Why does there continue to be a widening gender gap in US voting?

Since the inception of the 19th Amendment, women have voted at a higher rate than men, with over 63% of women stating that they had voted in the presidential election of 2016 compared to 59% of men. This is not a new trend, but rather one dating back to the 1980s. Starting in the presidential election of 1984, a gender gap began to develop in each election, slowly increasing over time (Igielnik, 2020).

(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/)

While not substantial, a 4 point difference raises some questions into why each gender votes the way they do. Why does this gender gap exist within voting in the United States, and why does it continue to widen? A plausible explanation can be found within the topic and history of women’s rights. Women have been able to vote for a much shorter portion of US history than men, as women’s right to vote was only established a mere century ago. Looking at this, one can assume that women have possibly been motivated by this somewhat recent accomplishment to make their voices heard within the US. In contrast, men, having already had the right to vote for a few centuries, view it with slightly less importance.

Another factor could be the breaking of older, societal norms. As stated by scholar Susan Carroll, “‘Women had been socialized pre-suffrage,... Maybe it wasn’t proper for women to be involved in politics’” (Rampell, 2014). Both men and women had been conditioned to view women’s suffrage as socially unacceptable and inappropriate. When women finally began to realize the falsity of this belief, the societal norm began to break down, slowly causing more and more women to vote. This breakdown has continued to increase, resulting in a slowly-widening gender gap.

A similar gender gap emerged in the 1990s within party affiliation and candidate choice, with women being more likely to identify as Democrats and men more likely to identify as Republicans. This gap has continued to widen over time, hitting an all-time high in the 2016 election with a whopping eleven-point difference between men and women. 52% of men voted for the Republican candidate Donald Trump compared to a mere 43% of women (Center for the American Woman and Politics, 2017).

(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/)

Female voters’ tendency to affiliate with the Democrat Party is primarily due to the party's stances on certain political issues, particularly abortion, a topic which many women feel passionately about. When Ronald Reagan’s administration announced their opposition to abortion in 1980, many female voters were pushed away from the Republican Party and into the Democratic Party, creating the start of the gender gap in party affiliation (Arnold, 2020). As the Democratic Party continues to espouse socially progressive views, they continue to attract groups, such as women, that are disillusioned by the Republican Party.

The gender gap in US voting will likely continue to slowly increase unless the Republican Party begins to become more involved in social politics in a way that aligns with the political beliefs that align with those of most women. Until then, the gender gap will continue to widen as politics become increasingly polarized.

Works Cited:

Arnold, L. (2020, August 27). The Gender Gap in Voting. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/gender-gap

Center for the American Woman and Politics. (2017, January). The Gender Gap:

Voting Choices In Presidential Elections. Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/ggpresvote.pdf

Igielnik, R. (2020, August 18). Men and women in the U.S. continue to differ in voter turnout rate, party identification. Pew Research Center. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/

Rampell, C. (2014, July 17). Why women are far more likely to vote than men. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-why-women-are-far-more-likely-to-vote-then-men/2014/07/17/b4658192-0de8-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

Do Autocracies Fair Better During A Pandemic?

Within the course of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been debate over whether the structure of government within a country impacts its response to handling and containing COVID cases, particularly in autocracies.

Originally surfacing in China, a country with an authoritarian government, the outbreak spread quickly across the globe. Chinese President, Xi Jinping had major success quelling the spread within the country as “Strong authoritarian regimes excel at mass mobilization” (Yuen Ang) 

It is often accepted within many nations that with extraordinary circumstances - often come necessary extraordinary measures. Within these circumstances comes a perfect opportunity for autocratic leaders to seize further control. According to an article published in The New York Times in April, "Critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak, with few safeguards to ensure that their new authority will not be abused." Some of the autocratic regimes who have seized upon the movement include Cambodia, Egypt, El Salvador, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, and Vietnam." (Foreign Affairs)

Tools such as contact tracing provide an opportunity for breaches of privacy to occur in the fact that governments can use the spread of disease as a necessary explanation for breaching the privacy of individuals. The Chinese government has been "Collecting a vast swatch of users' data -- including their location -- China's quarantine apps have empowered authorities to use big data to locate threats and take preventive action" (Politico)

Photo Courtesy of CNN

Although Xi Jinping and his government were able to quell the spread of disease, questions arise surrounding the cost at which the spread was controlled. The extreme quarantine measures China adopted appeared reminiscent of wartime. The government enacted measures "banning the private use of cars, forbidding residents from leaving their apartment without permission and requiring purchasers of cold medicine to disclose their temperature address, and identification number at the pharmacy." (NPR)

Other mechanisms like free speech can also be threatened in the midst of disease. In Jordan, another autocratic country that successfully contained the spread, the King has “have instituted a series of measures which have limited the space for public debates on the government’s policies (Jorgen) Speech has been threatened in other autocratic governments by detaining critics, health care workers and journalists during the pandemic. 

