they say, remains unsolved.

The Government's Levelling Up & Regeneration Bill includes substantial planning reforms, setting out frameworks for the levelling up missions and introducing a range of devolution measures. The amendment of its "nutrient neutrality" rules was under fire from rebels and Tories, with the bill currently in the House of Lords, for blocking much-needed housebuilding. As housing targets are made advisory only and a reduction in housing requirements over the next few years, 100,000 more houses will be able to be built thanks to Michael Gove's agreement to the amendment (NC77). On the other hand, environmentalist groups are outraged by the amendment as they claim it would further increase water pollution, despite the fact that this new road has opened up the property market and will benefit the economy by approximately £18 billion. Over its 13 years in power, the Conservative Party has continuously been divided over the subject of housing. This recent change is undoubtedly a huge victory for rebels led by former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers. "It will enable thousands of new homes to be built which are currently blocked, while also securing real progress on cleaning up our waterways" according to Villiers. It has been obvious that a retreat was coming since the first sign of mutiny emerged a few weeks ago when Gove postponed a Commons vote out of fear of losing. Additionally, several of the leading Tories were furious. During Liz Truss' brief office, Sir Jake Berry, the former party chairman, fumed: "Conservatives need to deliver for the next generation if we ever expect them to vote for us." It was a key pledge in the Tories' 2019 manifesto and supporters claimed it was in keeping with Margaret Thatcher's crusade for a property-owning democracy and new homes for younger voters. Thus, Truss's Levelling Up Secretary Sir Simon Clarke blamed the failure to build more homes for the Tory vote in London collapsing, accusing the party of "pulling up the ladder" for younger voters. Contrastingly, Labour's shadow housing secretary Lisa Nandy further accused the government of being "weak", calling the move "unconscionable in the middle of a housing crisis". In accordance with regulatory requirements, Natural England and the Government are collaborating with local planning authorities (LPAs) to ensure that wastewater produced by new homes does not increase pollution in our rivers and coasts while also allowing for quicker decisions that enable the construction of the homes the nation needs. To establish the legal context for this matter, it is necessary to go back in time to 1974 when the Control of Pollution Act initially seized control of waste disposal. When it took effect, a lot of old landfills were discreetly shut down and, for the most part, forgotten about—perhaps by residents of the area. The Government now also plans to cooperate with the housing sector to make sure that larger developers contribute fairly and appropriately to this programme during the ensuing years. In order to put protected sites on the road to recovery in the most affected catchments with the highest housing demand, Natural England will develop new Protected Site Strategies, and the government will then accelerate work on full site restoration. London councils who support the amendment see it as a method for them to set their own planning fees to cover the cost of the service provided, improve performance, and solveresource and capacity shortages in local planning departments as well as to cover costs associated with the service. However, the proposal might result in a new infrastructure levy rather than more affordable housing, which would mean fewer new affordable houses. However, it would provide local authorities the authority to demand that a certain amount of the infrastructure charge be delivered on-site. In a time when there is widespread concern that poverty and health disparities have gotten worse, housing policy can either help to increase disparities in society or be a method to reduce them. According to a source in the housing sector, "This is undoubtedly good news for Britain's housing supply. The only question is why it has taken so long for the government to get around to doing something about this". The District Local Network, meanwhile, welcomed the news and pointed out that in some local areas, nutrient neutrality regulations have limited the supply of affordable homes and raised the price of new homes for purchasers. Local authorities in hundreds of protected regions across England have been encouraged to not approve any new construction that is anticipated to increase river nutrients like phosphates and nitrates, either through wastewater from new residences or runoff from construction sites. The EU first imposed such rules in an effort to stop the growth of harmful algae and other plants that can suffocate aquatic life. Existing regulations required builders to reduce increasing nutrient loads brought on by expanding populations in homes, either on-site or in other parts of the same catchment. By making investments in new wetlands or by establishing buffer zones along rivers and other watercourses, they can achieve this. This has been criticised by builders as being expensive and time-consuming. Former cabinet minister and ASI Patron Sir Brandon Lewis, MP for Great Yarmouth, told PoliticsHome Gove's proposals were welcome and a "really good move". As opposed to theoretical proposals for a long-term plan, Lewis said scrapping nutrient neutrality would allow the Government and developers to build more homes very quickly."It's not a solution to everything, but it releases 100,000 to 140,000 homes. That's a lot of homes, a lot of jobs, and a lot of opportunity." The neutrality announcement also included a £280 million increase in support in Natural England's nutrient reduction programme, which helps builders reduce the impact of developments on water pollution. Additionally, farmers and water businesses will receive incentives totaling £166 million for slurry infrastructure. Katie-Jo Luxton, director of conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: "If nutrient neutrality rules are scrapped, pollution will accumulate unchecked and our rivers face total ecological collapse." In agreement with Luxton, Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK said "Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules?". He acknowledged that it would necessitate requiring water companies and home builders to utilise their revenues to upgrade treatment facilities and pipes to the level that a modern, functional nation would demand. Developers contend that farming is a considerably greater source to the pollution in question while asserting that Natural England is enforcing the regulations in such a severe manner that they have been compelled to halt the construction of up to 120,000 new houses. In response to protests from developers, ministers introduced a mitigation programme in 2022 that allowed builders to purchase "credits" in order to obtain clearance for their projects. However, according to those developers, the procedure for buying such credits has occasionally resulted in unforeseen repercussions, such as the acquisition of farmland to put it out of production in an effort to lessen water run-off. In order to reduce the likelihood of slurry leaks, they will provide payments totaling around £400 million to farmers and waterbusinesses. They will also spend about an additional £300 million assisting developers in reducing the effects of their projects. According to the Dasgupta review, investing in nature leads to wealth since it serves as the foundation for all we do. Leonardo Da Vinci once remarked that "water is the driving force of all nature" and that no society can function effectively without it. Nutrient pollution does not affect the bulk of house projects nationwide, but in 74 of England's 333 Local Authorities, pollution levels in some areas with abundant natural beauty are so high that additional mitigation measures are required. However, along with the elimination of the nutrient neutrality rules, new environmental measures will be implemented, such as increasing investment in and developing Natural England's "Nutrient Mitigation Scheme" (NMS), a programme that enables developers to purchase credits to offset nutrient pollution from housing development. Therefore, while the government moves forward with its housing ambitions, the neutrality statement has in fact slowed down environmental initiatives. To improve opportunity and the nation's environment, however, a number of mechanisms have been adopted to absorb the loss when pollutants and houses are built. In conclusion, despite objections from environmental groups, the amendment that was agreed upon was generally a good decision. Mr. Gove thanked backbenchers in a statement for "their hard work and support to drive forward these much-needed changes to create a planning system that works for all". More affordable housing offers a respite from the dark clouds of rising interest rates and inflation. So, while still investing in a healthy environment, we can see how the removal of the "nutrient neutrality" laws will be good for the economy and for the people in the long term.

Paul Matzko









This global public opinion poll asking respondents whether they have a favorable view of the USA has been bouncing around the interwebs. The topline finding — the US is pretty popular! — surprised many American cultural critics who remember the bad old days of the Iraq War when global criticism of US imperialism surged.
I find the handful of countries where the opinion of the US remains more negative just as interesting. Hungary's worst‐​in‐​Europe result is amusing given how the far Right in the US fetishizes Viktor Orban's reactionary politics. American Hungary stans suffer from sublimated self‐​hatred, wishing they could be as xenophobic and culturally chauvinist as team "Make Hungary Magyar Again."
But the other outlier country on this list with a marked dislike of the US might be more of a surprise to Americans: Australia. We're almost underwater Down Under. This is in sharp contrast with how highly Americans think of Australia; if you combine all positive responses from this survey, Americans consider Australia their warmest ally. Which means the gulf between how Americans and Australians view each other would be one of the widest in the world!
As it so happens, I spent eight summers as a teenager living in Australia. That certainly doesn't make me a country expert — and it's been two decades since I was last there — but it does mean that Australian antipathy towards the US doesn't take me by surprise.
That dislike was very much on the surface when I was a 10 or 11 year old trying to make Aussie friends. The most popular country singer in Australia at the time was the man, the legend, John Williamson. I've written about Australian country music elsewhere, but I can still sing many of Williamson's top hits from memory, including his rip‐​roaring nationalist anthem "A Flag of Our Own" (1991). Williamson was a republican, which meant that he believed Australia should leave the British Commonwealth, reject the monarchy, and take the British stripes off the Australian flag. Here's the song's chorus:
'Cause this is Australia and that's where we're from We're not Yankee side‐​kicks or second class P.O.M.s And tell the Frogs what they can do with their bomb Oh we must have a flag of our own

Let me decipher that for you. P.O.M.s stands for "Prisoners of Her Majesty," or Brits, which is often amended with an adjective such as "whingeing POMs" to describe those who yearn for ye olde country and constantly complain about Australia's supposedly backward ways. This was a particularly popular complaint in Australia in the aftermath of Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis. The Australian Governor‐​General — a crown appointee in a mostly symbolic role — had invoked a long neglected royal power and replaced the elected left‐​wing prime minister with a conservative. (For comparison, imagine the hoopla if King Charles III were to kick British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak out of office and install a Labour prime minister!)
"Frogs," of course, are the French, who were on the radar of Aussie nationalists in the 90s for conducting nuclear testing in their Polynesian colonies — which Australia considered its own backyard — and doing so without regard for the effects of nuclear fallout on surrounding islands and Australia itself.
That leaves us with Yankees, commonly shorted to "Yanks," which quickly becomes, via Australia's penchant for rhyming puns, "Septic Tanks," or then shortened further to "seppos." (Aussies are world leaders in slang. It's like if Cockney wasn't just the lingo of one neighborhood in London but had been exported en masse via prison ships, transported to the other side of the globe, and then had taken over an entire continent. Oh wait…)
Maybe you're wondering why America made that opprobrious list alongside the POMs and Frogs. We weren't testing any nukes in the Pacific (at least, we hadn't for a while) and we weren't meddling in their domestic politics (though blaming the CIA for the 1975 constitutional crisis remains popular among Aussie conspiracists).
But when this song was released in 1991, the Australian military had just participated in the US‐​led Gulf War. Although suffering no combat casualties, Australian nationalists saw this as yet another example of Australia blindly serving the interests of foreign superpowers, from dying at the command of callous British generals in the trenches at Gallipoli — the subject of a 1981 blockbuster starring a young Mel Gibson — to the failed fight alongside the Yanks in the jungles of Vietnam.
Bear in mind that Australia's anti‐​Vietnam War protests in 1970 were the *largest* protests in their history; by contrast, the much feted anti‐​Vietnam war protests in the US don't even crack our top 27! Australia's involvement in the Iraq War did little to assuage critics who believed Australia should stop playing second fiddle to the US, especially after leaked documents showed that the Aussie government's primary purpose for sending troops was to cozy up to the US. All the talk about eradicating weapons of mass destruction and promoting democracy was merely "mandatory rhetoric."
However, when I was a teenager in Australia in the late‐​90s, especially while visiting rural communities in Northern Queensland, the complaint I heard the most often revolved around US trade policy, specifically US tariffs on the import of Australian lamb meat. I remember riding around the bush in a ute (flatbed pickup truck) with a local farmer who was spitting mad about US tariffs and who said that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was Bill Clinton getting his just desserts for harming Aussie sheep farmers. What a thought! Australian headlines from the time were simply scathing in their critique of Clinton's hypocrisy in signing a free trade deal with Canada and Mexico while slapping new tariffs on Australia.
Yet other than the mad cow panic, meat import policies — let alone veal tariffs, lol — have never been a major political issue in recent US national politics. But they sure mattered a great deal to Australia, which is the second largest sheep exporting country in the world (Australia and New Zealand combine for an incredible 93% of the global market). In any case, US trade policy in the 1990s fit with Australian nationalists' broader critique of the US as a bully who simply expected Australia to meekly comply with its broader geopolitical agenda regardless of whether it was in Australia's own national interest.
So Australians' mixed opinions regarding the US are grounded in real, pragmatic considerations. It's yet another situation in which our imperial entanglements and trade protectionism have provoked blowback.
It's possible that in the future those feelings might revert towards the more US‐​positive, Australasian mean given Chinese economic and military expansionism in the region. Up until now, Australia has been insulated from the downside risks of Chinese expansion — funnily enough, the intervening Indonesians have been a more significant target for Australian jingoism — while benefitting greatly as a supplier of raw materials for the post‐​Mao Chinese economic miracle. Until the pandemic, Australia hadn't experienced a recession in nearly thirty years (!).
On a more speculative note, if Noah Smith and other India boosters are correct, Australia's role as a potential trading partner with India could matter as much for that country's success as its trade with China has for the past three decades. Last year, Australia signed a new free trade deal with India and expects its exports to triple by 2035. And given the ongoing decoupling of global investment from the Chinese market, Australia could benefit from a major boost of foreign investment given its proximity and ties with India, Vietnam, and other high growth South and Southeast Asian markets (nicknamed "Altasia"). There's little in the way of Australia enjoying another thirty years of torrid economic growth.
The US should forge a new, peer relationship with Australia, signaling that it takes Australia seriously as a vital regional ally rather than treating it as a junior partner in our foreign misadventures. We have a golden opportunity to do so right now. As Doug Bandow has noted, China has foolishly kicked off a trade war with Australia, and while Trump considered following suit with new tariffs on Australian exports, he was finally persuaded not to. We should take advantage of China's mistake by expanding our 2005 free trade agreement with Australia and lower rates on agricultural products that are feeling the pinch from Chinese tariffs.
This is a crosspost from the author's Substack. Click through and subscribe for more content on the intersection of history and policy.

Adam N. Michel


The current federal budget deficit and the accumulated debt result from Congress spending more than they are willing to raise in taxes. Ultimately, the question of which is more to blame—steady taxes or ballooning spending—will depend on our priors: should the government consume an ever-increasing share of private resources, or should its growth be constrained?
However, the recently updated CBO long-term budget outlook makes clear that the causes of the future budget deficit is not a question of normative judgment. Tax increases cannot fix the underlying growth of health and retirement spending. Even if tax revenues permanently increased to the levels collected when the United States had a budget surplus in 2000, projected deficits would still rise above 9 percent of GDP by 2053. Tax cuts are not to blame for the demographic and benefit-formula-fueled growth in mandatory spending.
This short piece will begin with context on U.S. fiscal trends and then discuss the two distinct issues in budgetary sustainability—the growth rate of future spending and the desired level of government spending. Fixing the unsustainable growth rate of federal spending is necessary regardless of the desired level of government spending and preferred tax rates. However, without spending restraint, any tax relief will necessarily be short-lived.
Spending Consistently Outstrips Revenue
Federal spending has been systematically higher than tax revenue for the last half-century. Revenues have fluctuated around an average of 17.4 percent of GDP, while spending has followed much larger swings around an average of 20.9 percent. For a brief time between 1998 and 2001, Congress ran a surplus when revenue was high during the strong economy, and outlays dipped due to a temporary political consensus against deficits that limited defense spending, discretionary appropriations, and entitlement growth. Since then, spending has steadily ratcheted up, punctuated by the Great Recession and COVID-19.
Figure 1 shows historical and projected revenue and outlays from 1970–2053. In 2022, federal revenue as a percent of GDP was at a two-decade high, and this year's revenue as a share of the economy is projected to be 18.4 percent of GDP, a whole percentage point above the historical average. Over the next three decades, revenues will remain above the historical average, climbing to 19.1 percent by 2053. After recovering from the pandemic spike, outlays are projected to climb past their current highs, rising from more than 24 percent of GDP in 2023 to 29.1 percent of GDP in 2053.











The CBO projections are subject to some well-known flaws. First, it is based on current law, which assumes unrealistic things, such as Congress allowing all the temporary 2017 tax cuts to expire and discretionary spending growing slower than the economy. Second, it cannot account for new spending Congress will authorize in the future, whether due to an emergency—war, recession, pandemic—or politically expedient spending on student loan forgiveness or additional energy subsidies. Third, the projections are based on speculative assumptions about economic growth, inflation, interest rates, and healthcare costs. None of these flaws change the critical takeaway from the CBO projections: even with assumed significant tax increases and conservative spending projections, the federal budget is unsustainable.
Congress has been much better at constraining projected revenue growth than they have been at constraining spending. Spending grows as benefits increase faster than inflation and more people become benefit-eligible. Baseline tax revenue grows as temporary tax cuts expire, and inflation slowly pushes people into higher tax brackets. The largest source of additional tax revenue over the next 30 years is inflation-caused real bracket creep, accounting for almost twice as much additional revenue as the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts in 2053.
Periodic tax cuts have kept revenue as a share of the economy flat rather than increasing while spending growth remains on a consistent upward path.
Taxes and Fiscal Sustainability
Some commentators have claimed that "without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently." However, CBO budget projections from before the 2001 Bush tax cuts tell a different story. In 2000, when the U.S. was running budget surpluses, the first line of CBO's long-term budget outlook begins by noting that "projected growth in spending on the federal government's big health and retirement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—dominates the long-run budget outlook." Even in its most optimistic scenario—in which the federal government saves the temporary surpluses—CBO still notes that "the growing expenditures projected for health and retirement programs would quickly push the budget back into deficit," and debt would again begin to grow exponentially.
There are some more recent years, such as 2012, when CBO projected declining deficits and debt, but these years are flukes of the current law scoring process in which the CBO assumed both significant automatic tax increases and large automatic spending cuts that Congress never intended to allow. The 2012 alternative baseline, which more realistically assumed Congress would extend the 2001 tax cuts and halt automatic payment cuts to Medicare providers, among other spending increases, showed a more realistic scenario with deficits growing to 17.2 percent of GDP by 2037.
Focus on Unsustainable Spending First
Ultimately, focusing on revenue distracts from fixing the existential fiscal problems faced by the U.S. The growth rate of health and retirement spending is not a problem that can be fixed with higher taxes. As Jeff Miron wrote in 2013, "If higher taxes have even a modest negative impact on growth, tax increases have no capacity for restoring fiscal balance. That finding leaves expenditure cuts—especially to Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidies—as the only viable avenues for significant reductions in fiscal imbalance."
CBO has similarly warned every year for the past several decades that spending on health and retirement programs cannot continue to grow faster than the economy forever; eventually, something has to give. These major entitlement programs are responsible for almost all of the non-interest spending growth over the next three decades and, as a share of the economy, are projected to increase by 36 percent over the same time. Such rapid health and retirement spending growth is neither caused by nor fixable with the tax code.
If Treasury collected as much revenue as it did in 2000 when it had a record 2.3 percent budget surplus, the U.S. would still have a 2022 budget deficit of about 5.1 percent of GDP (compared to the actual 5.5 percent deficit). Figure 2 shows an illustrative estimate of federal deficits if tax revenue increased permanently to 20 percent of GDP, the high revenue mark from the early 2000s. The only slightly larger deficits under CBO's current law projections show that even significant tax increases cannot compensate for fundamentally unsustainable spending growth.











