Free trade may be the best system for the global economy but there are legitimate reasons for why some people had enough of it, says political scientist Ian Bremmer.
Free trade may be the best system for the global economy but there are legitimate reasons for why some people had enough of it. Ian Bremmer, political scientist and founder of the Eurasia Group, says that those who don't benefit from international economy support trade wars, giving President Trump his base. But will his policies actually succeed?
If the problem were Trump it wouldn’t be happening in other places around the world, says political scientists Ian Bremmer.
If the problem was just Trump it wouldn’t be happening in other places around the world, says political scientist Ian Bremmer. All sorts of advanced industrial democracies have people getting angrier and voting more and more against the establishment. Even when their economies are doing well, four factors exist that rip at the fabric of civic nationalism. What's surprising, however, there is one developed country that isn't having such issues. What can we learn from them?
Ian Bremmer calls Hillary Clinton a "moneyball" candidate for president.
Ian Bremmer calls Hillary Clinton a "moneyball America" candidate for president, meaning she advocates for a pragmatic, unemotional set of policies. Take China, for example. As secretary of state, Clinton knew she couldn't attack China for human rights abuses because you don't talk bad about your banker. Her goal was to protect American value, not enforce American values. Although she hasn't exhibited this attitude much on the campaign trail, Americans should be aware this is the exact sort of Hillary to expect in the White House.
There Are Exactly Two Republican Presidential Candidates Who Are Coherent on Foreign Policy. And They Disagree.
We're six months away from the Iowa Caucus, so there's plenty of time for other Republican candidates to clarify views, but so far only Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have proven themselves articulate and knowledgeable on foreign policy.
It's an odd truth, but sometimes it pays not to articulate your views when running for president. Many voters don't care about the intricacies of policy, and even more don't want to be made to feel dumb by hearing some wonky egghead drawl on about minute political details. The masses support candidates with ideas, not plans. This applies even when an idea is infeasible: Just look at the Trump campaign.
Political scientist Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group and author of the book Superpower, pinpoints two Republican candidates out of the entire field who have so far proven themselves to be coherent on the topic of foreign policy: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. This is not to say that the others are ignoramuses, merely that thus far in the campaign, they have offered only superficial answers to questions regarding American foreign policy. There's still plenty of time for the campaign to (hopefully) procure more articulate responses from the candidates. But, so far, Rubio's interventionist stance and Paul's opposing non-interventionist position stand out from the pack because they're not superficial. Rubio and Paul have plans, not just ideas.