Photo Courtesy of Egypt Independent

Although China, Jordan and Singapore have seen success, other autocracies have struggled to contain the spread, including Iran. The Iranian government downplayed the severity of COVID, and then proceeded to sit on thousands of tests, which skyrocketed both coronavirus cases as well as unrest amongst Iranians, as well as distrust in the government. (Radio Free Europe) 

Democracies are no different than autocracies in the fact that they have also had a plethora of failures and successes. The United States, Spain, and Italy have all struggled to contain the virus, experiencing high case counts and poorly enforced safety measures. But others like Germany, Finland and New Zealand have performed amongst the best in the world. 

In order for safety measures to succeed, the people must be willing and voluntary to participate in them. According to an artice from  the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, public trust is what is essential for a successful pandemic response. With high trust in government comes the ability to enforce lockdowns and quarantines. Today, public trust in government doesn’t seem to align with democracies or autocracies. 

According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, some of the most autocratic states have some of the highest numbers of trust from their citizens such as Singapore and China  (Carnegie) While some democratic states like the United States have low levels of public trust. 

Courtesy of the Edelman Trust Barometer

In the following years, we’ll be able to compare the responses of autocratic governments more accurately. But for now, what seems apparent is that trust in government is essential in containing the spread of disease for democracies. Pandemic responses are not necessarily equated to type of governance, but heavily influenced by a country's resources and capacity in tandem with citizen’s perception of their own leaders. 

Sources: 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/government-privacy-coronavirus-china-308105 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-sudden-spread-of-coronavirus-leads-to-distrust-in-state-handling-of-disease/30447874.html 

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/03/31/do-authoritarian-or-democratic-countries-handle-pandemics-better-pub-81404 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0872-3 

https://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/jordan-and-covid-19-effective-response-high-cost 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/21/806958341/restrictions-and-rewards-how-china-is-locking-down-half-a-billion-citizens 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-06-13/democracy-versus-pandemic 

Can peace finally exist within the Balkans?

 

Trigger warning: This post contains images and topics some might find sensitive. Please proceed with caution.

              On September 4^th, 2020, President Donald J. Trump brokered an economic peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo, two countries that have historically been at odds with each other, following centuries of conflict. The enacting of the peace deal between the countries marked a step forward for the region, but many are still skeptical about long term peace within the Balkans.

               Most people with familial ties to the region still remember the wounds caused by the Civil War of the former Yugoslavia. Both Serbia and Croatia, states within Yugoslavia, intended to create greater nation states of each. Their “Greater States” would be ethnically pure, either Serbian Orthodox in the Serbian region or Croatian Roman Catholic in the Croatian region. Both Serbian and Croatian forces invaded Bosnian regions, following the secession of Bosnia during a referendum for independence in the Yugoslav congress, marking the beginning of the most brutal conflict on European soil since the Second World War.

               The intertwined communities within Bosnia, which were propped up during the Communist Reign of Tito, caused the war to be a bloody internal conflict between neighbors at times. Multiple concentration camps across the region were established by both Serbian and Croatian forces, leading to countless torturing and killing of men and boys, while rape camps promoted the invaders to “cleanse” the Bosnian Muslim population with their “superior” genetics.

Trnopolje camp, 1992

               One of the most notable occurrences during the war was the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995, which is commemorated on July 11^th every year. July 11^th, 2020 marked the 25^th anniversary of the event that killed a reported 8,372 Bosnian men and boys after Serbian forces overtook a UN Safe Zone in Bosnia. The generals involved in the event, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, have been convicted and charged with multiple offenses by the ICTY, but many others are left still roaming the streets.

               The ICTY did not reach their conclusions haphazardly, rather they collected all the evidence they could. This included aerial photographs of all the scenes and witness testimonies, such as Witness K in 2001 reliving his experiences during the Srebrenica Massacre.

