Schumer defends vote to avert shutdown and his position as Senate Democratic leader
United States Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made the controversial decision last week to vote for the Republican funding bill. Schumer defended the decision, saying it was necessary to avoid a government shutdown, which would play into the hands of President Donald Trump and the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Elon Musk.
DOGE is a program created by Trump and Musk that was created to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” within the federal government. The goal is to reduce the government budget and save taxpayer money. The program is controversial as it was created without congressional approval and has been accused of defunding vital parts of the U.S. government. Additionally some have accused Musk of going after agencies that previously or currently are investigating him and his companies.
Critics argue that the vote by Schumer and nine other democrats is a capitulation to the Republicans.
The bill gives legal legitimacy to DOGE’s cuts, as Congress traditionally holds the power of the purse. In other words, Congress is meant to decide what to fund, not the Executive Branch. Musk’s actions, called illegal and unconstitutional by many, have now been legitimised.
Many have criticised Democratic leadership, saying the party fails to give voters a clear alternative vision and strong opposition. At a time when 51% of Americans disapprove of Trump and political polarisation continues to increase within the U.S., the Democrats are clinging to a strategy of being the “reasonable moderates.”
This strategy has often been to the detriment of the parties pursuing it. In U.S. history, we have several examples. In the 1930s and 1940s, in the face of the overwhelming popularity of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Republicans continued nominating more liberal Republicans such as Alf Landon in 1936, Wendell Willkie (a former Democrat who agreed with Roosevelt on most issues) in 1940, and Thomas Dewey in 1944 and 1948. The result? Republicans lost five elections in a row as Roosevelt would get elected to four terms, dying in his fourth, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, finished it up and got elected to another term in his own right.
The roles were reversed in the 1980s as Democrats moved increasingly to the right following two landslide victories by Ronald Reagan, including a 49-state sweep in 1984. Democrats abandoned much of their New Deal Social Democratic tendencies, which they had embraced since Roosevelt, favouring a more third-way free market approach.
In 2004, amid the war on terror, as the Iraq War polarised American society, Democrats nominated John Kerry, a moderate who had voted for the Iraq War and was accused throughout the campaign of flip-flopping on key issues. Kerry had initially supported the Iraq War but switched later during the campaign. As Republicans sought to make gay marriage a wedge issue, Kerry took a moderate position opposing it but opposing the Republican proposed constitutional amendment against it. Incumbent George W. Bush easily cruised to victory.
Even last year, the Kamala Harris campaign initially started off aggressively attacking the Trump campaign and tacking to the left, such as choosing Tim Walz as Vice President and making bold campaign promises such as eliminating medical debt. However, as the campaign progressed, she tacked to the centre, touted support from Republicans like Liz Cheney, and gradually lost her momentum.
Proponents of this strategy might defend it, pointing to the fact that Republicans eventually won the presidency in 1952, with moderate Republican Eisenhower, and Democrats won it with moderate Democrat Bill Clinton winning in 1992. They might also point to examples such as Olaf Scholz in Germany, who portrayed himself not as a left-wing radical but as a moderate and a continuation of the centre-right CDU Chancellor, Angela Merkel, winning in 2021, or current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer moving the Labour Party more to the centre and winning in a landslide last year.
However, there are issues with this argument. While also quite moderate, Eisenhower was a war hero running for the party opposite a relatively unpopular incumbent. Additionally, while he was a moderate, he had an aggressive Vice President, Richard Nixon, who was notorious for taking an aggressive right-wing position within the party regarding the Red Scare.
Bill Clinton, meanwhile, won an election in which a third-party candidate won 17% of the popular vote and mostly took votes from the Republicans. Both of these scenarios also required incumbents to make significant mistakes before the opposition had a chance to capitalise.
Scholz and Starmer both collapsed in polling after coming to power. Scholz became the first one-term Chancellor in Germany, since the 1960s, and Starmer lost ground in the polls in recent months to the far-right Reform UK.
