Analysis 05-06-2016


The Trump Phenomena

There is a growing unrest spreading throughout the West and the political leadership is looking fragile.

Recently Austria’s right wing Freedom Party’s presidential candidate came in first place with 36.4% of the vote.   The campaign focused on the impact of the migrant crisis, which has seen around 100,000 asylum seekers arrive in Austria since last summer. Norbert Hofer, who will face Alexander van der Bellen, a former Green Party figurehead, focused on immigration and anti-European sentiments.

The two Austrian parties that have held the presidency for over 65 years failed to place.

Opposition to the European establishment isn’t limited to Austria. There is political unrest in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and other nations.

The European Union is also looking fragile. Britain will vote on leaving the EU in June and polls show a slim majority of voters preferring to leave. Should they vote to leave, expect other nations like Greece, Spain, and Portugal to look for an exit. And, should Spain leave, expect the Spanish province of Catalonia to push for independence.

In the US, this displeasure with the political leadership was displayed as voters gave non-politician Donald Trump the Republican Party nomination.   This was an outcome that wasn’t expected by most political experts a few months ago.

It appears that 2016 will be the West’s summer of discontent.

The Factors that led to a Trump Win

Trump was underestimated by most analysts because they saw his campaign in terms of the traditional presidential campaign. Needless to say, his style was unconventional and this accounted for much of his success.

We see three major factors that contributed to his success:

Growing distrust of government. A Pew poll taken a few months ago showed a growing distrust of government. Republicans and those who lean Republican are three times as likely as Democrats to say they are “angry” with government — 32% to 12%. Among Republicans and Democrats who vote often and follow politics closely, the gap is even wider: 42% to 11%.

89% of Republicans said they can seldom, if ever, trust the federal government. Among Democrats, that number is 72%, demonstrating that widespread cynicism about politicians is not a partisan issue.

The findings confirm that the surge of distrust in Washington is aimed at both Obama and GOP leaders as well. Only 19% of Americans said they could trust government always or most of the time, close to the lowest level in the past 60 years, according to Pew.

Overall, 74% of Americans said that most elected officials put their own interests ahead of the country’s. Fifty-five percent, meanwhile, believed that ordinary Americans would do a better job of solving problems than politicians.

As an outsider and non-politician, Trump tapped into this unrest better than his opponents. Trump was viewed more favorably by the nearly one-third of Republicans and GOP leaners who are “angry” at the government (64% favorable rating) than by those who are “content” or merely “frustrated” with government (48 percent favorable rating).

Trump was well known before running for office. Most American voters know little about the politicians who represent them. Even the most prominent of senators and governors typically have to spend enormous sums of money introducing themselves to the American people. Political races tend to involve favorably defining the politician, and then preserving and defending that impression throughout the campaign.

Since most politicians are “blank slates,” this means a mistake may become the defining moment for them, leaving their image negatively stained.

On the other hand, Trump was known to tens of millions of Americans for decades. We tend to forget how long Trump has been famous. His book, “The Art of the Deal” came out in 1987, during the Reagan administration, and he was already prominent then. At that time, Hillary Clinton was an unknown wife of an unknown governor from a medium sized state.

Since Americans already knew him, attacks against him were discounted. Call Trump racist and fans of the TV show “Apprentice” immediately compared the accusation with the man they watched for 14 seasons. Call Trump stupid, and they remember his decades-long reign as one of America’s most famous billionaires.

Trump’s command of a large part of the GOP base. While the “establishment” Republican Party didn’t like Trump, there were segments of the party that were naturally attracted to him.
There is a large “insurgent” segment in the GOP that has chafed at the policies of the Republican Party – especially immigration policy and free trade policies that sent jobs overseas. They are also critical of Republican politicians in Washington who didn’t forcibly oppose Obama’s policies.

Although not “mainstream,” these Republicans are well coordinated thanks to such personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, the Drudge Report, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. They managed to get Trump’s message out in a way that negated the missions of dollars in anti-Trump advertising.

The result was that Trump was able to out maneuver the traditional campaigns, while spending less money and not relying upon campaign consultants.

At this point in time, there are several prominent GOP figures that are insisting that they will not vote for Trump. Such hard feelings are not unheard of after a hard fought primary season and many said the same thing when Reagan won the GOP nomination in 1980. In fact, remember that a Republican congressman, John Anderson even ran a third party presidential campaign that year. However, such talk usually calms down after a while and the desire to beat the Democrats takes precedence.