“I was not even able to touch the floor, the concrete floor of the warehouse… After the shooting, I felt a strange kind of heat, warmth, which was actually coming from the blood that covered the concrete floor, and I was stepping on the dead people who were lying around. But there were even people who were still alive, who were only wounded, and as soon as I would step on him, I would hear him cry, moan, because I was trying to move as fast as I could. I could tell that people had been completely disembodied, and I could feel bones of the people that had been hit by those bursts of gunfire or shells, I could feel their ribs crushing. And then I would get up again and continue . . . .”

Murder room in the Kravica Warehouse, Srebrenica

               

                A large source of tension between the countries involved is the denial of such acts. In August 2020, Ratko Mladic appealed his case again, continuing to state that nothing had occurred in Srebrenica. Further, in 2019 Karadzic attempted the same in the courts. Both are serving life sentences at this point. A major problem lies within the governments and extremists in the regions. The Serbian and Croatian governments have yet to admit to their acts, and both deny the atrocities that have taken place during the war.

               Despite the inactions of the governments and ruling parties, most people believe the true tensions arise within the populations of the countries. Members in all countries involved hold hatred towards the others. Bosnians, who believed in the communist slogan “bratsvo I jedinstvo” (brotherhood and unity), felt betrayed by their neighbors, while other parties involved still view their imprisoned generals as heroes. Evidence of this can be seen in this clip from July 10th, 2020, the night before the 25th anniversary of Srebrenica. Extreme Serbian nationalists gathered in the streets of Belgrade to celebrate and chant “Ratko Mladic” in addition to “Srebrenica wasn’t a genocide”.

 

Serbian Nationalists, July 10th, 2020, Belgrade, Serbia

               Actions such as these cause some call into question whether peace can ever truly be reached in this region. All parties felt betrayed by the Dayton Agreement that formally ended the conflict in 1995, and much of the hatred from the 1990’s still remains within the population. International courts and statements from world leaders have done little to promote peace and unity within this region, but that does not mean it is impossible.

               The recent deal brokered by President Trump proved this fact. The truth is all regions in the world can become peaceful. Peace requires cooperation on all sides, which with emotion based policy can be harder to achieve. The economic peace deal provided the first step in the uphill battle, but with the potential for more deals on the horizon, peace is absolutely possible. A peaceful and prosperous Balkan would benefit all parties involved, and as more time passes from past events, the chance of them recognizing this fact and working towards a better future grows exponentially. If all continues as is, there is no reason to doubt that a peaceful Balkan can exist in the near future.

           

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-vucic-serbia-prime-minister-hoti-kosovo-trilateral-meeting/

https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/tjug/en/krs-tj010802e.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/27/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53917671

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCg0y0RDUex/?igshid=grwmtscqivn9

http://www.bosnjaci.net/print.php?pid=34776

How many people does it take to oust a political leader?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54142487

What are the qualities that make protest effective? 

How many people need to take to the streets in order to oust a political leader? 

As we know country wide protest can cause tremendous political change. Take for example Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and the beginning of the Arab Spring where countries across Northern Africa and the Middle East overthrew oppressive governments. For an example we might understand better, look at South Africa and the anti-apartheid movements that we are emulating in class. Historically these are successful protests that actually inspired great change in their regions.

Some of the most recent political demonstrations are from Belarus (pictured here)2

Tens of thousands of Belarusians are marching in response to a disputed election. Police have been arresting non-violent protestors and subjecting them heavy surveillance, sudden detention and torture. The question of whether or not this protest will succeed can be illuminated by the insight of Professor Erica Chenoweth, Professor of Political Science at Harvard University. 

Chenoweth first take time to differentiate between forms of protest by first dividing them into forms of violent and non-violent protest. Violent protests would include assassination or rioting whereas non-violent protests can take many forms like: boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, ect. In fact Prof. Chenoweth cites 198 diffrent forms of non-violent protest from her research. And nonviolent forms of protest are also more effective than violent protest because people are more likely to commit to non-violent protest for a variety of reasons like a low risk or injury among others. Because non-violence has a lower risk it is more likely to draw on more groups of people, often involving women, children, the elderly and the disabled. The Professor ways that it only takes on average 3.5% of a country's population to launch a successful protest. Chenoweth's latest research has shown that the rate of armed insurrection and violent protest is on the decline whereas the rate at which non-violent forms of protest are being used is increasing. A much more disturbing statistic is that 9/10 protest movements of these sorts fail.