Debate the Level
After policymakers address the unsustainable growth rate of mandatory spending, they can debate the appropriate size and scope of government. Reasonable people can disagree over the appropriate level of government spending and, thus, the level of revenue.
As I've written before, big government is expensive, and advocates of larger government should be clear that by blaming deficits on tax cuts, they are calling for significantly higher taxes on middle-class Americans. Additional taxes only on the rich are not a sustainable or mathematically feasible way to fund a European-style social welfare state. Paying for the current level of government spending—let alone what some Democrats have proposed—will require an unprecedented tax increase.
Broad-based tax increases are also no guarantee of lower deficits and debt. Historically, new or increased taxes to remedy fiscal imbalances deepen and prolong economic recessions, do not reduce debt‐​to‐​GDP ratios, and are associated with new spending in excess of the revenue raised.
As Congress prepares for the 2025 fiscal cliff when the 2017 tax cuts expire and taxes automatically increase on basically every American, legislators should be clear that by keeping taxes low, they are also committing to constraining the level and growth of federal spending. Without spending restraint, any tax relief will necessarily be short-lived.

 The prequel is defined by a particular kind of paradox. As much as it aspires to reach the point from which original story began, connecting with the present that it is the past of, the more that the point recedes, and become unreachable. Its very existence means that it can never reach what it aims for, its ending will always be different from the beginning of that which it is a prequel of. Or, more to the point it, overreaches its mark. This is especially true of the some of the worst versions of this, the movie Solo forgets that the name Han Solo is cooler if we never hear its hackneyed origin, that having a wookie as friend and sidekick is more interesting if we never see the first time they meet, and that the Kessel Run sounds cool but that does not mean we need to see it. A character can be defined more by the way the enter the screen in media res than by fleshing out their backstory. More becomes less and the more you add the less it alls seems to matter.Better Call Saul has struggled with this in a different way. The more we learn about Saul/Jimmy's backstory the less he can be the person we first meet in Breaking Bad. This is in part because he is introduced first as a character that is defined by his lack of depth and character. He is as tacky and as cheap in his character as the suit he wears, as thin as the veneer of classical architecture that adorns his office. Learning his back story can only add depth and tragedy to a character who revels in his cheap superficiality. Even if we get to the point where he becomes a man who will offhandedly suggest that Walt and Jesse murder Jesse's friend Badger to keep him from talking to the DEA what we know would make that person a different person and make it a different decision. The hollowness and emptiness of such cruelty and indifference becomes different if we know its causes, if we know what brought Saul to such a situation. Better Caul Saul has dealt with this problem of the prequel by shifting focus. As much as the show gives us the history of Saul's garish suits, the story of how Mike goes from corrupt cop to drug enforcer, and more about a secret drug lab under a laundry than we ever wanted to know, it also gives us characters like Kim Wexler, Ignacio "Nacho" Varga, and Howard Hamlin. These characters exist only in the prequel and thus all we really know about them is that they do not appear later on, why they are absent and how that comes to be is much more indeterminate ending, much less of a restriction, than knowing what a character becomes. The question driving much of the final season is not so much how does Jimmy become Saul, but what happens to Nacho and Kim. The first half of the final season deals with two plans. The first is repercussion of Mike and Gus' plan to have Nacho set up Lalo Salamanca to be killed. This plan did not succeed and much of the first half of the season deals with the repercussion of that failure, for Nacho, for Gus, and most importantly for Lalo. This plan leaves Nacho and Lalo in fundamentally opposed situations. Nacho has no resources, no one he can turn to, and a great deal of liability, most notably he has to protect his father; Lalo has a great deal of resources, including a man with the same dental records he can utilize to fake his death, and almost no liabilities. In the case of the former, Nacho's liability proves to be his undoing, he is forced to sacrifice himself in order to save his father. In contrast Lalo proves himself to be one of television's best depictions of the sociopath, someone for whom there is no difference between having a drink with a mourning widow or torturing someone in a woodshed if both can get him the information he wants. The second plan is Kim and Jimmy's scheme introduced at the end of the last season to undermine Howard in order to bring the Sandpiper Crossing class action suit to a quick and prosperous end. This plot takes the form a classic cinematic con in that the con we see is only the cover for a deeper con revealed later on. It is possible to argue that the heist film and con film are diametrically opposed. While the heist film often stages the difference between plan and execution as something unanticipated undermines the original plan  (that is its materialist dimension), the con film stages the difference between the plan we see unfold and the plan we do not see--a plan that is more clever in that it seems to have anticipated every possible reaction and apparent failure. In this sense it is more idealist than materialist in that it suggests the ability of an individual, or duo in this case, to incorporate all reactions and contingencies into a grand and secret plan. In the heist something goes wrong, a cop shows up at the wrong time or, to use an example from Breaking Bad, a kid with a dirt bike shows up just as you are robbing a train, but in the con even the glitches have been anticipated, they are the ruse of reason in which the larger plan is realized. In the heist we see often see the plan first in its idealized perfection only to then learn how it can go awry; in the con we never see the long con, the big plan, until the end. We are left to piece it together from the clues that we see. In this case we see Kim and Jimmy go through a great deal of effort to undermine Howard's standing in the community, planting drugs, starting rumors about him, and even stealing his car with its signature NAMASTE plate to make it appear he is soliciting and abusing prostitutes. These schemes are all meant to provoke Howard to hire a private detective to follow Jimmy to collect a dirt on him, a private detective who, unbeknownst to Howard, is actually working for Jimmy and Kim as a double agent. This is the plan within the plan: to use the private detective to get Howard to see some faked photographs. It is not Howard's reputation that they are working on, but his understandable anger towards Jimmy, and ultimately his sense of respect for the legal profession. Howard's retaliation has already been anticipated and is part of the larger plan which forces him to breakdown in the midst of the mediation of the Sandpiper Case. Jimmy and Kim's plan works, they have anticipated Howard's reaction, but what they have not anticipated is how their plan intersects with Lalo's. Watching Better Call Saul sometimes feels like watching two different shows, one about scheming lawyers and the other about the world of drug cartels; the midseason finale uses this to its advantage. When Lalo and Howard end up in the same room at the end of the midseason finale they are two characters from different shows and different worlds. Howard cannot possibly see who Lalo is, dismissing him as just a client of Jimmy, and it proves his undoing. The first half of the season ends with Lalo about to hatch his plan against Gus, a plan that suddenly involves Jimmy, the cockroach survivor, and we do not know what he will see and anticipate or fail to see in executing it, but I wonder if the first half of the season has already set up the second, if the real question is who has liabilities and attachments and who has resources. The tequila stopper in the flash forward that opens the season suggests that Jimmy/Saul still has attachments that will prove liabilities. Perhaps we have yet to see the actions that will bring Jimmy to the emptiness of Saul. 

"Die Revolution hat ein weibliches Gesicht. Der Fall Belarus" – so lautet das jüngst im Suhrkamp Verlag erschienene Buch von Olga Shparaga[1], in dem die belarusische Philosophin die aktuelle Protestbewegung in ihrer Heimat analysiert. Wie schon der Titel verrät, steht dabei die Rolle der Frauen im Fokus. Sie sind es, die das Bild der revolution-in-progress, wie Shparaga die Ereignisse in Belarus seit den gefälschten Wahlen vom Sommer 2020 nennt, maßgeblich bestimmen.Auch in Polen ist es eine Frau, die das Bild der belarusischen Proteste prägt und es damit in den letzten Wochen regelmäßig auf die Titelseiten der polnischen und internationalen Zeitungen geschafft hat. Die Rede ist von der Künstlerin und Aktivistin Jana Shostak aus Hrodna in Belarus. Stets in ein weiß-rot-weißes Kleid gekleidet – den Farben, die für den Widerstand gegen das Regime von Alexander Lukaschenko stehen – macht sie zudem mit ihrer Aktion "Krzyk dla Białorusi" ("Schrei für Belarus") unermüdlich auf die politische Situation in ihrer Heimat aufmerksam. Eine Minute lang dauert ihre Aktion, die mittlerweile unter dem Hashtag #globalscream bekannt ist. Eine Minute schreit sie mit voller Lautstärke und lädt die Herumstehenden zur Teilnahme ein. Shostak nannte es zuletzt eine "krzykoterapia" – eine "Schreitherapie". Diese bringe das Wechselbad der Emotionen zum Ausdruck, die durch die hoffnungsvollen Proteste und die blutigen Gegenreaktionen des Lukaschenko-Regimes hervorgerufen werden. In Kunstkreisen ist Shostak, die aus einer belarusisch-polnischen Familie stammt und 2010 zum Kunststudium nach Polen kam, schon seit einigen Jahren bekannt und ist regelmäßig auf zahlreichen polnischen und europäischen Ausstellungen vertreten. Zuletzt war sie auf Schönheitswettbewerben in Polen unterwegs, die sie als Plattform für künstlerische Projekte nutzt. Erstmals Aufmerksamkeit erregte sie 2017 mit ihrer Abschlussarbeit, die im Atelier des bekannten Installationskünstlers Mirosław Bałka an der Warschauer Kunstakademie entstand und als Gegenentwurf zur restriktiven Flüchtlingspolitik der Regierung gelesen werden kann.Sensibilisiert durch ihren eigenen Migrationshintergrund begab sich Shostak hier auf die Suche nach einer Alternative für das polnische Wort "uchodźca", zu Deutsch "Flüchtling".In Gesprächen mit in Polen lebenden Ausländer:innen, polnischen Bürger:innen und Sprachwissenschaftler:innen ging sie der Bedeutung des Begriffs "Flüchtling" nach. Um die mit diesem Wort verbundene stigmatisierende Wirkung in eine positive Assoziation zu wandeln, schlug sie vor, "Flüchtling" mit "Nowak" zu ersetzten – also mit dem in Polen am häufigsten vorkommenden Nachnamen, der ins Deutsche mit "Neuling", ins Englische mit "newcomer" übersetzt werden kann. Dies diskutierte sie auch in der beliebten TV-Show "Słownik Polsko-Polski" ("Polnisch-Polnisches Wörterbuch") und präsentierte ihre Ergebnisse öffentlich im beliebten Warschauer Einkaufszentrum "Złote Tarasy". Shostaks Ziel ist es, die polnische Sprache nachhaltig zu verändern und auch andere zum Gebrauch der neuen Wortschöpfung zu bewegen. Zu diesem Zweck benutzt sie seitdem in allen Interviews und öffentlichen Auftritten konsequent die Substantive "Nowak, Nowaczka, Nowacy", wenn sie von Flüchtlingen spricht und zählt darüber hinaus zum kleinen Kreis von Verfechter:innen einer gendersensiblen Sprache in Polen.[2] Seit dem Beginn der Protestbewegung gegen das Regime von Alexander Lukaschenko setzt sich Jana Shostak nun vor allem für ihre aus Belarus geflüchteten Landsleute ein. Mit ihrer einminütigen Schrei-Aktion appellierte sie im Herbst 2020 mehrere Dutzend Mal im musealen Kontext und vor dem Warschauer Büro der Europäischen Kommission für mehr Aufmerksamkeit für die Probleme von Belarus:innen. Angefangen hat sie mit dieser performativen Aktion bereits Ende August, als sie aus ihrer belarusischen Heimatstadt Hrodna von den Protesten nach der gefälschten Wahl nach Warschau zurückkehrte. Zudem engagiert sich Shostak seitdem bei der praktischen Organisation von Unterstützung für die nach Polen vor Repressionen und Folter Geflüchteten und fordert von der polnischen Politik die Einhaltung der versprochenen Hilfeleistungen. Erfolgreich war die mittlerweile 28-Jährige damit bereits im September 2020. Während eines Treffens zwischen dem polnischen Premierminister Mateusz Morawiecki mit der belarusischen Oppositionsführerin Swetlana Tichanowskaja konnte Jana Shostak auf die formellen Visa-Probleme aufmerksam machen, mit denen die belarusischen Flüchtlinge zu diesem Zeitpunkt zu kämpfen hatten. Nachdem sie bei einem offiziellen Spaziergang durch die Warschauer Innenstadt lautstark ihre Stimme erhoben hatte, suchte der Amtschef des polnischen Ministerpräsidenten das Gespräch mit ihr. Shostak erreichte, dass die Ausgabe von Touristenvisa für Belarusen wieder aufgenommen und den Inhabern von humanitären Visa der Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt ermöglicht wurde. Zuvor hatte sie ohne Ergebnis versucht, andere Abgeordnete sowie die Helsinki- Stiftung für Menschenrechte in Polen mit Sitz in Warschau zu kontaktieren. "Dank des Trainings durch meine Schrei-Minute (…) habe ich mir eine starke Stimme erarbeitet", erklärte sie ihren Erfolg im Nachhinein der Presse und setzte so auch diese Aktion in Bezug zu ihrem Schrei-Protest für Belarus.[3]Viral ging ihr Schrei-Protest, als sie bei der vom EU-Parlamentarier Robert Biedroń einberufenen Pressekonferenz nach der Gefangennahme des Bloggers und Journalisten Roman Protasewitsch teilnehmen durfte. Am 24. Mai, einen Tag nach dem Vorfall, kamen in Warschau vor der Botschaft der Republik Belarus Politiker:innen zusammen; auch in Polen lebende belarusische Oppositionelle waren bei der Pressekonferenz dabei. Shostak, wie immer in ihrem weiß-rot-weißen Kleid und diesmal mit einem Pappschild mit SOS-Schriftzug in den Händen, beendete ihren verzweifelten Appell an die EU mit dem einminütigen Schrei. Nicht nur hielt die internationale Presse diesen eindrücklichen Moment fest, in Polen erregte vor allem ihr Dekolleté oder vielmehr die Tatsache, dass sie unter ihrem Kleid keinen BH trägt, große Aufmerksamkeit.Dabei kam die Kritik nicht, wie zu erwarten wäre, vonseiten der rechtskonservativen Kreise, sondern von der Linken-Abgeordneten Anna-Maria Żukowska. Auf Twitter postete diese unter dem Foto von Shostaks Aktion einen inzwischen gelöschten Kommentar: "Warum habe ich nicht das Gefühl, dass es ihr tatsächlich um Belarus geht?"[4] Die mit der linken Zeitschrift Krytyka Polityczna verbundene Journalistin Wiktoria Bieliaszyn repostete sofort: "Jana Shostak reißt sich seit Monaten die Beine aus, ihre ganze Zeit opfert sie dem Aktivismus und realen Hilfeleistungen für Belarusen und die Opfer des Regimes. Anna-Maria Żukowska, angeblich eine Abgeordnete der Linken, sieht einen Bildschirm, auf dem man sich abzeichnende Brustwarzen sieht, also veröffentlicht sie einen blöden, ordinären, sexistischen und misogynischen Kommentar. Würden männliche Brustwarzen bei Ihnen auch so viele Emotionen hervorrufen? Schäm dich, Linke!"[5] #DekoltDlaBiałorusi – ein Dekolleté für Belarus Es folgten heftige Reaktionen in den sozialen Medien und eine große Solidarisierungwelle. Künstler:innen und Aktivist:innen organisieren seitdem in ganz Polen Schrei-Aktionen für Belarus. Besonders aktiv ist der Künstler Arek Pasożyt in Toruń. Bartosz Bielenia, der Hauptdarsteller des Oscar-nominierten Films "Corpus Christi" nutze wiederum eine offizielle Preisverleihung im Europarlament für seinen Schrei für Belarus.Shostak selbst drang in Warschau sogar bis in den Senat vor[6] und nutze die ihr zuteilwerdende Aufmerksamkeit: Über ihre sozialen und inoffiziellen Netzwerke initiierte sie die Aktion #DekoltDlaBiałorusi. Hierfür kam sie erneut vor dem Warschauer Büro der Europäischen Kommission mit einer Gruppe von Künstlerinnen und Aktivistinnen zusammen, die nur mit einem BH bekleidet oder mit ganz nacktem Oberkörper ihre Schrei-Performance begleiteten. Alle hatten dabei mit schwarzer Schrift auf dem Dekolleté die Namen von polnischen und internationalen Firmen stehen, die weiterhin mit dem Regime von Alexander Lukaschenko zusammenarbeiten. Abb. Mit freundlicher Erlaubnis von Künstlerin und vom Fotografen Die Aktion erinnert auf den ersten Blick an die Femen-Proteste – also an die in der Ukraine entstandene und mittlerweile von Frankreich aus weltweit tätige Aktivistinnen-Gruppe, die mit entblößten Brüsten und auf die Haut gemalten Sprüchen nicht unumstritten auf Frauenunterdrückung und Sexismus aufmerksam macht. #DekoltDlaBiałorusi wirkt allerdings vorsichtiger und durch die Mischung von bekleideten und obenherum entblößten Frauen weniger provokant. So ist auch zu erwähnen, dass die Brustwarzen der obenherum unbekleideten Frauen abgeklebt waren, um so die Zensur durch die sozialen Medien zu umgehen und die Weiterverbreitung der Aktion nicht zu gefährden.Nichtsdestotrotz ist es auch hier der nackte Frauenkörper in Verbindung mit dem lauten Schrei, der die Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit fordert und so Veränderung – in diesem Fall die Aufgabe der wirtschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit mit dem belarusischen Diktator – erreichen will. #DekoltDlaBiałorusi im Kontext der feministsichen Kunst und des Frauenstreiks in Polen Die Aktion #DekoltDlaBiałorusi hat folglich offensichtliche feministische Elemente. Im polnischen Kontext geht der Einsatz des nackten Frauenkörpers als Werkzeug des politischen und gesellschaftlichen Protests bereits auf die 1970er und frühen 1980er Jahre zurück. So kann die Aktion #DekoltDlaBiałorusi auch in die Tradition der Arbeiten der polnischen Performancekünstlerin Ewa Partum gestellt werden. Die seit 1983 in Berlin lebende Partum, die heute als Pionierin der feministischen Kunst Ostmitteleuropas gilt, schuf 1980 unter dem Titel "Samoidentyfikacja" ("Selbstidentifikation") einen Zyklus von Fotomontagen. In diesen komponierte sie ihren eigenen nackten Körper in Fotografien des grauen, sozialistischen Warschauer Alltags hinein, so dass es wirkt, als würde sie unbekleidet durch die Innenstadt laufen.Partums so in Szene gesetzte Nacktheit wird zu einem Moment der Kritik gegenüber dem kommunistischen System. Adressiert wird in der Serie "Selbstidentifikation" allerdings ebenso die konservative polnische Gesellschaft samt ihrer politischen Opposition, die mit ihrer Nähe zur katholischen Kirche ein traditionelles Frauenbild propagierte. Letzteres führte schließlich auch dazu, dass die seit 1956 geltende liberale Regelung auf Abtreibung 1993 im Sinne der Wiederherstellung der nationalen polnischen Ordnung und Überwindung des kommunistischen Systems verschärft wurde. Ab da war Abtreibung nur in Ausnahmefällen möglich.[7] Hatten die Frauen in Polen dies noch weitestgehend stillschweigend akzeptiert und waren feministische Stimmen wie die Ewa Partums noch eine Seltenheit, kommt es seit 2016 zu regelmäßigen Protesten gegen Versuche der weiteren Verschärfung des Rechts auf Abtreibung. Als das regierungsfreundliche Verfassungsgericht in Polen schließlich am 22. Oktober 2020 durchsetzte, dass fortan Schwangerschaftsabbrüche auch aufgrund schwerer Fehlbildungen des Fötus als verfassungswidrig gelten, überzog eine Welle von Protestaktionen das Land. Bis heute flammen diese immer wieder auf und haben sich zu einem zivilgesellschaftlichen Gegengewicht zur offiziellen Politik der PiS-Partei entwickelt. Geprägt sind die Proteste von performativen Aktionen und visuellen Symbolen wie dem roten Blitz, der zum Erkennungszeichen der Bewegung geworden ist. Sowohl im öffentlichen Raum wie auch in den sozialen Medien sind diese anzutreffen und stehen für die Forderung nach körperlicher Selbstbestimmung. Auch in diesem Kontext sind die Aktionen #DekoltDlaBiałorusi und #globalscream zu sehen. So soll an dieser Stelle nicht unerwähnt bleiben, dass das gemeinsame Schreien bereits im Kontext des Frauenstreiks eine Form des Protests darstellte.[8] Nun allerdings von der internationalen Empörung getragen, die die perfide Verhaftung Roman Protasewitsch auslöste, hat der #globalscream durch Jana Shostak in Polen eine Erweiterung und gleichzeitig Neu-Kontextualisierung erhalten. Ohne Zweifel geht es allen, die sich aktuell daran beteiligen, hauptsächlich um Aufmerksamkeit für die Situation in Belarus und Hilfe für die aus dem Land Geflüchteten. So wurde insbesondere durch die Verbindung mit der Aktion #DekoltDlaBiałorusi auch vermehrte Aufmerksamkeit auf den ebenfalls vor dem vor dem Warschauer Büro der Europäischen Kommission Anfang Juni parallel andauernden Hungerstreik der Belarusinen Stasia Glinnik, Bażena Szamowicz und Karalina Sauka gelenkt, die ähnliche Ziele wie die Schreienden verfolgten und Sanktionen der EU gegen das Lukaschenko-Regime forderten.Abb. Mit freundlicher Erlaubnis vom Künstler und vom Fotografen Aber wäre die Kritik an Jana Shostaks Dekolleté auch so viral gegangen, bestünde aktuell weniger Sensibilität für feministische Themen, zu denen auch die selbstbestimmte Wahl der Kleidung gehört? Hätte sie auch dann soviel Solidarität und Aufmerksamkeit für ihr Anliegen bekommen? Wäre es Jana Shostak ohne ihr bestehendes Netzwerk in der polnischen Kunstszene gelungen, so viele Menschen für die Solidarität mit Belarus zu mobilisieren und damit auch die Politik zum Handeln aufzufordern?Zwischen Kunst und politischem Aktivismus Neben Personen aus der belarusischen Diaspora handelt es sich nämlich bei vielen der Protagonist:innen, die Shostak bei ihren aktuellen Aktionen unterstützen, um Aktivist:innen und Künstler:innen, die auch den Frauenstreik mitprägen. Auch Jana Shostak selbst gehört zu jenen, die den Frauenstreik unterstützen und die sich ebenso immer wieder für Klimaschutz, gegen Rassismus und Homophobie einsetzen. Dabei werden jenseits der parteigelenkten Politik "postartistische", meist performative Praktiken an der Grenze von Kunstbetrieb und politischem Aktivismus entwickelt. Diese überwinden den musealen Kontext und gemeinsam mit einer breiten Masse wird für Minderheitenrechte und gegen Diskriminierung in Polen und weltweit eingestanden.Shostaks Engagement in dieser Sache offenbart nicht nur ihr eingangs erwähntes Projekt "Nowak, Nowaczka, Nowacy". Deutlich wurde dies zuletzt auch während der "Parada Równości", der "Pride-Parade", die am 19. Juni 2021 in Warschau stattfand. Hier taten sich Vertreter:innen des Frauenstreiks mit den belarusischen Aktivist:innen zusammen und demonstrierten gemeinsam mit der LGBTQI-Community friedlich gegen die von der Regierung mitbefeuerte Homophobie. Shostak appellierte dabei auch an die belarusische Oppositionsbewegung, bei den eigenen Bemühungen um die europäischen Werte und Rechte selbst auch keine Minderheiten auszugrenzen. Dafür musste sie wiederum Stimmen der Kritik von der oftmals konservative Werte vertretenden belarussischen Diaspora hinnehmen. Abb. Facebook-Screenshot mit freundlicher Erlaubnis der Künstlerin
[1] Olga Shparaga: Die Revolution hat ein weibliches Gesicht. Der Fall Belarus, Berlin 2021.