Arguably, the biggest argument against this strategy is that by doing so, both the Republicans in the 1930s and 1940s and the Democrats in the 1980s and 1990s allowed their opposition to define the political narrative. The overton window shifted left, thanks to Roosevelt, and right, thanks to Reagan. Democrats are now paving the way for it to shift even further to the right if they concede to Trump. Additionally, after years of speaking about Trump as a threat to democracy, Democrats are destroying their own credibility as an opposition party.
The U.S. was recently added to the Human Rights watchlist, and we’ve seen various precedents broken, such as the peaceful transfer of power at the end of Trump’s first term. The storming of the capital and various different crimes committed by the Trump campaign was new ground for the U.S. Schumer, and the Democratic leadership’s strategy is a tacit concession that this is the new normal.
Israel breaks ceasefire with surprise airstrike, killing more than 400 Palestinians
Israel has continued strikes in Gaza, ending a two-month ceasefire brokered in January. During the ceasefire, many critics were sceptical about whether the ceasefire would last. Israel threatened to break the ceasefire multiple times, as we discussed in a previous analysis.
Israel sent a deadline back in February to release all the hostages. Israel also sent tanks to the West Bank amid the ceasefire. Additionally, with Donald Trump back as the United States President, Israel has even more backing thanks to Trump’s close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now Israel has decided to resume strikes, killing 400 Palestinians. Netanyahu says the strikes resumed due to a lack of progress in ceasefire talks. Hamas, the militant group running Gaza, meanwhile, has accused Netanyahu of upending the ceasefire agreement and exposing Israeli hostages “to an unknown fate.” Hamas is believed to hold 24 living hostages and the bodies of 35 others.
Israel has also ordered an evacuation of Northern and Eastern Gaza, indicating a renewed ground offensive against Hamas. The Israelis have threatened this new phase to be deadlier than the last and say. The Israelis have made their aims clear: expel Hamas and release the hostages, or face complete destruction and devastation. These were the words of Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz.
This strike continued the 17-month war, as hopes of peace were shattered. The war sparked protests across the world, including on a plethora of university campuses. The issue of the U.S.’ support of Israel was significant in the election last year when many young people refused to vote for the Democrats due to the support of the incumbent administration of Joe Biden not taking, in their minds, a strong stance against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
Various world leaders, including various regional actors, have condemned the attacks. At the same time, Israel has bombed Syria as the country remains in a fragile state. The aggressive and belligerent policy of Israel is not new. However, it has escalated as Netanyahu himself is in a precarious position.
Netanyahu has used the war as an opportunity. The resumption of the war has allowed him to reunite his coalition, eliminate enemies, and evade corruption trials.
During the ceasefire, the investigations and trials against Netanyahu accelerated, and there were fears that he would be removed from office and put on trial once the war ended.
This escalated further when a Shin Bet report revealed that officials in Netanyahu’s office were involved in accepting bribes in exchange for facilitating the transfer of funds to Palestinian resistance factions. Amid this scandal, accusations of Netanyahu’s responsibility for the 7 October events mounted, prompting him to fire the Shin Bet chief, Ronen Bar, to cover up the scandal. He also fired Attorney General Gali Baharav as part of his efforts to evade charges.
Additionally, as he faces corruption trials in Israel, he has a warrant for his arrest by the ICC due to allegations of war crimes in the Gaza War.
Finally, as this is ongoing, he is facing a crisis in passing his budget, lacking the necessary votes. The resumption of the war can be seen as an overture to Itamar Ben-Gvir, who resigned as Minister of National Security following the ceasefire announcement. Ben-Gvir opposed the ceasefire and has refused to vote for the budget. By continuing the war, Netanyahu is making an apparent move to bring Ben-Gvir back into the fold.
Because of the various opportunities the war has given Netanyahu, it was only a matter of time before the ceasefire broke.