Another factor that will bring the GOP together are some polls showing Trump beating Clinton. One such poll – the Rasmussen Poll – showed Trump leading by 2 points this week. Invariability, the potential of victory is the greatest political glue.

Why Cruz Lost

Given the anti-establishment sentiment in the Republican Party this year, Senator Cruz seemed to be the candidate to benefit the most, given his record in the US Senate. And, although he ran a strong campaign, he lost out to Trump.

Cruz, who burst onto the national scene in 2012 by harnessing the energy of the Tea Party movement, was the first to grasp that the simmering anger that propelled him into the Senate could also fuel a presidential campaign.

Cruz’s failure is the story of a disciplined candidate and a well-run campaign that couldn’t overcome its limitations. Since well before he officially launched his campaign, Cruz had worked to carve out a niche as the most conservative candidate in the race. He’d been eyeing a presidential bid from the time he was elected to the Senate, and he carefully crafted an anti-establishment brand by attacking his colleagues in the Senate.

Cruz came into the race with strong advantages – a superior grassroots operation and a high-tech campaign that could target voters and volunteers. He also had two critical demographics working for him – evangelical Christians and more conservative Republican voters.

Unfortunately, as the field of candidates shrunk, Cruz was unable to expand his support base beyond these two demographics. As Walker, Carson, Perry, and others dropped out, their voters seemed to migrate towards Trump, who was seen as the true outsider. The end of his campaign was assured when Trump began to eat into Cruz’s evangelical and conservative base – something that was obvious in the Indiana results this week.

The question is where does Cruz go from here? He obviously has a long career in the US Senate as a senator from conservative Texas. However, there may be a different future if Trump is elected as President.

If the Republican Senate can keep the open seat in the US Supreme Court open until Trump becomes president, it is very likely that Cruz may be considered for the spot. He worked as a clerk in the Supreme Court, has argued before the court, and has a strong conservative ideological bent. Given his youth, he could make a major impact on the SCOTUS for several decades.

Trump’s VP Pick

Now that Trump is the presumed nominee, the race for the vice presidential slot is beginning. There are several possibilities that fit Trump’s preference for a skilled politician to fill the spot.

Two that have been mentioned are former House speaker Newt Gingrich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Both have advantages. Christie is the governor of New Jersey and could help Trump win that state. However, Christie wouldn’t be a good choice for GOP conservatives who are suspicious of Trump

A choice that would be a better fit as far as the conservative wing of the party goes is Newt Gingrich. He also fits Trump’s requirements for a VP – “a strong political background, who was well respected on the Hill, who can help me with legislation, and who could be a great president.”

As a former Speaker of the House, Gingrich bring a wealth of Washington D.C. knowledge and experience that could be helpful. Gingrich is media savvy and a fundraising asset. He is good on the campaign trail and could solidify support among conservatives.
Another possibility is Florida governor Rick Scott. Scott has been consistently supportive of Trump for months now, endorsing him as soon as Trump won the Florida in early March. Scott’s profile is also likely appealing to Trump – a wealthy businessman who ran and beat the Republican establishment to get elected governor. Needless to say, he’s from a critical swing state that could decide the election.

If winning Florida is important to Trump, he might opt for Rubio. Rubio leaves the Senate this year and has no future plans yet. Rubio could help Trump in Florida. As a Cuban American, he also might be able to reach out to the Hispanic community.

Other Republicans who have said they would consider being Trump’s running mate include Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin. However, Carson doesn’t fit Trump’s criteria of a skilled politician and it appears that he will be asked to sit on the group that will assist Trump in his VP selection.

Trump could very well decide to go for a woman or a Hispanic – or both. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News suggested Donald Trump should pick New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez as his vice presidential running mate “if he wants to win.”

Martinez, who is America’s only Latina governor, was a Marco Rubio supporter when he was in the race, and spoke harshly about Trump earlier in the campaign. However, being offered the vice presidential slot does frequently change politicians’ minds.

However, don’t expect a quick decision. He has until the Republican convention in July and he is likely to take his time to find the best match.


Economics of the Syrian Refugee Crisis
By Alex Nowrasteh
Cato Institute
May 2, 2016

The Syrian Civil War has produced about 5.8 million Syrians seeking refuge or asylum elsewhere–a scale of population displacement unseen since World War II. Although the flow into Europe dominates the news, most of the registered Syrian refugees remain in the Middle East. Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan are the main recipients of the immigration wave, receiving roughly 1.1 million, 2.7 million, and 640,000 Syrians, respectively. The Gulf States are hosting about 1.2 million Syrians on work visas but they are not legally considered refugees or asylum seekers because those nations are not signatories to the UNHCR commission that created the modern refugee system. Regardless, the humanitarian benefit of Syrians working and residing there is tremendous. The movement of so many Syrians over such a short period of time should result in significant economic and fiscal effects in their destination countries. Below is a summary of recent economic research on how the Syrians have affected the economies and budgets for Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Europe.