[2] Vgl. https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/9664/newcomers-poland-migration-art (29.6.2021.)


[3] Maciek Piasecki: Historia jednego protestu: nakrzyczała na Morawieckiego i wywalczyła pomoc dla Białorusinów, oko.press vom 3. Oktober 2020, https://oko.press/nakrzyczala-na-morawieckiego-i-wywalczyla-pomoc/ (29.6.2021)


[4] Anna Maria Żukowska komentuje zdjęcie aktywistki. "Dlaczego nie mam wrażenia, że naprawdę chodzi jej o Białoruś?", wprost.pl vom 25. Mai 2021, https://www.wprost.pl/polityka/10450242/jan-shostak-wzniosla-krzyk-rozpaczy-anna-maria-zukowska-krytykuje-aktywistke.html (29.6.2021).

[5] https://twitter.com/bieliaszyn/status/1396869027721515010?s=27 (29.6.2021).

[6] "Łukaszenka uczynił z polskiej mniejszości kozła ofiarnego", TVN 24 Polska vom 11. Juni 2021,https://tvn24.pl/polska/senat-debata-na-temat-dzialan-polskiego-rzadu-w-sprawie-bialorusi-5118137 (29.6.2021).


[7] Vgl. Stephan Raabe (unter Mitarbeit von Janina Härtel): Zur Korrektur eines Klischees: Abtreibung in Polen Zahlen und Schätzungen, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Polen, 9. Mai 2007, https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4f270774-45bc-a804-cf3c-49183e68ca6f&groupId=252038 (29.6.2021)


[8] Akcja "Global Scream" w Poznaniu - minuta krzyku kobiet na Półwiejskiej, in: Polska Times (Onlineausgabe) vom 9. März 2019.
https://polskatimes.pl//akcja-global-scream-w-poznaniu-minuta-krzyku-kobiet-na-polwiejskiej-zdjecia-wideo/ar/13949883 (29.6.2021). In Berlin organisiert das mit dem polnischen Frauenstreik verbundene Kollektiv Dziewuchy Berlin seit 2019 auch #globalscream-Aktionen. Vgl. HERstoria współczesna – o Global Scream, https://www.dziewuchyberlin.org/2021/06/19/herstoria-wspolczesna-o-global-scream/?fbclid=IwAR3iqp1iYEpz3fW_3NUWEBRCGzJpmhI0rnDl0H67qYF_e9bZIhiItxJMREI (29.6.2021)