Chenoweth's argument seems reasonable, if great change can only be achieved by the masses, then making it more inviting for the masses to take to the streets would in turn garner more support for that protest. Violence on the side of protestor seems to alienate all those other groups who may have joined should the protest have been peaceful. The lesson of this thought seems to be firstly; that those who take up violence only serve to alienate themselves from the rest of their base, and secondly, that non-violent protest is the most effective way to gain public support.

Questions for the Reader:

• Professor Chenoweth says that it takes 3.5% of the population of a country to be in protest of the leadership to oust a political leader. What do you make of this?

• What would you define as "violent" protest? Are attacks on property violent? What about verbal abuse that doesn't involve a physical confrontation?

Sources:

1. Edmonds, D. (2020, September 19). How many people does it take to oust a political leader? Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54142487

2. Koltsova, O. (2019, October 12). Why the tech scene in Belarus is growing. Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://innovationorigins.com/why-the-tech-scene-in-belarus-is-growing/

Danish Vegan Party gains enough support to run for Parliament

 

The Little Mermaid statue as a result of a protest by the Danish Vegan Party https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/07/denmark-s-vegan-party-says-it-has-enough-support-to-run-for-parliament 

Unlike the United States, Denmark isn’t overruled by two main political parties. They have a multi-party system in place that currently has 13 different political parties. The Constitutional Act was created in 1849 and has been used as the base of democracy in Denmark ever since. Every four years a general election occurs, and the next one will be held in June 2023. They have similar checks and balances of power (like the U.S.) by splitting power into branches (legislative, executive, judicial). New political parties must obtain 20,000 signatures to be deemed legitimate or occupy one or more seats in the Parliament already.

  https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/denmark/ 

The Danish Vegan Party (​Veganerpartiet) was ​founded in around 2018 as a political party that calls for animal rights, and improvement in not only the environment but also public health. As of July, the Danish Vegan Party acquired 20,182 signatures which would entail that they would be allowed to operate as a functional political party for the election. It is not unusual to see Green parties pop up in various countries in Europe, yet it is rare to come across a vegan specific political party. 

Excerpt from the official website of the Danish Vegan Party 

https://vgpt.dk/ 

The idea behind this blog post was not to argue the legitimacy of the Danish Vegan Party or if this sort of political party could be viable in the United States. I chose this article to continue the dialogue on the comparison between the U.S. and Denmark on how they view/conduct their political parties. What are your thoughts on having 13 different parties represented on your voting ticket? Is it unnecessary or does it provide more representation in politics? Even looking at how polarized the U.S has become with the Democratic party and the Republican party being the top two ruling parties, would introducing more parties aid in alleviating this polarization? 

Sources:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/07/denmark-s-vegan-party-says-it-has-enough-support-to-ru n-for-parliament
https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/political-parties https://tyrkiet.um.dk/en/about-denmark/government-and-politics/ https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/democracy/elections-and-referendums https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/denmark/ https://www.thelocal.dk/20190510/the-locals-guide-to-denmarks-election-parties-part-one-the-ri ght 

Should Trump Fill the Supreme Court Vacancy?

 Before diving into this post, I would like to first start by honoring Justice Ruth Bader because she was a tremendous judge.

This topic that we are about to discuss is, is Trump in the right of filling the Supreme Court Vacancy?

In my opinion, Trump as or right now is the sitting President of the United States, so that births him authority to nominate a Judge to the Supreme Court. That being said there is around 40 days to the election and will be difficult to fill the empty seat. However, Trump has said that he will be announcing his nominee later this week. Also, I can't wrap my head around why Trump wouldn't nominate someone because Obama did the same exact thing following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

When she past away Democratic leaders said: 

Joe Biden: " The American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine"

Hillary Clinton: "The president nominates and then the Senate advises and consents, or not but they go forward with the process"

Nancy Pelosi: "What we're seeing here, and I hope this is temporary, is a disrespect for the Constitution... The American people expect the president's nominee to be given a fair hearing and a timely vote in the Senate".

Bernie Sanders: "The Constitution is 100% Clear. The President of the United States has the right to nominate someone to be justice of the Supreme Court. Senate's function is to hold hearings and to vote."

Chuck Schumer: " Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done". 

So what has changed? Why are democrats saying Trump can't fill the spot and wait? 

In 2016, the Senate was majority Republican's and voted no on Obama's nominee. Now in 2020, the Senate is majority Republicans and the path of getting another Trump Supreme Court Justice will start this week. 