Turkey detains Istanbul mayor in what opposition calls ‘coup’
Turkish security forces have detained opposition politician Ekrem Imamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul. Imamoğlu rose to prominence as a young, charismatic opposition politician from the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP).
Imamoğlu is being charged with a plethora of crimes including “bribery, extortion, corruption, aggravated fraud, and illegally obtaining personal data for profit as part of a criminal organisation.” His supporters and party argue the charges are politically motivated. Along with his arrest, many journalists, politicians, and municipal officials were arrested as well. The arrest came just days before he was expected to announce his candidacy in the next presidential election. His arrest has sparked protests across Turkey, as many see his arrest as a blatant act of suppression and injustice.
Turkey has been ruled by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) for over two decades. Current President Recep Taiyapp Erdogan was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2003 and became President in 2014. He has been accused of cracking down on opposition and solidifying his control of the country. Following the end of his tenure as Prime Minister, he won the presidency. Within two years into his presidency he faced a coup attempt, which he used to change the country’s constitution, centralising more power in the hands of the President.
Imamoğlu emerged as a dark horse in the 2019 Istanbul Mayor election, ultimately winning the election. His win came as such a shock that the national government ordered a recount, the Supreme Election Council annulled his victory, and he had to win a second election three months after the first.
The Istanbul Mayorship is particularly important to the AKP as it was the position Erdogan held before becoming President and arguably one of the most critical positions in the country after being in government.
He was touted as a potential Presidential candidate in the 2023 Turkish Presidential election, although the CHP ultimately went with another choice. Imamoğlu’s arrest is part of the most recent crackdown on opposition figures, something that has happened before.
The next election is in 2028, with Erdogan being term-limited. However, there is speculation that the government will find a way to circumvent the limitations and remove term limits. Imamoğlu is the most likely CHP candidate, and his arrest shows that the AKP and Erdogan are deeply concerned after they barely held on to the presidency two years ago.
Iran Could Lose Iraq
Since its 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has built up a network of proxies to solidify its influence over the Middle East and combat rival American, Israeli, and Saudi influence.
Iranian leadership has held on to power for decades despite harsh sanctions and growing internal dissent. However, it seems Iran’s political stranglehold over the region is beginning to be pried open.
Iran faced many losses in the last 17 months. Thanks to the Gaza War, its proxy, Hamas, is severely weakened, with multiple leaders being assassinated by the Israelis. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, another ally, has been weakened through the war with a new government further away from Tehran’s grasp and promising reform and revitalisation.
Its most significant loss, however, came in December as the 50+ year rule of the Assad family ended as Bashar al-Assad was toppled and had to flee to Russia. Now, Syria is in the hands of a government seeking to move closer to the U.S. and Turkey.
Now, Tehran is getting anxious again as they fear they might lose their grip on Iraq. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, which regularly attacked American soldiers, have not struck any American targets since December, indicating they fear reprisals from Washington. Additionally, Iraqi politicians seem more eager to appease the U.S.
The government, despite its close ties to Iran, made several concessions to the U.S. in January, including releasing a U.S. researcher held by an Iranian-backed militia, removing a previous arrest warrant for U.S. President Donald Trump, and passing a budget amendment sought by the Peshmerga, a group representing Iraqi Kurds that is diplomatically aligned with the U.S.
Losing influence in Iraq would be a significant loss for Iran, not just diplomatically but also economically, as the country faces rising inflation and its currency is in freefall. Iran has bypassed sanctions on its oil by moving its supply into Iraqi territory and has profited off Iraqi oil wealth. They also rely heavily on Iraqi oil infrastructure in order to profit off Iraq’s resources.
The two countries were at odds, being regional rivals for most of the 20th century. They even fought a brutal eight-year war from 1980-88. However, since Iraq’s Baathist regime fell following the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iran has gained significant influence, utilising sectarian tensions between Iraq’s Shia majority, which was historically underrepresented in Iraq’s power structures.
Now, Tehran fears losing access to the neighbour that provides them tremendous diplomatic and economic leverage.