Die stetig fortschreitende Urbanisierung ist eine der prägenden Entwicklungen unserer Zeit. Mit einer immer größeren Bevölkerung, die sich in Städten niederlässt, haben sich urbane Gebiete zu den Knotenpunkten unserer Gesellschaft entwickelt. Sie sind Treffpunkt für Innovationen, Wirtschaftswachstum und kulturellen Austausch.Doch mit dieser enormen Verdichtung der Bevölkerung in städtischen Ballungsräumen geht auch eine Reihe komplexer Herausforderungen einher. Städte stehen vor einem wachsenden Druck, die Bedürfnisse ihrer Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu erfüllen, aber auch gleichzeitig ökologische und soziale Nachhaltigkeit sicherzustellen (vgl. Etezadzadeh 2015, S. 1ff.).In diesem Kontext hat sich das Konzept der "Smart City" in den letzten Jahren als zukunftsweisender Ansatz erwiesen. Die Smart City stellt eine strategische Herangehensweise dar, die auf Technologie und Innovation setzt, um Städte intelligenter, nachhaltiger und lebenswerter zu gestalten. Der Kerngedanke besteht darin, städtische Ressourcen effizienter zu nutzen und gleichzeitig die Lebensqualität der Bürger*innen zu erhöhen (vgl. Etezadzadeh 2015, S. 7f.). Eine Smart City nutzt moderne Technologien, wie künstliche Intelligenz (KI) und Big Data-Analysen, um urbane Prozesse zu optimieren.Trotz des Potenzials zur Förderung einer nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung gibt es jedoch auch einige Herausforderungen, mit denen sich die Städte konfrontiert sehen. Datenschutz und Privatsphäre sind wichtige Anliegen, insbesondere angesichts der Vielzahl von Daten, die in einer Smart City erfasst werden. Die Finanzierung solcher umfassenden städtischen Transformationen kann ebenfalls ein Hindernis darstellen. Des Weiteren stellt die Einbeziehung der Bürgerschaft eine komplexe Aufgabe dar.Die folgende Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Konzept Smart City und fragt nach den damit zusammenhängenden Chancen und Herausforderungen. Welche Chancen bietet das Konzept für eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung? Um ein vertieftes Verständnis für die Smart City als einen richtungsweisenden Ansatz zur Bewältigung der städtischen Herausforderungen im Hinblick auf eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung zu erlangen, wird die Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau herangezogen, die als ein Beispiel für eine intelligente und nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung steht.Warum Smart City?Mit dem Eintritt in das neue Jahrtausend hat sich eine bedeutende Entwicklung abgezeichnet: Das Zeitalter der Städte hat begonnen, und erstmalig in der Geschichte der Menschheit wohnt die Mehrheit der Weltbevölkerung in städtischen Gebieten. Dieser Wandel ist eng mit einem Anstieg der Weltbevölkerung verbunden. Im Jahr 1950 lebte weniger als ein Drittel der Weltbevölkerung in urbanen Gebieten. Seit 2007 ist dieser Anteil auf mehr als die Hälfte angestiegen. Laut Berechnungen der Vereinten Nationen werden bis zum Jahr 2050 voraussichtlich etwa zwei Drittel der Weltbevölkerung in Städten leben (vgl. bpb 2017, o.S.).Mit dem Zuwachs der urbanen Bevölkerung rücken vermehrt Potenziale und Herausforderungen hinsichtlich der Städte im globalen Entwicklungsprozess in den Fokus, darunter die Bekämpfung von Armut, die Integration marginalisierter Gruppen, das Wirtschaftswachstum sowie die Verwirklichung von Klima- und Entwicklungszielen. Der anhaltende Trend zur Urbanisierung erfordert spezifisch angepasste und nachhaltige Ansätze für die Gestaltung von urbanen Siedlungen (vgl. Jaekel 2015, S. 2f.).Durch dieses Wachstum entstehen jedoch auch Risiken. Mit dem rapiden Anstieg der Bevölkerungszahlen geht eine Zunahme des motorisierten Verkehrs einher. Dies führt u.a. zur Verkehrsstauung und verstärkten Lärm- und Schadstoffemissionen. Gleichzeitig kommt es zur Verschmutzung von Böden und Gewässern und vermehrter Bebauung landwirtschaftlicher Flächen (vgl. Weiland 2018, o.S.).Außerdem weisen Städte einen erhöhten Bedarf an Ressourcen wie z.B. Wasser, Energie und Rohstoffe für Gewerbe, Haushalte und Verkehr auf. Städte tragen damit überproportional zur Nutzung vorhandener Ressourcen bei, zu steigenden CO2-Emissionen und gelten damit als ein Verursacher der globalen Klimaerwärmung (vgl. Weiland 2018, o.S.). Natürliche Lebensräume und die Artenvielfalt sind gefährdet, wodurch die Städte gleichzeitig ihre eigene Lebensgrundlage zerstören (vgl. Etezadzadeh 2015, S. 7). Dabei sind es insbesondere die Städte, die"das Potenzial [haben], durch ihre Dichte und Struktur klima- und ressourcenschonend zu wirtschaften und durch geeignete Maßnahmen den Schutz der lebendigen Umwelt zu fördern" (Etezadzadeh 2015, S. 5).Städte spielen demnach eine entscheidende Rolle im Kontext des ökologischen Fortschritts und des Klimaschutzes. Eine auf Umweltbewusstsein basierende Stadtentwicklung kann wesentlich zur nachhaltigen Nutzung von Ressourcen beitragen. Dabei stellt das Konzept der Smart City einen Ansatz dar, diese Schwierigkeiten anzugehen (vgl. LpB BW 2022, o.S.). Das Konzept Smart CityFür die genannten urbanen Herausforderungen im Hinblick auf die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahrzehnte gibt es verschiedene Ansätze, Konzepte und Lösungsmodelle, welche unter dem Begriff "Smart City" firmieren. Grundsätzlich wird Smart City als ganzheitlicher Lösungsansatz gesehen, bei dem eine Vielzahl von Akteuren beteiligt sind. Dabei gibt es keine einheitliche Definition des Begriffs."Aus der Erkenntnis, dass den Herausforderungen einer Stadt mit einem umfassenden Ansatz begegnet werden muss, entstand die Idee der intelligenten Stadt" (Hadzik 2016, S. 10).Das Konzept der Smart City integriert verschiedene Bereiche des urbanen Lebens: die soziale und bauliche Infrastruktur, Verkehr, Mobilität, Energie, Nachhaltigkeit, Dienstleistungen, Politik, aber auch die generelle Stadtentwicklung und ihre Planung (vgl. Hadzik 2016, S. 10). Einen zentraler Bestandteil der Welt der Smart City stellt die Verwendung von digitaler Technologie dar. Hier sehen sich die Städte dem Anspruch gegenüber, digitale Instrumente adäquat einzusetzen und damit für effizientere und nachhaltigere Prozesse zu sorgen. Durch deren Einsatz sollen intelligente Lösungen für das urbane Leben geschaffen werden (vgl. Etezadzadeh 2015, S. 46f.). Zwar gibt es keine einheitliche Vorstellung davon, was "Smart City" ist und sein soll, jedoch ist"den meisten Ansätzen […] gemein, dass man unter 'Smart City' den Einsatz neuer Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT) zum Zwecke einer integrierten Stadtentwicklung versteht" (Hoppe 2015, S. 5).Dadurch stellen Klimaschutz, die Steigerung der Lebensqualität für Bewohner*innen, wachsende Partizipation, Inklusion und Effizienz von Ressourcen übergeordnete Ziele dar, welche mithilfe dieser Technologien erreicht werden sollen (vgl. Hoppe 2015, S. 5). Vor diesem Hintergrund sollen "smarte" Lösungen die Antwort hinsichtlich einer Optimierung urbaner Prozesse sein (vgl. Libbe 2019, S. 2). Der Unterschied zwischen einer "normalen" Stadt und einer Smart City liegt demnach darin, dass eine Smart City durch Digitalisierung"effizienter, nachhaltiger und fortschrittlicher sein [soll]. Das kann die Infrastruktur betreffen, Gebäude, Mobilität, Dienstleistungen oder die Sicherheit" (LpB BW 2022, o.S.).Es hat sich gezeigt, dass der Smart City- Ansatz nicht als fertige Lösungsstrategie betrachtet werden und auch nicht als vollständig ausgearbeitetes Modell angesehen werden kann (vgl. Jaekel 2015, S. 31), sondern vielmehr als eine Reihe von Entwicklungsstrategien (vgl. LpB 2022, o.S.). Es lassen sich jedoch verschiedene Bausteine identifizieren.Bausteine einer Smart CityNach Steinbrecher, Salg und Starzetz (2018, S. 2) lassen sich sechs Bereiche der Smart City ausmachen: Smart Economy, Smart People, Smart Governance, Smart Mobility, Smart Environment, Smart Living.Smart Economy: Das Ziel der Smart Economy besteht darin, die umfangreichen Innovationsmöglichkeiten von Städten zu nutzen, um wirtschaftliche Herausforderungen und Veränderungen erfolgreich zu bewältigen. Hierbei sollen die reichhaltigen Daten- und Informationsressourcen von Städten eingesetzt werden, um bestehende Wirtschaftszweige zu stärken, z.B. durch die Optimierung von Produktions- oder Dienstleistungsprozessen. Gleichzeitig soll die Entstehung neuer Wirtschaftszweige gefördert werden, etwa durch die Entwicklung digitaler Angebote für Bürger*innen und Unternehmen.Smart People: Für die Umsetzung aller digitalen und "smarten" Anwendungen ist es erforderlich, dass die Bürger*innen und Unternehmen über digitale Fähigkeiten verfügen, um die vorhandenen Angebote nutzen oder sogar weiterentwickeln zu können. Der Bereich "Smart People" bezieht sich darauf, das Ziel zu verfolgen, die digitalen Kompetenzen der Menschen so zu fördern und auszubauen, dass die aktiv an der Gestaltung ihrer Stadt, der Wirtschaft und der Umwelt teilhaben und mitwirken können.Smart Governance: Smart Governance strebt danach, eine engere Verbindung zwischen Bürgern und Verwaltung herzustellen. Dieses Konzept zielt darauf ab, die Abläufe und Interaktionen innerhalb der Verwaltung zu optimieren und die Kommunikation zwischen der Verwaltung und den Bürgern zu verbessern. Dies erfordert nicht nur den Einsatz von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT), sondern auch die Entwicklung neuer Methoden, um eine tiefere Beteiligung der Bürger zu ermöglichen und innovative Wege für digitale Bürgerbeteiligung zu schaffen.Smart Mobility: Der Transportsektor trägt maßgeblich zum Energieverbrauch und den Emissionen von Treibhausgasen bei. Außerdem sind andere Umweltauswirkungen wie Lärm und Luftverschmutzung stark mit dem Verkehr verknüpft. Eine effiziente Mobilitätsstrategie zielt darauf ab, die negativen Auswirkungen des Verkehrssektors zu reduzieren, während sie den hohen Mobilitätsanforderungen der modernen Gesellschaft gerecht wird. Smart Mobility strebt an, Lösungen zu entwickeln, die von IKT unterstützt werden und die Umweltbelastung und Lärmbelästigung signifikant verringern. Dies beinhaltet die Weiterentwicklung bewährter Transportkonzepte, wie autonome und emissionsfreie Verkehrslösungen, sowie die Optimierung des Verkehrsflusses durch Echtzeit-Verkehrsleitsysteme. Darüber hinaus kann auch die Integration alternativer Mobilitäts- und Stadtplanungskonzepte, wie z.B. die Förderung einer "Stadt der kurzen Wege", die idealerweise ohne motorisierten Verkehr auskommt, Teil einer Smart Mobility-Strategie sein.Smart Environment: Im Bereich des Smart Environment lassen sich intelligente Ansätze zur Verringerung des Energie- und Ressourcenverbrauchs verorten. Dazu gehört u.a. die Verbesserung der Überwachung und Steuerung von Umweltbedingungen, beispielsweise durch kontinuierliche Überwachung der Luft- oder Wasserqualität. Diese Herangehensweise erfordert gleichzeitig eine verstärkte Nutzung erneuerbarer Energiequellen. IKT-basierte Anwendungen und Infrastrukturen wie Smart Grids spielen hierbei eine entscheidende Rolle, da sie dazu beitragen, das Angebot und die Nachfrage von Energie effizienter aufeinander abzustimmen.Smart Living: Dieser Bereich zielt darauf ab, IKT-basierte Anwendungen stärker einzubinden und damit zu einer Verbesserung der Lebensqualität der Bürger*innen beizutragen. Dies kann z.B. durch einen höheren Komfort bei der Bedienung drahtlos vernetzter Haushaltsgeräte, wie der Kaffeemaschine oder der Heizung, geschehen (vgl. Steinbrecher, Salg, Starzets 2018, S. 2).Im Folgenden werden konkrete Handlungsfelder und Anwendungsbereiche des Konzepts Smart City betrachtet, wobei der Fokus insbesondere auf die Umsetzung in der Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau liegt. Welche Ideen, Innovationen und Anwendungen konnten in Freiburg bisher realisiert werden und was plant die Stadt weiter in Richtung Smart City? Um ein umfassendes Bild der Thematik zu erlangen, werden im Anschluss die damit zusammenhängenden Chancen und Herausforderungen für die Transformation urbaner Räume durch das Konzept der Smart City dargestellt. Chancen von Smart City-Konzepten – die Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau"Gutes Zusammenleben, saubere Luft angenehmes Stadtklima, emissionsarme Mobilität, Raum für Fußgänger, attraktiv für Kreative und Engagierte, Unternehmen und Gäste. Sicherer Alltag, freundliche und offene Quartiere, in denen wir gerne leben" (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 1).Im Folgenden wird die Stadt Freiburg zur Betrachtung herangezogen und danach gefragt, wie diese die Inhalte und Prinzipien des Konzepts Smart City konkret umsetzt. Welche Chancen und Herausforderungen ergeben sich dabei für Freiburg, aber auch für andere Städte auf dem Weg in die "smarte" Richtung? Das folgende Video gibt einen Überblick über die (digitalen) Ziele der Stadt (digital.freiburg 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3clTSCU1NjY) Freiburg ist eine der zahlreichen Städte in Deutschland, die damit begonnen haben, bestimmte Maßnahmen bezüglich des Feldes der "smarten" Stadtplanung und Stadtentwicklung anzugehen. Dabei haben die Städte Freiburg, Mannheim, Aalen und Heidenheim in Baden-Württemberg im Jahr 2020 beim Bundeswettbewerb "Smart Cities made in Germany" eine Förderung für digitale Zukunftsprojekte erhalten (vgl. LpB BW 2022, o.S.).Freiburg hat eine Digitalstrategie entwickelt hinsichtlich der Frage, wie Digitalisierung helfen kann, die Stadt nach den Vorstellungen der Menschen zu entwickeln. Diese digitale Agenda besteht aus insgesamt sechs Themenfeldern. Jedes Themenfeld umfasst Maßnahmen und Ziele, welche die Entwicklung der Stadtgesellschaft im Blick haben. Die Digitalisierungsstrategie beschreibt das Freiburg der nächsten sechs Jahre und zielt auf das Jahr 2025 ab (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 6).Digitalstrategie Freiburg: https://digital.freiburg.de/digitalstrategie Im Folgenden werden die sechs Themenfelder der Strategie und einige damit zusammenhängende Maßnahmen betrachtet, um ein umfassenderes Bild der Smart City Freiburg gewinnen zu können.1. Lebenswelten. Familie. GesundheitDigitales Nachbarschaftsnetzwerk: Freiburg entwickelt unter dem Namen "Soziale Nachbarschaft und Technik" (SoNaTe) aktuell ein digitales Kommunikationsnetzwerk. Dabei sollen soziale Nachbarschaften in Kommunen und Regionen gestärkt werden. Das Ziel ist die lokale Verbindung von Menschen, Gruppen, Organisationen und Unternehmen, aber auch die Vereinfachung des Zugangs zu Kommunikation, Dienstleistungen, Infrastruktur und Freizeitangeboten. Die Plattform als Alternative zu etablierten sozialen Medien soll bundesweit eingesetzt werden und die Teilhabe ihrer Nutzer*innen gewährleisten.Online-Vermittlung von Räumen in der Stadt: Die Stadt arbeitet in Zusammenarbeit mit verschiedenen Kooperationspartnern daran, ein Online-Tool zur Vermittlung von Räumlichkeiten zu entwickeln. Dieses Tool soll dazu beitragen, die gemeinsame und effiziente Nutzung von städtischen Räumen, Hallen und Vereinsräumen zu fördern. Darüber hinaus wird es dazu beitragen, das vielfältige Engagement von städtischen Initiativen besser sichtbar zu machen.Digitale Unterstützung bei Feuerwehr und Rettungsdienst: Die Integrierte Leitstelle (ILS) in Freiburg befindet sich derzeit in der Entwicklungs- und Testphase als Pilotstandort für eine fortschrittliche Handyortung namens AML (Advanced Mobile Location) im Falle eines Notrufs über Smartphones. Zusätzlich unterstützt die ILS Freiburg die Ersthilfe-App namens "FirstAED", die dazu dient, die nächstgelegenen Ersthelfer zu alarmieren. In Zukunft soll die ILS Freiburg eine automatisierte "Nächste-Rettungsmittel-Strategie" einführen, die auf GPS-Ortung direkt aus dem Einsatzleitsystem der ILS Freiburg basiert. Gleichzeitig wird im Rahmen des Landesprojekts "Leitstelle Baden-Württemberg" ein vernetzungsfähiges Einsatzleit- und Kommunikationssystem aufgebaut. Parallel dazu wird der Ausbau von vernetzten, GPS-gesteuerten Ampelvorrangschaltungen und bevorzugten Strecken vorangetrieben, die auch von Fahrzeugen der Freiwilligen Feuerwehren genutzt werden können (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 19ff.).2. Gesellschaft. Ethik. VertrauenBürgerschaftliche Beteiligung mit digitalen Mitteln: Um sicherzustellen, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von Freiburg effektiv und einheitlich an städtischen Angelegenheiten teilnehmen können, wurde ein IT-gestütztes Instrument eingeführt. Die Website "mitmachen.freiburg.de" bietet verschiedene Beteiligungsmodule an, die je nach Art des Projekts flexibel eingesetzt werden können. Die Online-Beteiligung wird aktiv ausgebaut und soll als Standardmethode neben den traditionellen analogen Beteiligungsformaten etabliert werden. Zusätzlich soll die formelle Beteiligung der Bürger*innen bei der Bauleitplanung durch den Einsatz digitaler Tools vereinfacht und verbessert werden. In Zukunft wird die Stadtverwaltung verschiedene Formen der Beteiligung anbieten, die im Einklang mit dieser Digitalisierungsstrategie stehen (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 31).3. Bildung. Kultur. WissenschaftIndustrie 4.0-Labor-Walter-Rathenau-Gewerbeschule: Im Mai 2018 wurde ein Labor eingerichtet, das mit digital gesteuerten Produktionsmodulen wie Industrierobotern und Automatisierungssystemen ausgestattet ist. Ziel war es, intelligente Produktionsprozesse zu entwickeln und Schulungen auf der Grundlage realer Industriestandards durchzuführen. Dieses Labor ist äußerst flexibel, da seine Komponenten und Schnittstellen denen in der Industrie gleichen. Es kann problemlos an aktuelle Entwicklungen und neue Industriestandards angepasst werden. Die Einrichtung des Industrie 4.0-Labors erfolgte in enger Abstimmung mit den Anforderungen der Wirtschaft und wurde speziell auf den Schulbetrieb abgestimmt. Die Finanzierung für dieses Labor erfolgte ausschließlich aus dem städtischen Haushalt.Museen Digital: Die Planungen für das "Museum der Zukunft" umfassen die Erwägung neuer Ausstellungsformate im Kontext der Digitalisierung. Dabei werden innovative digitale Vermittlungswege sowie die Nutzung von Social Media in Betracht gezogen. Ein Hauptziel besteht darin, den Besucherinnen und Besuchern einen einfachen und unmittelbaren Zugang zu Informationen und den Dienstleistungen der Museen zu ermöglichen. Die Ausstellungsinhalte sollen durch vielfältige multimediale und interaktive Vermittlungsformate lebendiger erlebbar gemacht werden. Dies könnte den Einsatz von Technologien wie Augmented Reality, 3D-Visualisierungen und sogar spielerische Elemente wie Gaming-Formate einschließen. Eine zentrale Grundlage für die digitale Vermittlung ist eine umfangreiche Museumsdatenbank, die als Wissensspeicher dient und die digitale Sammlung erweitert. Auf dieser Basis kann die Museumsdatenbank in einem weiteren Schritt mit den physischen Ausstellungsobjekten verknüpft werden, um die reale Ausstellung um Informationen zu Entstehungsprozessen, Techniken, Materialien und Geschichte zu bereichern (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 43ff.).4. Digitale StadtverwaltungDigitaler Posteingang, Digitale Akten- und Vorgangsverwaltung: Die Einführung der elektronischen e-Akte ist bereits weit fortgeschritten und bildet das Fundament für die Digitalisierung in der Verwaltung. Sie eröffnet die Möglichkeit zur Effizienzsteigerung von Arbeitsabläufen und ermöglicht flexibleres Arbeiten, unabhängig von Zeit und Ort. Dies hat zur Folge, dass Informationen und Dokumente nicht mehr in vielfacher Ausführung und in verschiedenen Medien an verschiedenen Orten aufbewahrt werden müssen. Die Einführung der e-Akte ermöglicht sogenannte "medienbruchfreie" Prozesse und verbessert die Dienstleistungen für Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Die positiven Auswirkungen der e-Akte erstrecken sich somit über die internen Verwaltungsabläufe hinaus.Digitale Stadt- und Bauplanung: Wie viele Großstädte in Deutschland steht auch Freiburg vor der Herausforderung, schnell neuen und bezahlbaren Wohnraum zu schaffen, der gleichzeitig umweltfreundlich und nachhaltig ist. Um diesem Bedarf gerecht zu werden, sollen Bauplanung und baurechtliche Verfahren mithilfe digitaler Werkzeuge vereinfacht werden. Aktuell werden die baurechtlichen Aspekte in der gesamten Stadt digital erfasst. Gleichzeitig werden neue Bauprojekte in einem standardisierten digitalen Format entwickelt (XPlanung/XBau). Dieser Ansatz ermöglicht nicht nur eine digitale Beteiligung aller Betroffenen in den verschiedenen Phasen des Planungsprozesses, sondern ebnet auch den Weg für digitale Bauanträge. Durch teilautomatisierte digitale Prüfungen wird die Zeitspanne von der Antragstellung bis zur Genehmigung verkürzt. Zusätzlich werden aus den verfügbaren digitalen Informationen dreidimensionale Pläne (ein "digitaler Zwilling") erstellt, die umfassende Analyse- und Berichtsoptionen für die Stadtentwicklung bieten. In diesem Zusammenhang ermöglicht eine detaillierte digitale Darstellung von Gebäudemodellen (Building Information Modeling - BIM) die Verknüpfung von Entwurfsvisualisierungen, Baufortschritt, Genehmigungsverfahren und Gebäudemanagement.Service Management für digitale Bürger*innenanfragen: In Zukunft sollen alle digitalen Anfragen von Bürger*innen in ein zentrales Ticketsystem geleitet werden. Dieses System soll einen einheitlichen, zentral gesteuerten Bearbeitungsprozess bieten. Die verschiedenen Dienststellen und Ämter sollen in dieses Ticketsystem integriert werden und können darüber den gesamten Kommunikationsprozess abwickeln. Die Nutzung von Automatisierung, die Möglichkeit zur Überwachung, Steuerung und Auswertung innerhalb dieses Systems soll die Servicequalität bei der Beantwortung der Anfragen verbessern (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 57ff.).5. Arbeit. Wirtschaft. TourismusNetzausbau: Masterplan digitale Infrastruktur: Um die Grundlage für den Netzausbau zu schaffen, soll ein Masterplan "digitale Infrastruktur für Freiburg" als Ausbaustrategie erstellt werden, was auch Gigabit-Breitband, 5G sowie Sensorik-Netzwerke einschließen soll. Zusätzlich soll für den Mobilfunk ein koordinierter, aber auch strahlungsmindernder Ausbau in Kooperation mit den Anbietern geschaffen werden (vgl. Digitalstrategie Freiburg, S. 72).6. Netze. Energie. VerkehrIntermodale Verkehrsplattform/App: Die bestehende ÖPNV-Auskunft namens "VAG mobil" sowie der digitale Vertrieb über "MobilTicket" und den "VAG-Online-Shop" werden um neue multimodale Funktionen erweitert. Egal an welchem Ort sich Kunden der VAG in Freiburg gerade befinden, die App zeigt auf einer Karte nicht nur Haltestellen mit Live-Abfahrtszeiten für Busse und Bahnen, sondern auch sämtliche "Sharingpoints" für Fahrzeuge und Fahrräder an. In einem ersten Schritt wurden verfügbare Mietfahrräder des Fahrradverleihsystems "FRELO" in die "VAG mobil"-App integriert, inklusive Buchung, Nutzung und Abrechnungsfunktionen.Umweltsensitives Verkehrsmanagement: Der Luftreinhalteplan sieht vor, dass bei Überschreitung bestimmter Schadstoffwerte an der Messstelle Schwarzwaldstraße die Menge des Verkehrs aus dem Osten, der über die B 31 in die Stadt einfährt, reguliert werden soll. In diesem Kontext wird derzeit untersucht, ob es sinnvoll ist, die bestehende Verkehrssteuerung zu einem umfassenden Verkehrsleitsystem für Freiburg auszubauen. Ein solches System könnte dazu verwendet werden, sicherzustellen, dass nur eine angemessene Anzahl von Fahrzeugen in das Stadtgebiet oder in bestimmte Stadtteile einfährt, die dort ohne größere Störungen bewältigt werden können. Es würde auch die Möglichkeit bieten, auf hohe Schadstoffbelastungen, beispielsweise bei ungünstiger Witterung, und auf akute Verkehrsstörungen wie Baustellen, Unfälle oder Veranstaltungen gezielt zu reagieren.Ausbau öffentliches WLAN: Ein kostenfreies WLAN an Verwaltungsstandorten und öffentlichen Einrichtungen sowie in Bussen und Stadtbahnen soll ausgebaut werden.Belegungserfassung und Leitsystem für P&R-Parkplätze: Durch die Installation von Belegungssensoren an den P+R-Anlagen wird die Belegung effizienter gestaltet und die unerlaubte Nutzung durch Dauerparker*innen oder Fremdparker*innen verringert. Dies ermöglicht es Besuchern und Pendlern, Echtzeitinformationen über die Auslastung der P+R-Parkplätze online über die städtische Website, die App "VAG mobil" und dynamische Wegweiser zu erhalten. Diese Daten werden ähnlich wie im bestehenden Parkleitsystem der Innenstadt verarbeitet. Das Ziel ist es, den Verkehr innerhalb der Stadt zu reduzieren, indem Berufspendler und Besucher leichter freie P+R-Plätze am Stadtrand finden können, um von dort auf den öffentlichen Nahverkehr oder das städtische Fahrradverleihsystem umzusteigen. Darüber hinaus wird durch die Integration weiterer Parkhäuser in das bestehende Echtzeit-Parkleitsystem in der Innenstadt vermieden, dass Parkplatzsuchende unnötige Autofahrten unternehmen müssen.In Anbetracht der vorangegangenen Entwicklungen und Maßnahmen, die in Freiburg im Kontext der Smart City-Initiative geplant und umgesetzt werden, wird deutlich, dass die Stadt aktiv bestrebt ist, intelligente Lösungen zur Bewältigung der heutigen und zukünftigen urbanen Herausforderungen zu implementieren. Freiburg setzt dabei auf Digitalisierung und Technologie, um die Lebensqualität der Bürger*innen zu steigern und gleichzeitig umweltfreundlichere, effizientere und nachhaltigere Stadtstrukturen zu schaffen. Dies zeigt sich in verschiedenen Aspekten, z.B. darin, dass Freiburg grundsätzlich den Anspruch hat, die Menschen in den Fokus der Digitalisierung zu stellen, damit diese den Prozess der Digitalisierung aktiv mitgestalten können, was im Hinblick auf die Einrichtung der Online-Beteiligungsplattform "mitmachen.freiburg" deutlich wird (Mitmachen.Freiburg: https://mitmachen.freiburg.de/stadtfreiburg/de/home). Darüber hinaus investiert die Stadt in die Entwicklung digitaler Plattformen und Services, die den Zugang der Bürger*innen zu städtischen Dienstleistungen verbessern. Im Bereich des Verkehrs und der Mobilität trägt Freiburg mit der Einführung von intelligenten Verkehrssystemen, der Optimierung des Nahverkehrs sowie im Rahmen des Belegungssystems für P+R Parklätze dazu bei, den Verkehr in der Stadt effizienter und nachhaltiger zu gestalten.Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Stadt Freiburg auf unterschiedliche Weise in Richtung Smart City moderne Technologien und digitale Lösungen einsetzt, um die Lebensqualität zu steigern, Umweltbelastungen zu reduzieren und die Stadt insgesamt effizienter und nachhaltiger zu gestalten. Die zuvor genannten Beispiele der verschiedenen Themenfelder haben gezeigt, dass Tendenzen im Hinblick auf Konzepte und Bereiche der Smart City geplant, umgesetzt und auch funktionieren können. Trotzdem stehen Städte wie Freiburg vor einigen Herausforderungen bei der Implementierung und Umsetzung von Strategien und Plänen im Sinne von Smart City.Herausforderungen für Smart CitiesDW Shift (2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRRPy-yEKRM Smart Cities stehen vor einer Reihe von Herausforderungen, während sie sich bemühen, technologische Lösungen zur Verbesserung der Lebensqualität, Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz in städtischen Gebieten zu implementieren. Dazu gehören die Aspekte Sicherheit, Datenschutz und Privatsphäre, Inklusion und Chancengleichheit sowie finanzielle Aspekte.Das Konzept der Smart City sieht in verschiedenen Teilbereichen das Sammeln einer Fülle von Daten vor. Hierbei gilt es zu beachten, dass Digitalisierung dem Menschen dienen sollte und die Implementierung von Smart City-Elementen nicht eine übermäßige Überwachung der Bürger*innen voraussetzt. Dabei stellen die Sicherheit und die Privatsphäre der Bürger*innen zentrale Punkte dar, die es zu beachten und zu berücksichtigen gilt (vgl. LpB BW 2022, o.S.).Die Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (2022, o.S.) führt an, dass sich eine Smart City an den Grundsätzen der Digitalcharta des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der Bundesregierung orientieren sollte. Hierzu gehört in erster Linie die Wahrung der Menschenwürde im Digitalen. Darüber hinaus gilt, dass jeder Mensch das Recht auf Identität, Datenschutz und Privatsphäre hat. An dieser Stelle stellt sich bei dieser großen Menge an gesammelten Daten die Frage, was mit den gesammelten Daten passiert, wer darauf Zugriff hat und was damit gemacht wird (vgl. Stöckl 2022, o.s.). Unter einer Unsicherheit im Hinblick auf Datenschutz und Privatsphäre kann die Effizienz von Smart Cities leiden sowie das Vertrauen in öffentliche Behörden, was die Einrichtung von ausreichendem Datenschutz und Transparenz zu einer zentralen Herausforderung macht (vgl. Stöckl 2022, o.S.).Eine weitere Herausforderung für Smart Cities ist die Gewährleistung von Inklusion und Chancengleichheit. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass digitale Infrastrukturen für alle Menschen zugänglich sein und überdies gleiche Chancen für gesellschaftliche Teilhabe und Entfaltung bieten sollten. Das stellt die Städte vor Schwierigkeiten, da es immer technikaffine und weniger technikaffine Menschen sowie Menschen unterschiedlichen Alters mit unterschiedlichen Fähigkeiten geben wird. Somit sollte im Idealfall bei der Digitalisierung der Städte darauf geachtet werden, dass beispielsweise nicht-technikaffine Bürger*innen keine Nachteile oder Ausgrenzung erfahren. Es stellt sich demnach die Frage, ob es sinnvoll ist, z.B. den Kauf von Parktickets oder Bahnfahrkarten ausschließlich über Smartphones zur Verfügung zu stellen, da nicht alle Menschen ein Smartphone besitzen (vgl. LpB BW 2022, o.S.). Somit ist die Gewährleistung, dass die Vorteile der Digitalisierung niemanden abhängen oder zurücklassen, mitunter eine der größten Herausforderungen für eine Smart City (vgl. Stöckl 2022, o.S.).Was als weitere zentrale Herausforderung hinzukommt, mit der jede Stadt zwangsläufig konfrontiert wird, wenn es um die Planung und Umsetzung von Anwendungen und Strategien hinsichtlich des Smart City-Konzeptes geht, ist der Aspekt der Finanzierung. Für eine erfolgreiche Finanzierung müssen verschiedene Finanzierungsinstrumente und -strategien herangezogen werden, wozu öffentliche sowie private Akteure gehören. Die Planung und Durchsetzung von Geldern hinsichtlich der Einrichtung von Smart City muss von den Städten demnach ausreichend durchdacht und organisiert werden (vgl. Hinterberger et. al. 2015, S. 4).FazitARTE (2023): Retten Städte die Welt? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkrIDg0_8c Smart Cities bieten eine Vielzahl von Chancen und Möglichkeiten, die die Lebensqualität der Bürgerinnen und Bürger verbessern, die Effizienz städtischer Dienstleistungen steigern und zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung beitragen können. Folgende Schlussfolgerungen konnten aus der Betrachtung der Smart City Freiburg gezogen werden:Smart City-Technologien können die Lebensqualität in städtischen Gebieten erheblich steigern. Dies umfasst eine bessere Luftqualität, weniger Verkehrsstaus, sauberes Wasser, sichere Straßen und öffentliche Plätze sowie den Zugang zu hochwertigen Bildungs- und Gesundheitseinrichtungen. Sie können zusätzlich die Effizienz städtischer Dienstleistungen steigern, was den effizienten Einsatz von Energie, Wasser und Ressourcen, die Optimierung des öffentlichen Verkehrs und die Verbesserung der Verwaltung inkludiert.Einen weiteren Aspekt stellt die Bürgerbeteiligung dar. Smart City-Initiativen können die Beteiligung der Bürgerinnen und Bürger am städtischen Leben fördern. Das schließt die Möglichkeit ein, Feedback zu geben, an Entscheidungsprozessen teilzunehmen und städtische Dienstleistungen zu personalisieren. Zusätzlich können intelligente Verkehrsmanagementsysteme und vernetzte Verkehrslösungen dazu beitragen, den Verkehrsfluss zu optimieren, Staus zu reduzieren und die Sicherheit im Straßenverkehr zu erhöhen. Insgesamt bieten Smart Cities die Möglichkeit, Städte lebenswerter, nachhaltiger und effizienter zu gestalten und die Lebensqualität der Menschen zu verbessern. Durch die Integration von Technologie und Innovation können viele der heutigen urbanen Herausforderungen angegangen werden.Die Betrachtung der verschiedenen Themenfelder und Maßnahmen der Smart City Freiburg im Rahmen ihrer Digitalstrategie konnte aufzeigen, dass sich zwar viele Ideen bereits in der Planung und Entwicklung befinden, es aber an einigen Stellen noch an technischen Strukturen oder Fachkräften fehlt, die die Entwicklung und Durchsetzung vorantreiben würden.Trotz der Möglichkeiten und Chancen sind Smart Cities mit einigen Herausforderungen konfrontiert, darunter finanzielle Herausforderungen, denn die Entwicklung und Implementierung der Initiativen erfordern die nötige Technologie, Infrastruktur und Fachkräfte. Eine Stadt muss demnach Finanzierungsquellen finden, um diese Projekte umzusetzen bzw. aufrechtzuerhalten.Als weiterer Punkt wurde der Datenschutz genannt. Die Erhebung von Daten in einer Smart City erfordert Datenschutz- und Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Die Stadt muss sicherstellen, dass mit den Daten der Bürger*innen sorgsam umgegangen wird und dass sie vor Sicherheitsrisiken geschützt sind. Eine weitere Herausforderung besteht darin, sicherzustellen, dass alle Bürger*innen von den Smart City-Lösungen profitieren können. Dies erfordert Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Technologie für alle zugänglich ist, unabhängig von ihrem sozioökonomischen Status oder ihrer technischen Affinität.Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die Einbeziehung der Bürger*innen in den Prozess der Smart City-Gestaltung entscheidend ist, jedoch auch eine Herausforderung darstellt. Die Stadt muss Mechanismen entwickeln, um die Meinungen und Bedenken der Bevölkerung zu berücksichtigen und transparente Entscheidungsprozesse zu gewährleisten, wie man am Beispiel der Stadt Freiburg sehen konnte. Die Betrachtung der Stadt Freiburg zeigt, dass die Herausforderungen, vor denen Städte bei der Umsetzung von Smart City-Initiativen stehen, vielfältig sind und eine sorgfältige Planung und strategische Herangehensweise erfordern. Eine ganzheitliche Betrachtung unter Berücksichtigung von finanziellen, technischen, sozialen und ökologischen Aspekten ist entscheidend für den Erfolg.QuellenARTE (2023): Retten Städte die Welt? Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkrIDg0_8c (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb) (2017): Verstädterung, online unter: https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/globalisierung/52705/verstaedterung/ (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Digitalstrategie der Stadt Freiburg, online unter: https://digital.freiburg.de/digitalstrategie (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)DW Shift (2020): Smart City: How do you live in a Smart City? Future Smart City Projects. Surveillance or Utopia? Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRRPy-yEKRM (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Etezadzadeh, Chirine (2015): Smart City- Stadt der Zukunft? Die Smart City 2.0 als lebenswerte Stadt und Zukunftsmarkt. Springer Vieweg. Wiesbaden.Hadzik, Tobias (2016): Smart Cities. Eine Bestandsaufnahme von Smart City- Konzepten in der Praxis. Epubli Ebooks. 3. Auflage.Hinterberger, Robert/ Kopf, Thomas/ Linke, Alexander/ Stühlinger, Lukas (2015): Finanzierungshandbuch Smart Cities. Smart Finance for Smart Cities. Wien, online unter: https://www.klimafonds.gv.at/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/Smart-FinanceFinanzierungshandbuch.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023).Hoppe, Klaus (2015): Der Smart City- Ansatz. Chancen und Herausforderung für Städte und Gemeinden. Klima-Bündnis. Arbeitsgruppe Energieversorgung 2050, online unter: https://klaushoppe-consulting.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/1_Der_Smart_Cities_Ansatz.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Jaekel, Michael (2015): Smart City wird Realität. Wegweiser für neue Urbanitäten in der Digitalmoderne. Springer Vieweg. Wiesbaden.Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (lpB) (2022): Smart City- die Stadt der Zukunft? Technologie in der nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung, online unter: https://www.lpb-bw.de/smart-city#c56712 (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023).Libbe, Jens (2019): Lost in Transformation: Rezension zu 'Smart City. Kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung in Städten' von Sybille Bauriedl und Anke Strüver (Hg.). Soziopolis: Gesellschaft beobachten, online unter: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/82404 (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Mitmachen. Freiburg: https://mitmachen.freiburg.de/stadtfreiburg/de/home (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Stadt Freiburg (2019): digital.freiburg. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3clTSCU1NjY (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Steinbrecher, Johannes/ Salg, Julian/ Starzetz, Julia (2018): Viele bunte Smarties?! Die Smart City als Lösung kommunaler Herausforderungen? KfW Research. Fokus Volkswirtschaft. Nr. 204, online unter: https://www.kfw.de/PDF/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/PDF-Dokumente-Fokus-Volkswirtschaft/Fokus-2018/Fokus-Nr.-204-April-2018-Smart-Cities.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Stöckl, Benedikt (2022): 'Smart Cities' bergen Chance, aber auch Risiken für gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt. Euractiv, online unter: https://www.euractiv.de/section/innovation/news/smart-cities-bergen-chancen-aber-auch-risiken-fuer-gesellschaftlichen-zusammenhalt/ (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)Weiland, Ulrike (2018): Stadt im Klimawandel. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), online unter: https://www.bpb.de/themen/stadt-land/stadt-und-gesellschaft/216883/stadt-im-klimawandel/ (zuletzt aufgerufen: 10.09.2023)