Read more


Iran in a Reconnecting Eurasia
By Mohsen Milani
Center for Strategic and International Studies
April 30, 2016

Iran in a Reconnecting Eurasia examines the full scope of Iranian national interests in the South Caucasus and Central Asia and analyzes the broad outlines of Iranian engagement over the coming years. It is part of a six-part CSIS series, “Eurasia from the Outside In,” which includes studies focusing on Turkey, the European Union, Iran, India, Russia, and China.

Read more


Will Iran’s new parliament be any better for Rouhani?
By J. Matthew McInnis
American Enterprise Institute
May 3, 2016

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is hoping results from Iran’s second round of parliamentary elections on April 29 produce a better political landscape as he looks toward his re-election campaign a year from now. He needs the good news. The more conservative outgoing parliament pointedly made his life more difficult in this month’s battles over the current budget. That was on top of managing the expectations of the slow-motion impact of sanctions relief from the JCPOA, as well as pressure from reformers who think he is not going far enough. Will the results, as Rouhani claims, enable his administration “to act on the promises it has made to the people?”

Read more

The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East
By Marc Lynch
Carnegie Endowment
April 26, 2016
Published by Public Affairs

Less than twenty-four months after the hope-filled Arab uprising, the popular movement had morphed into a dystopia of resurgent dictators, failed states, and civil wars. Egypt’s epochal transition to democracy ended in a violent military coup. Yemen and Libya collapsed into civil war, while Bahrain erupted in smothering sectarian repression. Syria proved the greatest victim of all, ripped apart by internationally fueled insurgencies and an externally supported, bloody-minded regime. Amidst the chaos, a virulently militant group declared an Islamic State, seizing vast territories and inspiring terrorism across the globe. What happened?

Read more


The Presidential Candidates on Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
By Caroline Wallace
Foreign Policy Research Institute
May 2016

The past two presidents have been deeply engaged in promoting democracy in the Middle East.  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Middle East emerged as a key region of strategic interest for the United States, and both Bush and Obama sought to build a strong base of allies among its nations. Efforts have ranged from military strategies to topple nondemocratic regimes, such as the Iraq War begun under Bush and the intervention in Libya overseen by Obama, to soft diplomatic and foreign aid programs to build civil society, facilitate free and fair elections, and promote the rights of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups. These efforts have sparked a range of successes and failures throughout the region, and a charged policy debate over the proper role of the United States in promoting democracy and the most effective way of doing it. It is no surprise that presidential candidates on both the Republican and Democratic sides have weighed in.”

Read more


Prospects of the Islamic State in Pakistan
By Farhan Zahid & Muhammad Ismail Khan
Hudson Institute
May 3, 2016

The Islamic State of Iraq and Sham’s (ISIS) brutal rule and terrorist atrocities have understandably attracted the world’s attention to its actions in the core Middle East states, Libya and the Maghreb, and in Europe. But ISIS is not only moving westward. What has not received adequate attention is its push eastward, particularly into pivotal Pakistan.   The goal of pushing tentacles in multiple directions is to establish ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s vision of a global caliphate, with him as caliph. In 2014, al-Baghdadi proclaimed that “once the caliph and his fighters arrive in a particular area, the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations” is nullified. In contrast to ISIS, other jihadist groups largely focus on local, more parochial conflicts with their immediate rulers.

Read more


Leave Root Causes Aside — Destroy the ISIS ‘State’
By James F. Jeffrey
Washington Institute
April 29, 2016

Stephen Biddle and Jacob Shapiro’s recent Atlantic article, “America Can’t Do Much About ISIS,” advocated containing the Islamic State and questioned America’s ability to destroy the group. The first problem with this analysis is how the authors define “destroy ISIS.” They compare the amorphous fight against al-Qaeda with the one against ISIS, discussing how to get at the roots of its terrorist ideology and fix the ungoverned space that provides its sanctuary. This leads them repeatedly to conflate destroying ISIS in its current form as a quasi-state with the monumental task of resolving the Syrian Civil War and the Sunni-Shia split in Iraq. To the contrary, if the mission is properly defined, America can destroy ISIS, and must.

Read more