Trump begins major layoffs at Voice of America, targets US-funded media
The Trump administration has begun laying off employees at Voice of America, a United States-funded media outlet, along with other outlets such as Radio Free Liberty and its subsidiaries. The move comes as part of the administration’s months-long efforts to cut costs across the government through multiple departments and agencies.
Radio Free Liberty and Voice of America were formed in the Cold War and World War II, respectively, to further American influence, talking points, and the U.S.’ geopolitical interests abroad. They have been criticised for supporting U.S. puppet regimes, sponsoring colour revolutions, and fermenting chaos in regimes hostile to the U.S.
This is significant as it is another showcase of Trump’s America’s isolationist turn away from its role as a global actor. Rather than utilising American soft power, Trump is actively taking a hammer to U.S. tools and working to undermine America’s influence abroad.
A similar case could be made of USAID, which was used to promote the U.S. agenda in developing countries and has been criticised for fueling dependency and exploiting third-world nations. Now, as Trump takes a wrecking ball across the U.S. government, Washington’s foreign policy establishment is watching decades of geopolitical infrastructure be destroyed.
The cuts come as Russia and China invest further in state media and online. Even if the cuts are reversed later, Trump’s actions here are leaving the U.S. behind its geopolitical rivals in the information war. In the age of fake news, social media, and clickbait, information is a tool for geopolitical power projection.
As an example, Radio Liberty notably helped promote and ferment the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, providing a counter to the Russian narrative and Ukraine’s pro-Russian establishment at the time. Additionally Radio Liberty employs many Russian dissident journalists, whose immigration status was tied to their jobs. Many of them operate in the EU in cities such as Prague or Riga. Now many of them are stuck in legal limbo as they are set to lose their jobs.
Those who wish to weaken the American empire seem to have found an ally in the Trump administration, as his administration’s actions as agents of chaos undermine not just U.S. credibility but also U.S. power.
Rearmament of Europe mobilises voters: VVD and GroenLinks-PvdA reap appreciation, PVV loses seats
Polling outlet Ipsos recently published a poll estimating seat counts if the next Dutch parliamentary election were held today. The poll showcased a boost for the VVD and GLPvda, at 25 and 27 seats, respectively. Another traditionally governing party, the CDA, is at 18 seats, a dramatic comeback from their election result of 5 seats just a year and a half ago.
The PVV, led by Geert Wilders, is still leading, but that lead is narrowing. The party is down to 30 seats (it got 37 in the last election). One of the main factors of this is Ukraine, with many of PVV’s voters believing the party is too negative toward supporting Ukraine. Most PVV voters want the Netherlands to support Ukraine as polling shows 53% of PVV voters are positive toward aid for Ukraine. Others blame Wilder’s inability to push through his campaign promises on migration and security.
The biggest reason is the Trump factor. Wilders has long been compared to United States President Donald Trump, as has much of the European far right. However, Trump’s threats to Greenland, Canada, and Panama and his talks of a trade war with the European Union have tanked his approval in Europe.
Elon Musk, the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, and his Vice President, J.D. Vance, have also gotten involved in European politics, notably in the United Kingdom and Germany. They have both publicly supported far-right parties, which has caused much of the far-right to lose support.
Now, the European far right is divided on how to approach Trump, with some embracing him and some distancing from him. Wilders is now taking the distance approach, saying in a parliamentary debate about Ukraine, “I am not praising him in this context at all.” He has also called Russia the aggressor and is trying to emphasise his party’s support for Ukraine as being absolute. However, he is struggling to sell this narrative due to previous scepticism regarding Ukraine and his long history of criticising the EU and calling for a Dutch exit from the union.
Overall, there is a shift mainly to the political centre, especially as many don’t have confidence in Wilders’s handling of the situation. The biggest beneficiaries are the traditional governing parties: VVD, GLPvda, CDA, and D66, which are now set to have a majority in the next election and could form a government of the political centre.
Leave a Reply