NDI's Chris Fomunyoh is once again joined by Ambassador Johnnie Carson as they discuss the steps that can be taken to strengthen democracy. They continue their conversation with their thoughts on the key challenges and opportunities facing Africa this year.
Find us on: SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | Google Play
Johnnie Carson: When female voices are not heard, the conversation is crippled, the policy is crippled, the institutions are crippled and the results are crippled.
Chris Fomunyoh: I'm Chris Fomunyoh, senior associate and regional director for Central and West Africa at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, NDI. Welcome to this edition of DemWorks.

Again we're joined by Ambassador Johnnie Carson, a proud member of the board of directors of The National Democratic Institute, NDI with a 37 year career in the U.S. Foreign Service focus on Africa. In our previous episode, you spoke about the risk of back sliding. So for this episode, we will focus on the steps that can be taken to strengthen democracy in Africa.

I'd like us to pivot a little bit to the Sahel because in Tanzania we see the back sliding that's coming from political actors themselves, but there's something happening in the Sahel, which is a region in which we see a lot of political commitment to democratic governance, whether it's from the leaders and activists in Niger Republic, in Burkina Faso and in Mali, but at the same time these countries are coming under tremendous pressure from violent extremists who are coming across the desert and destabilizing what would be an emerging democracy and what concerns do you have and how do you think organizations like NDI, like USIP and others that have the self-power expertise, so to speak can contribute to the efforts to counter violent extremism like Sahel and also the whole of Africa?

JC: Chris you're absolutely right and we should all be concerned about outside forces that can come in and destabilize a country, its politics, its economy and its society and across the Sahel we in fact see this happening. The challenges to stability, to democracy to holding free and transparent and creditable elections and having democratic systems that work, are not only challenged by sometimes authoritarian leaders seeking to maintain power and control, we also can see this emerging as a result of exogenous forces coming in from outside, and here we see non-state actors undermining stability across the Sahel, which is creating tension for democracies and tensions for states.

I think one of the things that is absolutely critical in addressing the problems with the Sahel is for government to reconnect with their citizens, to put in place the kinds of services that citizens are looking for and are demanding and expecting. They need to be responsive to the needs that they, citizens believe are not there and they have to have these connections in order to build up resilience, to build up strength against the ideologies and to the negative forces that are brought in by extremist groups.

It is extremists groups across the Sahel are taking advantage of the absence of good services and good connectivity between government and citizens and one of the things that must accompany the security response is in fact a development and government response. Security alone cannot end the problems in the Sahel. It's an important ingredient but the most important ingredient is government going in and establishing responsible connections, providing services, education, healthcare, sanitation, water cattle feeding stations and services that citizens require and are being deprived of.

So one of the things that must be hand in hand and be out front is not the military response and the security response but the governance response, the social service response and if that is absent, the security response will be deficient and will not work.

CF: In fact, I'm so thankful you say that, because I know that you and other members of our board, Secretary Albright, in particular the chair of our board, you've been emphasizing reinforcing this message about democracy and development component as part of the toolkit in conquering violent extremism and in fact, that's the approach that NDI is taking to its work in the Sahel because we currently have ongoing programs in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, and our focus, the main focus of that piece of work is on people, processes and the politics and trying to create platforms where governments can reconnect with citizens at a grassroots level.

So in a number of cases we've set up platforms where civil society with legislatures and members of the executive branch, including representatives of the security services get together regularly to figure out what the challenges are in various communities and how to foster inter-communal dialogue and better relationships between the security services and the populations that they seek to serve, because you may remember there was a UN study that said that in many of the cases where violent extremism persist, that 70% of the people who join extremist organizations, are reacting to poor performance by security services and you have paid a lot of attention to Nigerian and the whole Boko Haram phenomenon.

I don't know how this would fit into our conversation with regards to the Sahel as well.


JC: I think it also very pertinent for Nigeria, and I too have seen studies of some very distinguished organizations, Mercy Corps and others that talk about why people are recruited and indeed, the authoritarian sometimes brutal nature of security forces towards communities that they should be protecting drives individuals away from the government and into the hands of Boko Haram.

Even the origin of the current violence in Northern Nigeria has its origins in the brutal extrajudicial killing of Boko Haram's first leader in 2009. His apprehension, his questioning, his interrogation, torture and mistreatment were all recorded on someone's cellphone and became widely seen throughout the country and throughout the north. Two years later, after that event in 2009 we saw and upsurge in 2011 and the activities of Boko Haram and indeed people continued to say that the brutal nature in which the security forces sought to root out Boko Haram, in fact generated more recruits for Boko Haram than it did for support for the government's efforts.

It is absolutely critical, it's absolutely critical that security forces recognize that they have a responsibility to protect the civil liberties and the human rights of the citizens of the state that they are protecting and that the way they treat the individuals in areas that they go into, may have an impact on their ability to ultimately win the conflict, but one thinks of Nigeria and particularly of the North East and there again weak institutions of corruption of lack of social services are all playing a major part in why the conflict in that region continues.

In the north east of Nigeria particularly and the three most affected states, Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. Those three states have the lowest social indicators of any of Nigeria's 36 states, less access to education, to healthcare, to water resources and to jobs and access and this all plays out as well. Governments needs to be responsive to their citizens and while a security response is important, governance and providing social services and the needs to citizens to build resilience is critical as well.

CF: This seems like a good place to take a short break. For well over 35 years NDI has been honored to work side by side with courageous and committed pro-democracy activists and leaders around the world to help contribute to develop the institutions practices and skills necessary for democracy's success.

I realize it's many countries to cover but in the few minutes that are left, I just see if you have any parting words for four countries that we haven't really focused that much on and those are Ethiopia, Kenya, The Democratic Republic of Congo and we'll exit with Cameroon. What are your thoughts?

JC: My thoughts on Ethiopia. It is absolutely essential that those of us who support a democracy and democratic progress lend all of our efforts to those of the Ethiopian government to ensure that the democratic experiment that is underway is successful. Prime Minister Abiy won the Nobel Prize for bringing about peace with Eritrea but the more important thing is that we, outside step up our effort to help him ensure that his legislative elections, this year, are successful and that we do what we can to strengthen his country's democratic progress.