Source:   https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-party-highlights-what-top-democrats-said-about-filling-scotus-seat-in-2016

Italy: Immigration in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond

Earlier this year the world watched as COVID-19 devastatingly swept through Italy. At the time, Italy was the epi-center of the pandemic and was under the lens of many western cultures to learn from. 

Only a few months earlier, before the world could even comprehend what a global pandemic would entail, a young, left-wing organization known as the Sardines, was protesting in piazzas over a politician who was not even in power. Matteo Salvini, the leader of the far-right, dominant party, the League, has become incredibly influential in Italy due to his anti-immigration and anti-muslim ideologies. Italians have embraced Salvini’s views towards immigrants, refugees, etc., and although the next Italian national election is a few years away, Salvini is expected to be the next prime minister. 

Today, Italy has not forgotten their dark days with COVID-19, as it suffered a large fatality rate of 12.3% and has gradually opened with many precautions in place. Salvini has used his view on immigrants and how they have pertained to COVID-19 to continue his anti-immigrant agenda. Many areas of Italy, such as Sicily, are not accepting immigrants due to the fear imposed by the media that immigrants are allowing COVID-19 to flourish in Italy. However, only 3-5% of positive cases in Italy are due to migrants and refugees, unlike the 25% that is a result of tourism. Salvini has also called on his supporters to protest the arrival of immigrants at ports, stopping them from being able to get off their ships, instilling in them that immigrants are a great threat to Italians in terms of COVID-19. Salvini’s influence has played a massive role in the capacity in which centers can account for taking care of migrants as well. For example, centers used to receive roughly 35 euros a day per migrant, now they are only provided 19 euros a day. This cut in funds has had profound effects on refugee centers that are now overcrowded, dirty, and a place for COVID-19 to spread with little consideration on the wellbeing of migrants. 

Italy’s prime minister is determined through appointment by the party with the majority. In the coming years, it will be interesting to see if the League rises to be the majority in the government and if Salvini will be appointed to be the prime minister. Italians are eager to support Salvini’s anti-immigration views and have continued to do so in the era of COVID-19.

 

Credit: Fabio Bucciarelli from The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/world/europe/coronavirus-italy-migrants.html) 

Credit: The Independent, Statista (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europe-immigration-most-anti-immigrant-countries-italy-france-germany-uk-a7460301.html) 

Resource for migrants to Italy: https://cidisonlus.org 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/world/europe/coronavirus-italy-migrants.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/packing-into-piazzas-italys-sardines-are-demonstrating-against-a-politician-who-isnt-in-power/2019/12/22/007b78f2-211b-11ea-b034-de7dc2b5199b_story.html 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/refugees-italy-bear-brunt-coronavirus-angst-200906223712235.html  

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus 

https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy/The-legislature#ref258796 

Hong Kong: A Pro-Democracy Without the Freedom of Speech

    The people of Hong Kong find themselves with tape now permanently stuck to their mouths because of the recent passing of a new security law on June 30th. China claims that this new law will return stability to Hong Kong, but residents say that the new law forces them to stay quiet, and to no longer have the right of freedom of speech without worrying about facing punishment. The new security law gives mainland China jurisdiction to censor media, intervene in public affairs, extradite people who’ve escaped to Hong Kong for political sanctuary, and more. In simple terms, this means that the recent passing of China's new security law makes it easier to punish protests and reduce Hong Kong’s autonomy. This worries and scares the people of Hong Kong because they believe that with this new national security law, they have lost freedom of speech.  

Although Hong Kong is under China’s rule, and China is a “socialist democracy” which is really a system controlled under the Chinese Communist Party, Hong Kong is known for being pro-democracy and making the most out of their power to speak freely. Free speech in Hong Kong has played a role in international news media and rights groups. Even under China’s rule, Hong Kong clung onto an independence that allowed them to have material on political topics that was banned in mainland China, protest freely, and demonstrate a pro-democracy territory. However, with the passing of this new security law, limits have been placed where the people of Hong Kong feel like they longer have a voice. The police have arrested more than 20 people because of this new law, with the crimes being punishable up to life imprisonment and allowance for Beijing to directly intervene if they find if wanted.

Changes in Hong Kong have been visibly significant. The owners of a particular bubble tea shop (who had once supported the protests and the idea of pro-democracy) removed all signs of the support, posters, and signs that once was used as a form of decoration. Another example was a restaurant in Hong Kong that removed all supporting signs of the protest and replaced them with Mao-era propaganda posters. Finally, all publishers had to quickly rewrite various textbooks used in academic civic courses to avoid punishment, since the textbooks openly criticized the government. Libraries have also followed suit, where all books written by democracy activists have been removed.