He has appointed and outstanding leader, Birtukan, former opposition leader, spent many years in jail as his country's election commissioner. We need on the outside to provide the kind of technical and financial and advocacy support that she might need to put in place the architecture for running the country's elections. It will in fact be the first real serious elections in that country since the collapse of the Derg in the early 1990s. So it's important that we help do this.

Ethiopia is Africa's second most populous country behind Nigeria and it's important that we help democracy there. It's also a key and strategic state in the region bordering a number of other countries that will look to the success of what happens here. So we need to support.

Kenya, will have elections next year. It is important that there be a continuation in the improvement of the country's electoral agencies. The shadow of the flawed and failed and controversial and violent elections of 2007 and 2008 continue to be a shadow. The controversies associated with the last elections and court decisions there continue to hang over. It is important to continue to support civil society, support the electoral commission and work with the Kenyan government to ensure an outcome.

It appears very clearly that President Kenyatta wants to leave a positive legacy of progress, economically, politically and electorally. This will be a challenge but we should support the process moving forward. The features are still there.

CF: In fact, I should say before end up with the last two countries that for listeners, Ethiopia has got a parliamentary system of government. That's why the parliamentary elections are extremely important, the national elections for Ethiopia and also with regards to Kenya, as you say, President Uhuru Kenyatta would like to leave a good legacy. He's coming to the end of his second term and NDI working with partners on the continent has been very strong on the issue constitutionalism, respect for rule of law. In fact, we had a continent wide conference in Niamey, Niger Republic last October on the whole question of presidential term limits and we'll be having a second conference in Botswana in June to discuss term limits with former African heads of states and various other partners on the continent.

Just to say that, as leaders relinquish power when their terms come to an end, they help consolidate and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. So, with the two remaining countries-

JC: I applaud President Kenyatta for saying very early on that he would adhere to the constitution, he would serve two terms and step down. This is an important message for the most important country in East Africa, especially looking at the neighboring states, particularly Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda where leaders there have found ways to extend themselves in office. He recognizes the importance of transition at the top and allowing the citizens of the country to select new leadership on a constitutional basis rather than trying to alter the constitution to eliminate term limits, age limits and perpetuate themselves in power.

So I hope others in the region are in fact looking at Kenya's model. One jumps across to West Africa and looks at President Paul Biya who's been in power for three decades, plus shows no desire whatsoever to leave office. Here is a man who has lost touch with his citizens and the communities of his country and because he has lost touch with his citizens, because there have been structural deficiencies and weaknesses and the institutions that he is responsible for, we now see a country that is suffering from three or four major political crisis, crisis with the English speaking portion of this country in the south west, the emergence of Boko Haram and radicalism across the border from Nigeria in the north west and problems of herders and farmers driven by drought and climate conditions.

President Biya has lost touch with the needs of his citizens and his government has not been responsive to anyone but himself and a small political elite. I think it is important for the international community to point out the failures and the flaws of his governance, the corruption that underpins it and to support those internally who are pushing for a constitution and political policies that fundamentally change the nature and structure of society, political architecture in society.

CF: You're so right, because that's one country that it's got tremendous potential but that it's not pulling its weight at all and because of its strategic location, invariably weakens other countries in the central Africa sub region, as well as in West Africa too and it's now taking full advantage of what could be real opportunities to improve the wellbeing of its citizens.

We'll be right back after this quick message.

And let's end with the country right in the heart of the continent, The Democratic Republic of Congo. I was in Kinshasa in October and met with political leaders and opinion leaders across the board, civil society, religious leaders who are very powerful in the Congo, very influential and I came away, I should say, a little more optimistic than I was going in. I was quite apprehensive given what has transpired in the 2018 presidential elections but after talking to the Congolese, I got a sense that a genuine attachment to reform.

Everybody wants some reforms of the political process or the electoral process and the key question is whether they are going to be able to set aside their personal agendas and actually get together to help this country, which has got tremendous resources and tremendous potential get back on its feet. I was very impressed by the fact that most of the leaders in Congo are pretty young. I know that you and I have talked about Congo for many, many times and when you were still in the administration you had to deal with some of their crisis.

I don't know what you take is on the present leadership and the present challenges but also the opportunities that present themselves in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

JC: Let me say that The Democratic Republic of the Congo has more unrealized potential than any other large state in Africa and that potential has continued to be in held in check and not realized because of the poor nature of the politics that have occurred there since the 1960s.

The 2018 elections were deeply flawed and irregular and not representative, I think, of the vote of the people. The one thing that one can say about the process that it did lead to President Kabila stepping down and a new younger president, Tshisekedi coming into power. There was immediately after the election a strong feeling that Tshisekedi was going to be instrument of Kabila going forward in that his leadership and his authority and his ability to do things would be substantially constrained. Tshisekedi has shown some degree of independence.

It is again important to recognize that there is little we can do to rerun that election or to reverse it but there is something that all of us can do going forward, and that to put pressure on President Tshisekedi to ensure that the electoral commission is strengthened, it has more independence, more technical capacity and more of an ability to deliver a more responsible, fair and transparent election going forward.

It is also important that he continue the fight against corruption, that he begin to put in place the kind of economic reforms that are going to unleash the potential of the Congo and to provide the people, The Democratic Republic of the Congo an opportunity to realize so many of the opportunities that they have been denied in the past. He has shown more independence than I thought but it is important that he not stop, that he continue to move forward, that he open up political space and continue to open it up for civil society, for the opposition, for the media, that he not constrain but unleash the country's potential and that he continue to show both in reality and fact his independence away from Kabila and those who were around him in the past.

He will be judged on the next four years very keenly, but it's important that the institutions of democracy to the extent that we can help civil society strengthen them, that they be nurtured and pushed forward. Elections and democracy...Democracy doesn't depend essentially, solely on elections. It is institutions that must be strengthened and we can help the DRC and civil society move those forward.

Again, working effectively with religions groups, Catholic Church, a very powerful instrument, working with women's groups, with working youth groups across the DRC and working with an emerging entrepreneurial class of young Congolese as well. We have to nurture and strengthen and push them forward. These next elections will be able to tell us whether there's been progress. President Tshisekedi needs to continue to move forward.

CF: Thank you very much Ambassador Johnnie Carson. It's really been an honor to have you do this tutor for us on the entire continent. Of course there still would always be ground to cover. As you were speaking, I thought about what late President John F Kennedy said about democracy as a never ending endeavor, and so NDI and similar organizations will continue to work side by side with our African partners to make sure that we can support them, give them the support and share experiences that they need so that we can all collectively, continue to work to strengthen and support democracy in countries like the DRC, Ethiopia, Sudan and across the entire continent.

Thank you also for being a member of our board of directors. We are extremely proud of that and extremely proud of the partnership that NDI has with USIP and hope that our two organizations would continue to work together to support the growth of democracy across Africa and to our listeners, can I just say thank you for sharing in this edition of DemWorks, to follow our next podcast. Please check us out on our website www.NDI.org.

Thank you for listening.


Ambassador Johnnie Carson





Peace, Security and Democratic Resilience,

This article was co-published with The New Arab.Close watchers of Israel's war in Gaza have faced a question in recent months: If the U.S. is rushing weapons to Israel, then why hasn't the public heard of any arms sales besides two relatively small transfers late last year?The Washington Post delivered an answer last week. Reporter John Hudson revealed that the Biden administration has approved over 100 smaller weapons packages for Israel since Oct. 7 that fell under the $25 million threshold for formally notifying Congress — and thus the public — about the transfers. In total, these mini sales could add up to more than $1 billion worth of U.S. military aid.The decision to deliver U.S. aid in smaller packages is far from unusual. The U.S. government has done so in the past for practical and nefarious purposes alike; only about 2% of weapons transfers occur above the threshold to notify Congress, according to former officials. But what is abnormal is the fact that many of those weapons were likely pre-positioned on Israeli territory before the war. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. When a U.S.-made bomb slams into Gaza, there's a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law."It's clear that it's been a major source of arms for Israel," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of U.S. support for Israel's war. Unfortunately, Paul added, "it's an opaque process, so it's hard to say exactly what weapons they're getting" from the stockpile.This cache of arms is just a small piece of the puzzle. Taken as a whole, U.S. efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country, according to experts and former senior U.S. officials. These advantages include modified human rights vetting, special access to U.S. weapons, and a veto on American arms sales to Israel's neighbors. Up to this point, the State Department hasn't carried out a formal assessment of Israel's compliance with the law in its Gaza war.Experts claim these arms transfer cutouts have continued or, in some areas, been expanded since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, which has left over 31,000 Palestinians dead and much of the strip's population in famine or famine-like conditions. Even last month, as war crime accusations mounted, the U.S. reportedly gave Israel at least 1,000 precision-guided munitions and artillery shells."The bottom line is that either you have human rights standards and legal standards or you don't," Paul said. When U.S. officials fail to hold Israel accountable for alleged abuses, "it not only creates an exception for Israel, but it also undermines your diplomacy with other countries," he told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab."I have serious concerns that the continued transfer of weapons to Israel is facilitating indiscriminate bombing that may violate international humanitarian law," Rep. Joaquin Castro told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab in a statement. "Congress needs to push the Biden administration to hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for any use of U.S. security assistance that violates international law."State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab that all transfers to Israel since Oct. 7 have followed U.S. law and policy, including notifications to Congress. "We have followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed and regularly brief members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement," Miller said in a statement, adding that claims that the U.S. has cut up weapons packages in order to avoid public scrutiny are "unequivocally false."The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Exceptions make the rulesWhen a Middle Eastern country asks the U.S. for weapons, American officials' minds go straight to Israel. Would Tel Aviv approve of the transfer? Could new fighter jets give Egypt an edge over Israel on the battlefield if their peace deal fell apart? Would Israeli officials come around if we offer them better weapons to sweeten the pot?This line of reasoning doesn't have anything to do with the personal opinions of U.S. officials. In fact, U.S. law explicitly states that the U.S. must give Israel a "qualitative military edge" over its neighbors to counter a threat from "any individual state or possible coalition of states or [...] non-state actors."U.S. partners are starkly aware of — and unhappy about — this reality, according to a former senior U.S. military official in Cairo who requested anonymity to speak freely about his experience. Egyptian officials would sometimes request high-tech weapons just to "watch us squirm and come up with some way to say 'no' without saying the Israelis won't approve it," the former official recalled."This is another place where it's very explicit that Israel has a special status that no other country enjoys," said John Ramming-Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict.This qualitative advantage is enforced by the quantitative side. Since World War II, Israel is far and away the largest recipient of U.S. military aid. Washington's funding for the Israeli military, which now totals $3.8 billion per year, makes up about 16% of its total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. Israel, which can spend part of its U.S. aid on Israeli weapons, gets this cash in an interest-bearing account in New York, making it one of only two states that get a multimillion-dollar tip on top of baseline U.S. support.When it comes to human rights, Israel also gets special protections. Take the Leahy law, a statute that prevents specific units of foreign militaries from receiving U.S. aid if American officials have evidence they've committed "gross violations of human rights." For most countries, Leahy vetting happens before aid is disbursed. Israel gets the equipment first, and the ensuing vetting process looks different than for other countries. Lower-level State Department officials have found multiple cases in which Israeli units should lose access to American weapons under U.S. law, but those cases are consistently blocked by higher-ups in government who usually don't weigh in on such cases for other countries, according to Paul.The result is that, unlike Egypt and other U.S. partners in the Middle East, no Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under the Leahy law despite numerous credible allegations of human rights abuses, a fact that the statute's namesake has loudly railed against. The State Department has previously justified this disparity by pointing to Israel's judicial system, which U.S. officials believe is capable of handling human rights violations internally.In recent weeks, congressional attention has focused on whether Israel is violating a U.S. law that prevents countries from receiving American weapons if they block U.S. humanitarian aid in whole or in part. While the statute has rarely been enforced, the Biden administration promised to hold states accountable to the law in a recent memorandum.At this point, many experts and lawmakers believe Israel is in clear violation of this law given how little aid now enters Gaza. Yet the White House has still not offered a reason — or a formal waiver — to justify its failure to enforce its own commitment."I really haven't heard a good response to the question of why we should not apply existing U.S. law [...] to ensure that U.S. military assistance is used in accordance with our values," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md."Given the evidence that Israel is intentionally blocking the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Biden administration has an obligation to enforce Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and move towards limitations on further offensive aid to Israel as long as the aid blockade continues," Rep. Castro said.'As supportive as possible'When the White House moved to expedite weapons transfers to Israel after Oct. 7, it faced an unusual problem. The president already had more than enough authority to make this happen, but officials wanted to signal that they were being "as supportive as possible." The solution was to further loosen laws around U.S. arms transfers, according to Paul, who still worked in government at the time.
"It's not that those were things that we'd been previously thinking about," Paul said. "The previous position within government had been [that] Israel already has more than you could possibly want in terms of authorities and funding."
Now, the Senate's supplemental spending package for Israel has provisions that would dramatically expand the secretive U.S. stockpile on Israeli soil while loosening public reporting requirements about transfers from it. A bill with similar changes passed the House as well, signaling broad support for the proposal in Congress.
Alongside already existing loopholes, these new restrictions weaken America's case that it is committed to protecting human rights on the world stage, according to Ramming-Chappell.
"The exceptional status that Israel enjoys in U.S. arms transfer policy and law, when taken in conjunction with the devastating effects of Israel's current campaign in Gaza, really undermines U.S. leadership and claims to moral authority in the international sphere," he said.

A review of races this fall in Bossier Parish government shows
an expected electoral quietude among executives, but perhaps having the chickens
coming home to roost for many of the incumbents on the Police Jury.

Parishes have four elective executive offices up
for grabs, but there will be next to no drama in Bossier for these. The
incumbent assessor, clerk of court, and coroner drew no challengers, letting
all three cruise to reelection. Republican Sheriff Julian Whittington did
receive a challenge from political unknown Republican Chris Green, a former
deputy who would seem to have little chance for the upset.

The Jury contests are another matter. In 2019, eight
incumbents walked back into office, with District 2 Republican Glenn Benton
being the only incumbent to receive a challenge. This time he avoided one,
along with Democrat Jimmy Cochran (unchallenged in District 7 since 1999) and
Republicans Doug Rimmer (unchallenged since 2011 in District 8) and Tom Salzer
(never challenged since being the only one to qualify for a special election for
District 11 in 2017) while the other eight incumbents all filed for reelection
against opposition.

Make that seven. District 10's independent Jerome Darby,
the longest serving juror in the state in his tenth term, shortly after
qualifying withdrew, perhaps because there still will be a Darby on the ballot.
Democrat former School Board member Julian Darby, his younger brother, signed up,
along with a pair retired military veterans Democrats James Carley and Mary
Giles. The Darby family machine, whose Samm Darby as a Democrat represents the
district Julian once did, despite having Jerome facing just one election in
2007 since 1987, should get cranked up enough to keep the seat in the family.

As for the other seven incumbents with a fight on
their hands – the most since 1987 – from the rhetoric of the challengers it seems
that has come at the expense of Jury actions over the past several years. Since
2016 jurors have served illegally on the parish Library
Board of Control, currently Benton, Republican Bob Brotherton from District
1, Democrat Charles Gray from District 9, Republican Julianna Parks from
District 5, and Rimmer. Jurors also tolerated inserting
themselves into another dual officeholding controversy when their appointee
to the Cypress Black Bayou Recreation and Water Conservation District Robert
Berry also became its executive director, which changed only last month when
jurors didn't reappoint Berry. Even so, three jurors – Gray, Parks, and District
12 Republican Mac Plummer – didn't go along with that.

Incumbent jurors also have courted
controversy with their management of its Consolidated Waterworks/Sewerage
District #1, its growing attempt to provide centralized water and sewerage provision
to areas outside of municipalities. Deliberate lowballing on rates that
taxpayers had to subsidize that may mushroom costs to all in the future and
problems in absorbing new systems have raised the ire of some parish residents.

The Jury and parish government also have done
little to make their dealings transparent, in contrast to every other major northwest
Louisiana local government. Meetings are narrowcast on a hard-to-view and
nearly impossible-to-hear Facebook Live channel, years
after a statement that it would move to a professional setup (last year's
meeting dealing with the budget wasn't delivered or archived at all). Online agendas
carry the barest of information so citizens prior to meetings have no idea about
the items being discussed and voted upon. Meeting minutes habitually are posted
well past their meeting dates.

Perhaps worst of all, incumbent jurors have stuck
by Parish Administrator Butch Ford as he continues apparently to violate state
law that says a parish chief executive must be a registered voter in that
parish, which means he must have his primary residence that would qualify for a
homestead exemption in that parish. Over the past 19 months – the first 10 of which
jurors ignored Ford's full-time residence at a Caddo Parish property with a homestead
exemption and his registration to vote in Caddo, a property he still maintains –
Ford has been unable to establish with certainty that he qualifies to register
to vote in Bossier Parish, yet the Jury reappointed him without dissent earlier
this year (and originally hired him the year before without a job search).

This pattern of obscurantism, questionable fiscal administration
of the water utility, and lawlessness likely provoked many, if not all challengers.
The most vulnerable perhaps is Brotherton, whose health problems have prevented
him from attending most Jury meetings this year and will make it difficult for
him to campaign. In a solidly Republican district, Republican small businessman
Mike Farris has a distinct chance to replace him, much likelier to do so than the
two Democrats running, retiree Mary Odom and trucking executive Andre Wilson.

District 3 Republican Philip Rodgers, who in 2019 ran on
addressing problems with the Berry-run CBB, even as Berry's
ouster – which also means by state law he must give up his executive
directorship – has occurred, created some more problems for himself when in the
process of criticizing District actions at one of its recent meetings opened
himself to charges that he sought and obtained 
with its Board's knowledge favorable treatment from Berry. He is opposed
by Republican Andy Modica, a District critic, parish constable, and recent
applicant to fill a vacant School Board slot, who complained at the meeting where
the Jury didn't reappoint Berry – at which Rodgers' campaign supporter Rodney
Madden received the nod – that the fix was in against him and other applicants
for the post that went to Madden. It wouldn't be hard for Modica to campaign
contrasting the sweet deals political insiders get with the reception others encounter.

If that seems at all vengeful, forget it when
compared to the fate suffered by District 6 Republican Chris Marsiglia. He drew
as a challenger none other than Berry, running as a Republican. There's no fury
like a scorned former CBB executive director/ex-commissioner, who lost both gigs
because the Jury didn't reappoint him – with good reason, of course, since the judiciary
declared a situation like his in violation of the law and the District was footing
legal bills in his defense equivalent to about an eighth of its total revenues
in a losing cause.

Marsiglia was one of three first-time electees
(although he had run for a seat unsuccessfully years ago) who faced opposition
then and now. District 4 Republican John Ed Jorden (who also ran years ago) turned
out to be another, and worse off since in 2019 he had just opponent and now
faces two. While district demographics suggest Democrat Donald Stephens can't
win, he might make a runoff against either Jorden or Republican appraiser Jack Harvill.

And one of the most polarizing figures on the
Jury, Parks who won a special election for the post in 2021, faces perhaps the
most quality challenger running, Republican Barry Butler who formerly served in
her spot from 2008-12. In his term, Butler distinguished himself by challenging
orthodoxy and refusing to get along and go along as so often happens among
jurors, often serving as the only voice willing to take up topics and bring out
information that didn't portray parish policies in only rosy hues. Parks, who through
her husband Republican Bossier City Judge Santi Parks has a considerable parish
political establishment network to fall back upon, can bring a lot of resources
to bear to retain office, but Butler, who suffered defeat through the efforts
of that network, has the capacity to knock her off.

At the other end of the parish, after three
straight elections without an opponent, Plummer will be forced to work for his
job against Republican small businessman Keith
Sutton. Also a critic of business-as-usual on the Jury with a desire for
greater Jury fiscal responsibility, transparency, and term limits, he hosts a
podcast with former School Board member Shane Cheatham that in part discussed
politics of the day.

Republicans dropped the ball in the Darbys' District
10, which has been a plurality white district that has 41 percent black registration
that should give them a decent chance to win with relatively fewer black Democrats,
by not running a candidate there. They also blew it in 2019 in District 9, then
with a narrow white plurality, when the only Republican who qualified subsequently
was disqualified over not being a district resident, handing the victory to
Gray. Since then, the district has moved to a black plurality of around 47 percent.

This time, the GOP challenger should stick, and a
quality one at that – former Bossier City chief administrative officer Pam
Glorioso, who might well have run for and possibly won the mayoralty had her
boss Lo Walker not ran for a fifth term. She doesn't have the reform potential
that challengers in other districts have (in Berry's case, perhaps more out of
spite), having been a longtime part of the parish political establishment, and
she may not have the numbers on her side to knock off Gray in a district that
has become more secure for him.

If everything goes right for reformers, known quantities
such as Farris, Modica, Butler, and Sutton could form a solid bloc on the Jury.
If Berry and Glorioso also make it, matters become more interesting still.
Throw in Harvill and a Darby opponent and some real change could be on the way.
Even if turnover ends up minimal, clearly the challengers who have stepped up means
there's more of the grassroots upset at sitting jurors that there has been for
decades.

This book has been on my radar for a long time. It was published to some acclaim in 2005 and concerns a three game baseball series that occurred August 26th to 28th, 2003, involving the St. Louis Cardinals and the Chicago Cubs. In that era, these were two of the best teams in the National League. It's been on my shelf for a good while after I eventually acquired a used paperback copy complete with an Afterward published in December 2005 that includes the framing of the book as a counter-take to Michael Lewis's terrific Moneyball, which I read soon after it originally appeared. I finally decided to read this book when visiting St. Louis for the fourth of July weekend earlier this summer. The book tells some interesting stories and offers some revealing insights into the way Tony La Russa managed baseball games. Though the book focuses on a three game series, it also covers some of La Russa's personal baseball history dating back to his first job as a manager in the late 1970s, continuing through the 1980s with first the Chicago White Sox and then the Oakland A's. La Russa was hired by Sox owner Bill Veeck, who bought his first baseball team in 1941 and was the son of a man who was president of the Cubs in 1918! After this book was written, La Russa managed Cardinal teams that went on to win the 2006 and 2011 World Series. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2014. The book also features stories about several star players that continue to be relevant two decades later. Future Hall of Famer Albert Pujols was arguably the greatest hitter in baseball when this book was written and he retired just this past off-season, ending his career with a bit of a bounce-back season in St. Louis in 2022. Another prominent member of that 2022 Cardinals team, Adam Wainwright, is briefly mentioned in the book's Postscript because he was part of the return for a trade involving JD Drew, a talented Cardinal player of 2003. And Scott Rolen, who hit a key home run in one of the book's three games and made timely defensive plays as well, was just inducted into the Hall of Fame this summer. La Russa himself returned to managing the White Sox in 2021-2022, winning a division title in 2021, but not completing the season in 2022 because of health reasons (after mediocre results as well). The reader gets a good feel for how La Russa and his long-time pitching coach Dave Duncan prepared for games and thought about various tactics, strategies, and statistics. The events in the book occurred prior to the Statcast era, but many of the ideas La Russa and Duncan have about pitch sequence and selection are now readily testable by anyone with an internet connection given the trove of data Statcast publishes online. These are the best elements of the book. But there are some important weakness too:First, the book barely scratches the surface on the steroids scandal that greatly influenced baseball in this era. The game had already agreed to employ anonymous PED (performance enhancing drug) testing in 2002 and the results announced after the 2003 season revealed that 5 to 7% of samples were positive, triggering a new random testing policy. Bissinger knew all this when he published the book and yet devotes only a few pages to the issue. I attended SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) meetings in Boston in the first months of 2005 and this was the center of a tremendous amount of discussion. Bissinger's neglect of this topic is important for multiple reasons. To begin, he describes La Russa as an avid opponent of steroids who lamented their effects on the game and on young lives. Yet, we now know that La Russa's A's and Cardinals featured stars that were among the most notorious users -- sluggers Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. Bissinger quotes La Russa as saying he could tell which players were using and that Canseco wasn't! While the identities of the users had not been revealed by baseball in 2003 and 2004, by December 2005, when the Afterword was written, Canseco's book had acknowledged that he had been a user. Moreover, Canseco named Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa (a Cubs star in 2003) as users too. In March of 2005 McGwire and Sosa, along with Rafael Palmeiro (later suspended for PEDs) and Curt Schilling testified before Congress about steroids. Second, rather than enter into the steroids controversy, which seems like it would have said something important about the "humanity" of baseball, ostensibly Bissinger's goal in writing the book, the author instead takes the opportunity to attack Moneyball. He attacks the statistical analytical perspective promoted in Moneyball early in the book but the theme becomes the centerpiece on p. 269. I believe Bissinger focuses on the trees rather than the forest, devoting great attention to criticizing (with very little context) the specific players selected by the Oakland A's in the 2002 amateur draft. It's always dangerous to discuss a draft in the first few years after it occurred, but Bissinger makes fun of the Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton initial two selections even though both turned out to be a pretty good players who spent a decade or more as major league regulars (or in Blanton's case as members of a major league rotation). Swisher made an All-Star team and both men played in a World Series. Many other selected players enjoyed decent careers and the draft was not a bust. This is now easily confirmed with a simple Google search. The real problem, however, is that Bissinger completely misses the point about Moneyball. He treats the book as if the Oakland A's use of various strategies and tactics to pinch pennies is inherent to the approach. That organization is notoriously cheap and Bissinger points out that money can buy winning players regardless of how smart the Harvard MBA GMs are. However, in this century, wealthy teams like the New  York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, and Los Angeles Dodgers have won numerous division titles, pennants, and championships by using the kind of advanced statistical analysis that Moneyball entails and that Bissinger explicitly hates. Yes, low budget teams like Tampa and Cleveland have also consistently succeeded (KC did as well in 2014-2015) by employing some of the same tactics, but the tactics themselves are not solely about saving money. Rather, they are about analyzing the game statistically to reveal previously unexploited advantages and inefficiencies. Third, Bissinger's critique of advanced statistics also seems pretty hypocritical given that he devotes so much attention to the kind of small-N data that Earl Weaver allegedly used to  employ in the 1970s. Apparently La Russa and Duncan kept track of whether a particular hitter was 5 for 19 against a certain pitcher (and whether pitchers mostly succeeded against certain opposition hitters), but we have known for a fairly long time (dating to the work of Bill James in the 1980s) that these kinds of small sample statistics are not very meaningful. In any case, Bissinger seems to love revealing these and other less important stats throughout the book.  He repeatedly mentions batting average, RBI, pitcher wins, and other traditional stats that are now widely recognized as less meaningful. Much of this was known in 2003, discussed prominently by Bill James and Michael Lewis and less notably by many hundreds of stats-drunk baseball nerds on the internet in the 1990s. Why convey so many stats that do not say very much about winning baseball games? This book isn't really an anti-statistical diatribe, it is a attack made with a head-in-the-sand approach. Bissinger simply refused to keep up with the field's use of more meaningful stats but relies upon older, less revealing, stats. Was this true of La Russa too?These are not the only shortcomings and contradictions of this book. On p. 217 of the paperback, Bissinger writes about how pitcher Brett Tomko is laid back and sleepy. On the very next page he mentions how lost Tomko is in high pressure situations, implying a high strung response. Can an observer ever really know a player's psyche and situational reactions? On pp. 270-71 Bissinger criticizes then-Baseballprospectus.com writer James Click's article evaluating and critiquing the use of the (sacrifice) bunt. Bissinger favorably quotes Hall of Famer Frank Robinson who objected in part because of his personal experience on the field as player and manager, something Click never had. I guess Click got the last laugh since he was the GM of the World Series winning Houston Astros in 2022 and the sacrifice bunt has practically disappeared from the modern game. In 2021-2022 while managing the White Sox, La Russa himself used the bunt less than half as often as he did when this book was written. 
Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

 Summit success is often a matter of expectations, and, of course, depends on where you sit.  For Ukraine, this may not have been as successful as it would want since they didn't get a fast track into NATO.  But that was an unrealistic expectation.  I didn't expect Turkey to stop blocking Sweden's membership, so my expectations were exceeded and thus huge success.  But the summit is more than just one or two decisions, so I am going to review much of the communique and then the Canadian announcements to figure out how many woots does this summit get.  Of course, since my pals and I didn't get a chance to go to the expert forum side party this year, there is a cap on the excitement--no NATO family dance party for us.First, as mentioned above, Ukraine didn't get a superfast track to membership, as having Ukraine join while the war is going on would either mean that NATO invokes Article V--an attack has happened against a member and deserves a collective response--or it does not.  In the former case, NATO is now at war with Russia, something that the alliance has rightly been avoiding.  In the latter case, Article V gets eroded as it is not used when a member is attacked in a very serious way.  This is not just a few loose bombs or artillery shells like when forces in Syria hit Turkey.  The question really is how soon after the war would Ukraine become a member, and the answer this time was: very soon.  But it was not more definitive because the alliance requires consensus, and that is all that they could agree to.  I pushed back on twitter about cowardice or manliness.  NATO being at peace while Ukraine has been at war is not great for Ukraine, but the fact that Russia is not hitting the supplies going into Ukraine before they get there is hugely significant.  Expanding the war is not good for most folks, and the risk of nuclear war, which is small but real, is not great even for Ukrainians.  Second, Sweden is an unalloyed win for the alliance.  It makes defense of the Baltics easier since Sweden sits astride the best ways to reinforce the Baltics in a time of war.  It also means that countries leading the NATO missions in the Baltics, looking for more troops to plus up their battlegroups into brigades (going from 1k to at least 3k) have a robust potential donor to beg (force generation is begging in the words of a NATO military official we cited in our book with the ebook version on sale now!).  It is also a massive defeat for Russia, as Putin has long wanted to break NATO, but finds his aggressions in Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022 have only strengthened and expanded the alliance.  Finland and Sweden would not have asked to join had Russia stayed within its boundaries.  Ok, onto the communique, which represents a lot of homework and bargaining over the past year, with the summit serving as an artificial deadline to get folks to agree, kind of like an academic conference is designed really to get profs to finally finish their papers:the formation of the NATO-Ukraine Council. This supplants the old NATO-Russia Council which died due to Russia's aggression.  This gives Ukraine much visibility and status and allows the Ukrainians to participate meaningfully in many NATO conversations.  It ain't membership, but it is significant.Finland is now a member, woot!China as a threat--this requires work as some countries (France) want to keep sucking up to China.Lots of stuff on Russia, not recognizing Crimea as Russian, etc.  Naming Belarus and Iran as complicit (although not China).  The language on Russia can't be a partner for now is probably the closest we can get to declaring the NATO Russia Founding Act dead.Lots of stuff about supporting Ukraine, that no need to continue with the Membership Action Plan, which means Ukraine is closer to membership and is increasingly integrated.Some more language about ISIS and terrorism.2% gets the usual shoutout--making progress but now we recognize that 2% isn't enough.  More forward defense with regional defense plans, more troops at high readiness, moving from battlegroups to brigades in the east as promised last year.Defence Production Action plan--to improve delivery of weapons/ammunitionIntegrated Air and Missile Defense with emphasis on eastern flank--this represents a response to the roles played by drones and missile attacks in Ukraine.Continued opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons since nukes are part of NATO's deterrent strategy.  Not a surprise.No Japan office for NATO since France opposed it.  Consensus decision-making can suck... like how do we dump Hungary?The standing up of a Maritime Center for the Security of Critical Undersea Infrastructure.  This seems in response to Russia primarily monkeying around with cables.Cyber got the longest paragraph, I think, with a new Virtual Cyber Incident Support Capability to help members respond to cyber attacks.Western Balkans get several items--75-78--as tensions are brewing there.  Supporting Bosnia's integrity is directly aimed against Bosnian Serb separatism, KFOR continues to operate and has increased its troop numbers due to violence in the Serb-inhabited areas.  A reference there to conditions based not calendar driven brings me back to my Joint Staff days concern whether exit/reductions are determined by benchmarks (conditions) or milestones (time).  There was more, but that is the stuff that caught my eye.  So, much progress on some of the most important things, hard time getting consensus on NATO becoming relevant in the Pacific despite clearer language about the threat posed by China.  What about Canada?  I got asked lots of questions about 2%, and I didn't see anyone put Trudeau in a headlock for not making sufficient progress towards 2%.  Nor did I see Canada making a huge stink about Biden's sending of cluster munitions to Ukraine (a post for another day maybe).  Canada did take part in several announcements--a blueprint for Latvia's defense, a NATO plan for defending the Baltics, and the like.  Trudeau announced sending up to 2,200 Canadian troops to Latvia which is up from the original 450 or so and then 800-1000 that it has been at since last year.  He announced $2.6b in spending on the Latvia mission over the next three years including $1.2b.  I don't know if this is enough to cover the additional costs of sending the larger numbers of troops who have to be rotated every six months, the costs of more infrastructure (barracks, dining hall, training facilities, etc) for not just the more Canadians but the more NATO folks, etc.  Remember, Canada is the Framework Nation for Latvia, which means it is Canada's responsibility to lead the multinational battlegroup that is now becoming a multinational brigade.  That means providing some infrastructure for those who Canada cajoles to stick around (Albania, Czech Republic, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and North Macedonia) and maybe join us (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) to get to 3000+ troops.  Given that there are now eight places for NATO to send troops--the three Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania--so competition will be fierce to get more troops from some of these countries.  So, Canada has to make the place welcoming and a good training area--which means plenty of ammunition and other logistical support so they can exercise often. And no Defence Policy Update.  Which is a disappointment--it is very late.  When will be the next time where announcing it will be handy for the government?  Maybe when parliament is back in session?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯So, I think Canada did the minimum to keep the criticism down, but perhaps didn't really do enough to set up the Latvia mission for success.  I don't think getting to 2% quickly is a realistic expectation, but the government could have made it a bit clearer that Canada would be moving in that general direction.  That there have been a heap of commitments made, that the personnel crisis itself needs much money thrown at it, so defence spending should be going up, even if it is not going to increase by 50%.Overall, the summit went well, the big things happened, the smaller things mostly worked out.  Putin's efforts to divide the alliance keep failing, the media's efforts to set unrealistic expectations and Zelensky's first outburst did not really upset things much.  I am sure many observers would prefer Trump running around, pushing over the leaders of smaller countries.  It would be more entertaining.  But we got enough progress on enough items.  Is it fast enough?  Not for Ukraine.  But a consensus-based organization is not going to move that quickly.  That NATO will soon have something like 30,000 troops forward deployed is pretty amazing.  And definitely not what Putin wants.  

Anastasia P. Boden


Today was a watershed moment in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. For all intents and purposes, racial preferences in higher education are no longer allowed. Over the course of 237 pages, the nine Supreme Court justices traded barbs over affirmative action with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. But Justice Thomas's concurrence was the star.
As expected, the majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who has long authored vigorous defenses of race‐​neutrality in government policymaking. He coined the (depending on who you ask) much lauded or much mocked phrase, "the best way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race is to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race." He included a similar statement in this case, remarking that "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."
In typical Justice Roberts fashion, the Chief never explicitly overruled Regents of the University of California v. Bakke or Grutter v. Bollinger, the two primary Supreme Court cases permitting race‐​based college admissions for the purpose of "obtaining the benefits that flow from a diverse student body." Instead he concluded that the challenged admissions programs failed to satisfy those opinion's safeguards. For instance, they amounted to quotas, relied on stereotyping, penalized some students based on race, and had no ending point in sight. Though Chief Justice Roberts never explicitly said so, the implication is that the diversity rationale is no longer permissible, since preferences will always act as a negative for some students (after all, admissions is a zero‐​sum game) and the diversity rationale is inherently stereotypical (because it assumes that students bring something to the table by virtue of their race alone).
Justice Thomas's individualist concurrence, by contrast, was a strident show‐​stopper that beautifully defended the principles of equality before the law and individualism. His opinion began with a lengthy history of the Fourteenth Amendment and concluded with a whopper of a line accusing Justice Jackson of engaging in racial determinism.
The concurrence covers a lot of ground beginning with an Originalist analysis of the original public meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Though the dissenting justices argue that the Clause does not require race‐​neutrality, Justice Thomas persuasively demonstrates that the Clause was passed to forbid "all legal distinctions based on race or color," including purportedly benign ones.
He also wrote at length about the inherent arbitrariness of racial classifications (covered in David Bernstein's new book, Classified), mismatch theory (which posits that affirmative action perpetuates stereotypes by placing recipients in classes where they are "less likely to succeed academically relative to their peers"), and the pernicious effect race‐​based admissions has had on Asian students, who are placed at a significant disadvantage by Harvard's and UNC's preference system. But he reserves the most powerful language for rebutting Justice Jackson's assertion that racial preferences can be justified as a remedy for societal discrimination.
Justice Thomas begins his rebuttal by noting that there's a difference between genuine remedial measures for racial discrimination (which are permissible under the Equal Protection Clause) and racial balancing for its own sake. To prevent the former from becoming the latter, proponents of government sponsored racial classifications must demonstrate a traceable link to government perpetuated discrimination. Justice Jackson has no such evidence and instead relies mainly on statistical disparities. Or, as Justice Thomas puts it:
As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today. The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society's riches by racial means as necessary to "level the playing field," all as judged by racial metrics. I strongly disagree.