Even with all of these changes, the limits of the new security law is “vaguely defined”, giving the people of Hong Kong the room to make risks seeing just how much they are now allowed to say, write, or tweet. Some individuals have brought creativity into this situation, carrying blank signs or signs with coded messages to continue to protest. They have also begun to play protest songs, but without the lyrics. But the police are giving the young protests warnings, telling them to watch out. Because as soon as they express any kind of criminal opinion, they will be punished and arrested because nothing can fight the law. 

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/04/world/asia/hong-kong-speech.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838

2020 Presidential Election: Do Political Advertisements need More Regulation?

    Swings states are being targeted by presidential campaigns for the 2020 election. According to Advertisement Analytics, an ad tracking firm, the Trump campaign has spent $57.5 million and the Biden Campaign $63.7 million on advertisements. The presidential nominees are targeting swing states in this extremely close election. Florida has been fought over between Biden and Trump since July. Their advertisements include some misleading information about each other and have the ability to sway millions of people. President Trump has portrayed Joe Biden as somebody who wants to take away social security and give it to immigrants. In the advertisements that have aired on television in Florida, the Trump administration has made false claims about what Biden would do as president. Biden has portrayed President Trump as someone who talks a lot but has done very little for the economy or pandemic. Both campaigns have spent enormous amounts of money on political advertisements in Florida. They are targeting Florida because the race is expected to be closer than any other state. Florida television screens are being overflowed with political advertisements to influence the election as it has done in the past, but where does it end?

Caroline Amenabar/NPR https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign

    Political advertisements should be met with more regulation and fact-checking. There should be non-partisan fact-checking for all advertisements that are aired for political purposes. In Florida, more than $200 million has been spent by the Democratic and Republican nominees in advertisements. There needs to be more legislation monitoring the accuracy of political advertisements because they persuade many voters. Legislation will allow people to vote based on the facts of the two presidential candidates instead of the lies. 

Sources

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/politics/trump-biden-ads-florida.html

2. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/14/723215498/florida-governor-says-russian-hackers-breached-two-florida-counties-in-2016

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/27/florida-russian-hackers-target-2020-election

4. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/16/politics/biden-campaign-ad-spending/index.html

5. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-14/trump-campaign-slashes-ad-spending-in-key-states-in-cash-crunch

6. https://apnews.com/c8c65ca2021d4c7ec5542c5b9335600c

7. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign

Mindfulness: Do (social) democracies have a leg up in tackling a pandemic? And why do women keep winning?

 The stress of a pandemic can serve as a good, not an ideal, litmus test for the integrity of a government. Ideologically governments are thought of as the equilibrium of freedom and equality, but on the ground governments are responsible for a whole lot of damage control. At a first glance it may seem that authoritarian governments would have the advantage in the matter seeing as though not only do they have the advantage of unitary decision making and cultures that are comfortable with the almighty grip of a centralized government. As the Los Angeles Times op-ed suggests,  “Democracies are slow and chaotic. Autocracies are fast and coordinated.” But maybe speed is not the name of the game.  The diverse civil societies and checks and balances in a democracy are lending themselves to greater innovation and adaptability in these challenging times. Slow and steady wins the race. Additionally the nuances of a bipartisan or multiparty system hold leadership accountable and set a certain standard of transparency which in the haze of this pandemic has been sorely lacking in authoritarian governments.  

The article also nods towards the advantages of a social democracy in contrast to a liberal democracy in handling a pandemic. The welfare states of a social democracy often lead to further developed civil societies which play an important role in solving for emergencies. Furthermore there is a norm of respect for government in social democracies which leads to people being more compliant in measures to decelerating the spread (ex. voluntary contract chasing  in Taiwan). Another common denominator of these social democracies that have  seen great success is women in executive positions. As the popular Forbes article points out the majority countries that have best handled the pandemic have benefited from the leadership traits most present in women. But empathy and honesty are not traits uniquely or over present in women, but traits that are valued in the fabric of social democracies. The fact that there are these strong women executives beating a pandemic speaks to the themes of acceptance and progressiveness that would lead to the opportunity for a woman to be elected nevertheless on the ballot. Whether it be a yoga class or a sudden pandemic mindfulness seems to be the key in overcoming obstacles. It may be no surprise, but flexibility, time, and collaboration lead to the solutions and accountability that it takes to tackle something so unprecedented.