As Justice Thomas notes, not all disparities can be ascribed to race, let alone discrimination. Disparities can arise from socio‐​economic status, geography, and myriad other factors. And while Justice Jackson focuses on group outcomes, Justice Thomas focuses on individuals. Even where disparities exist, they don't exist for everyone in the group. But "[e]ven if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks," Justice Thomas says, "what matters to Justice Jackson is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household." He continues:
This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, "the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh‐​and‐​blood human beings." T. Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics 333 (2016). Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well‐​being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.

To the extent individual Black Americans have fewer means, or poorer health, or any of the disparities Justice Jackson describes, universities can take those factors into account. What it can't do, says Justice Thomas, "is use the applicant's skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for 'black' he therefore conforms to the university's monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person." In other words, individuals are more than the skin color they are born into.
He uses as an example Justice Jackson's hypothetical regarding John and James, two applicants competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh‐​generation legacy at the school and James is black applicant would be the first member of his family to go to UNC. Putting aside that the university could take into account James's first‐​generation status rather than his race, Justice Thomas asks, "why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great great‐​great‐​grandparents? And what would Justice Jackson say to John when deeming him not as worthy of admission: Some statistically significant number of white people had advantages in college admissions seven generations ago, and you have inherited their incurable sin?" As Justice Scalia wrote elsewhere, "under our Constitution, there can be no debtor or creditor race." Instead, "in the eyes of the government, we are just one race here. It is American."
Contrary to the dissenters' view of equality, which seeks equality based on group outcome, Justice Thomas emphasizes individual traits over group membership, noting that "All racial groups are heterogeneous, and blacks are no exception—encompassing northerners and southerners, rich and poor, and recent immigrants and descendants of slaves. Eschewing the complexity that comes with individuality may make for an uncomplicated narrative, but lumping people together and judging them based on assumed inherited or ancestral traits is nothing but stereotyping."
Contrary to being mere products of their race, "Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments." Whereas the dissenters consider individuals passive actors in an inherently and inexorably racist scheme, Justice Thomas believes individuals have agency. "What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals' skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism."
Justice Thomas concludes that "the great failure of this country was slavery and its progeny. And, the tragic failure of this Court was its misinterpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments, as Justice Harlan predicted in Plessy." He's right. Some of the biggest injustices have occurred because of the Supreme Court's narrowing of civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (looking at you, Slaughter‐​house and Cruikshank) and its upending of equality before the law. If we want all people to achieve the American Dream, the Court must protect individuals' liberty and prevent government created barriers from getting in the way.
It's true, of course, that society has never been colorblind, but as Justice Thomas says, the government must be—lest we start a vicious and self‐​perpetuating cycle of race‐​based balancing. So will it follow that command given today's opinion?
There's a very real possibility schools will just drive their discrimination further underground. It took a great deal of discovery to get to the bottom of Harvard's and UNC's systems, which though multi‐​factored on their face amounted to quotas in practice. There will likely be litigation over covert racial balancing or the use of "neutral" proxies in the future. But for now, the Court has affirmed its commitment to treating people without regard to race or other immutable characteristics, which is a win for our individualist Constitution.

Scott Lincicome and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon


It's a well‐​known fact in the nation's capital that politicians' rhetoric gets progressively detached from reality as a November election approaches. During a race's final few months, inconvenient things like "facts" and "logic" tend to get thrown out the window as candidates get desperate for votes.
On trade, at least, it seems President Biden has kicked off the 2024 "silly season" more than a year early.
In particular, Biden's recent proclamation announcing World Trade Week 2023 (and implicitly justifying his tariff‐ and subsidy‐​heavy "worker‐​centric" trade policy) stated that, "For decades, the middle class and thriving towns across America were hollowed out as good‐​paying jobs moved overseas and factories at home closed down." Were this claim in the middle of an early‐​autumn stump speech—from Biden or former President Trump—we may have given it a pass. But since the claim comes in the middle of a World Trade Week proclamation from the sitting president of the United States, we feel compelled to correct the record.
First, the only "hollowing out" of the American middle class over the last few decades has been due to U.S. households moving up the income ladder, not down. For example, Census Bureau data show that between 1990 and 2019—the era of "peak globalization"—the share of middle‐ and low‐​income U.S. households (adjusted for inflation) have both declined, while the share of U.S. households annually earning $100,000 has increased (see Figure 1). Research on individuals' wages shows much of the same thing.











Wage and income gains have been solid for lower‐​income Americans over this same period. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, finds a 55 percent increase in the inflation‐​adjusted incomes of U.S. households in the bottom 20 percent. These improvements would be even larger after accounting for taxes and transfers. (As noted in the introduction of the new Cato Institute book, Empowering the New American Worker, household income gains are likely not owed to a substantial increase in two‐​earner families since 1990.) According to the most recent calculations from economist Michael Strain, moreover, inflation‐​adjusted wages increased between 1990 and 2022 by 50, 48, 38, and 39 percent at the 10th, 20th, 30th, and 50th (median) percentiles, respectively (see Figure 2).











Second, while it is undeniably true that the United States has fewer manufacturing workers today than in the 1970s or 1980s and that most jobs (even male‐​dominated, blue‐​collar ones) are in services, American industrial jobs have not all been "shipped overseas." As explained in a 2022 Cato paper, globalization undoubtedly eliminated some U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially labor‐​intensive, low‐​wage industries like textiles/​apparel and furniture, but the main, long‐​term drivers of U.S. manufacturing job‐​losses are productivity gains and a shift in U.S. consumption from goods to services. Thus, countries around the world—including ones with large and persistent trade surpluses and active industrial and labor policies—have experienced their own, if not larger, declines in manufacturing jobs, and recent increases in U.S. manufacturing jobs have been accompanied by stagnating U.S. manufacturing productivity.
Furthermore, as explained in Empowering, there are still manufacturing jobs available in the United States—for those who want and can qualify for them:
Contrary to the conventional wisdom…, the current U.S. manufacturing job situation is not due to a lack of demand for these workers (caused by globalization or automation, for example): in the first quarter of 2022, there were around 850,000 unfilled manufacturing job openings, and new research from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute estimates that this figure could hit 2.1 million by 2030.

A year later, even after a significant cooling of the U.S. manufacturing sector, job openings there are historically elevated. At the same time, the Census Bureau reports that very few prime‐​age American workers are out of work because they can't find a job (Figure 3).











Third, President Biden ignores, as we explained in a 2022 paper, the tens of millions of American jobs in services and in manufacturing that are today dependent on trade and globalization:
[A] 2020 report found that trade—imports and exports—directly or indirectly supported approximately 40.6 million jobs in both goods‐​producing industries (agriculture, construction, manufacturing, etc.) or services‐​producing industries (wholesale/​retail trade, transportation, professional services, etc.). Imports alone support an estimated 17.3 million American jobs in transportation, logistics, wholesale and retail trade, and other services industries, which comprise more than 10 percent of total employment in the sector. And almost half of all dollars spent on imported goods go to American workers rather than to the foreigners producing the goods. Thus, new research finds that, while only 6 percent of U.S. firms in manufacturing and services are goods traders, these firms account for half of economy‐​wide employment today and supported 60 percent of all new net jobs created after 2008, primarily through the establishment of new businesses. [See Figure 4.]
Meanwhile, foreign direct investment supported approximately 8 million jobs in 2019. By contrast, these same American workers are harmed by protectionism: higher input costs, for example, typically mean reduced wages or unemployment in the consuming company or industry at issue.












Surely, not every American worker has come out ahead since the United States became more integrated into the global economy, but—even leaving aside the important consumption benefits that globalization has provided all Americans (even ones who lost jobs from import competition)—the narrative of broad, trade‐​driven declines in middle class jobs and lifestyles is simply false. As the Financial Times' Martin Wolf put it in April (citing the latest academic research), "contrary to the widespread view, it is untrue that liberal trade is a dominant or even significant cause of the woes of the working classes of western societies." Indeed.
Finally, similar conclusions may be drawn regarding American communities—including ones once dependent on manufacturing. For example, a 2018 Brookings Institution report found that 115 of the 185 counties that had a disproportionate share (20 percent or more) of manufacturing jobs in 1970 had successfully transitioned away from manufacturing by 2016. Of the remaining 70 "older industrial cities", 40 had exhibited "strong" or "emerging" (above‐​average) economic performance over the same period. Thus, by 2016 almost 85 percent of American communities once dependent on manufacturing—and thus potentially "hollowed out" by new import competition—had moved or were moving beyond their industrial past. That a handful of U.S. "mill towns" hadn't adjusted in more than four decades reveals other (and deeper) problems than simply exposure to the modern global economy. For example:






"Labor Market Conflict and the Decline of the Rust Belt" https://t.co/WN5RINmBF1"Rising foreign competition plays a more modest role quantitatively, and its effects are concentrated in the 1980s and 1990s, after most of the Rust Belt's decline had already occurred." 👀 pic.twitter.com/4c9xWaWgud— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 12, 2023




Anecdotal evidence supports these conclusions. Former textile town Greenville, South Carolina is (along with its next door neighbor Spartanburg) today a bustling metro area with a diverse economy—including several multinational manufacturers. Just up the interstate, Hickory, North Carolina—a former textile and furniture hub that was the poster‐​child for the persistent ravages of the so‐​called "China Shock"—has just been named by U.S. News and World Report as the "best affordable place to live in the United States" for 2023–24. (Speaking of the China Shock, the authors of those influential studies have since acknowledged that, once you consider the substantial consumer gains from China trade, just 82 of 722 U.S. commuting zones, representing 6.3 percent of the U.S. population, would experience net welfare losses. Other scholars, of course, challenge the China Shock approach and conclusions more broadly.)
For Hickory, the USNWR highlights that manufacturing continues to account for most of the area's jobs, yet "the industry is [now] diversified, with plastics, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals playing a bigger role." Moreover, Google and Apple have established data centers in the area, and service‐​sector businesses are growing. Recognizing the area's potential, Appalachian State University will open a Hickory‐​based campus this August.
Coming in second on the same USNWR list is former steel town Youngstown, Ohio, which is "in the midst of a cultural and economic renaissance" driven mainly by service‐​sector businesses.
So much for being "hollowed out."
None of this means, of course, that certain American communities and workers don't face real challenges in today's globalized world. But alleging that trade caused these ills not only ignores the gains that the vast majority of Americans have experienced since the United States opened to the world decades ago, but also distracts from—as Empowering details—"the panoply of federal, state, and local policies that distort markets and thereby raise the cost of health care, childcare, housing, and other necessities; lower workers' total compensation; inhibit their employment, personal improvement, and mobility; and deny them the lives and careers that they actually want (as opposed to the ones DC policymakers think they should want)."
Blaming trade for these and other policies' failures might make for a good campaign soundbite, but that doesn't make it any less silly—especially during World Trade Week.

 Institut
d'Estudis Nord-americans  Blog 

Josep
M. Colomer: "The current political polarization of the United States originates
in its institutional system."

General newsPhotography: Alicia Colomer



By Marc Amat

On January 6, 2021, a mob of Donald
Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol to get Vice President Mike
Pence and Congress to reject President-elect Joe Biden. This shocking event was
the result of a crescendo of political hostility that, for decades, had eroded
the institutional system of the United States. This is how prestigious
political scientist and economist Josep M. Colomer reads the situation in his
latest book La polarización política en Estados Unidos (Debate,
2023). In its pages, Colomer points out the institutional design of this North
American country – with the separation of powers between Congress and the
Presidency and only two parties – as being responsible for the constant
emergence of bitter political and territorial rivalries.

With a comprehensive tone and rhythmic
pace, Colomer weaves a lucid essay on how the deterioration of the
effectiveness of government can end up generating growing tensions in the
political scene. To do so, he draws on his long academic and professional
career. Currently, he is a professor of political science at Georgetown
University, in Washington D.C., and an associate researcher at the l'Institut
de Ciències Polítiques i Socials in Barcelona. How should we interpret the
assault on the Capitol? What symptoms of dysfunction exist in the U.S.
institutional system? What changes could be made to improve it? To analyze
these issues, this month we interview Josep M. Colomer.

On January 6, 2021, images of the assault on the United
States Capitol swept the world. How do you explain that occurrence?

It's been repeated many times in the
media that what we experienced was an unprecedented situation. However,
throughout history, the U.S. has faced several episodes of institutional
violence. If we look beyond the recent past, between 1830 and 1860 there was a
great escalation of tension and violence, even among the congressmen
themselves. With the abolition of slavery as a core issue, this dynamic led to
a bloody civil war, with 750,000 people dead, a figure that represented 2.5% of
the population of the United States at the time. Now, for almost three decades,
we've been experiencing another continuous increase in tension in American
domestic politics. This time it will not lead to a civil war, but it is
paralyzing politics. There are problems in approving budgets; in the recent
past there have been four impeachments, when there had only been one in the
19th century; it's extremely difficult to move forward with legislature…

Can we understand Donald Trump's rhetoric and the assault
on the Capitol as a culmination of this escalation?

It is a consequence. We have to look
for the beginning of the tensions in the mid-1990s. In 1994, the Republicans
won a majority in Congress after many years without it. From day one, they
acted to create a climate of political hostility against President Clinton.
They tried to overrule him, they dug up scandals… Today, this behavior still
continues: Republicans adopt a position of boycott towards institutions they do
not control.

And this causes the institutional system to falter.

It's not that the Republicans are
worse or more combative people: the problem lies in the country's own
institutional design, which creates incentives for this to happen. That's my
thesis.

So this is a problem with a long past. In fact, it originates
in the constitution itself.

In the 18th century, when the United
States approved its Magna Carta, they were undertaking an experiment: to
establish a republic in a large country. This did not exist anywhere, and in a
way, it could be said that the U.S. has had to pay for the novelty of this
undertaking. They drew up a constitution very much intended to defend
themselves against the British, French and Spanish armies, which still had
colonies at their borders. Therefore, foreign policy was the core element. With
the creation of the United States, the newly independent states that were part
of it wanted to have a firmer government. Throughout the centuries, foreign
policy has remained the axis of the American system. We saw this, for example,
during the Second World War or the Cold War. Now, with Russia and China there
is some nostalgia to relive times like the Cold War, though the present
situation is not comparable. When there is a clear and threatening enemy,
foreign policy takes over and the whole country pulls together to face the
threat. On the other hand, when the enemy is more abstract, a lot of internal
issues surface that have never been resolved.

Such as?

There are many of them. Obama's health
care program, which didn't quite work; issues related to education; border
control and the wave of immigrants who want to enter the country; the use of
firearms; abortion; legislation on transgender people; the constant racial
tensions… These are internal issues that have never been addressed. With the American
institutional system, resolving these conflicts through two institutions ruled
by two different parties blocking each other is very complicated. The parties
being unable to solve problems has led to the appearance of social movements
such as Me Too or Black Lives Matter, but also the Tea Party or the
anti-vaccine movement.



Has political polarization translated into growing social
polarization?

In some previous conflicts, such as
the years of the Cold War, the government tried to create a certain climate of
fear among the population. They were encouraged to build atomic shelters in
their homes, there were drills in schools… Most people, however, moved away
from the hysteria and led a normal life. In fact, in the 1950s, society
progressed a lot, with the massification of automobiles, the entry of television
and appliances into the household, Coca-Cola, Hollywood… Similarly, the current
polarization is much stronger politically than socially. In fact, the
polarization is inflammatory and a spectacle, but the vast majority of people
are not polarized. Only 2% of voters go to Donald Trump's rallies, for example.
He demonizes immigrants, but there is no news of civil conflict with
immigrants.

In your book, you often remind us that America is huge.

One of the things I least expected to
find in the country when I went to live there was the great territorial
fragmentation. This is not the United States of America: it is the Disunited
States of America. I can identify at least six different countries within its
borders, such as the East Coast, the Midwest, Texas, California, the South…
There are territories with great differences and certain sentiments towards
others, but they have built the nation based on sharing a flag, a currency and
a language.



Has the size of the country also conditioned the
effectiveness of the institutional system?

When they made the Constitution, the delegates were very
inspired by Montesquieu. In fact, the French thinker is the most cited author
in the deliberations of the Americans. The author could not speak English, but
he had visited England to analyze its political system and be able to describe
it in a chapter of the book The Spirit of the Laws (1748). In
the United States, they took this as a reference. The problem was that, in
reality, the British system that the intellectual described had been out of
date for over a century. The person who instructed him during the visit was a
monarchist who had been expelled years ago from the House of Lords for
conspiring to restore the absolute monarchy, had gone into exile in France and
spoke French. He explained Britain's medieval monarchy to Montesquieu,
Montesquieu reproduced it in his book and in Philadelphia, the delegates took
inspiration from it, replacing the king with an executive president with many
powers. The result was the creation of a republic in a huge country. It was
unprecedented. The model is still unique in the world, the Americans themselves
did not even implement it in other countries, such as Germany or Japan, after
the Second World War.

What measures do you think should be incorporated into the
system to combat the malfunction you describe?

I dedicate the last chapter of the
book to this. I make suggestions for institutional reforms, but I don't propose
a new constitution. I try to identify real examples that are already moving in
the right direction, such as the reform of the electoral system that already
works at the local and state levels in some states, with elections with a
second round. Cooperation should increase between Congress and the president.
Currently, there are already some department secretaries who periodically visit
Congress to report back. Cooperation between Washington and the states still
has much room for improvement. That role should be played by the Senate, but
it's too partisan. There is a way to go, and the Constitution would not need to
be changed much to move towards a more parliamentary system. But confrontational
partisanship makes institutional reforms very difficult.

Personal website: www.josepcolomer.com




La polarización política en Estados Unidos

Orígenes
y actualidad de un conflicto permanente

Josep
M. Colomer

Saber más

Josep M.
ColomerComing soon in English:CLICK - Taylor & Francis - Routledge