Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Bolivia's former President Evo Morales speaks during a press conference, in Cochabamba, Bolivia October 4, 2024.
Did Bolivia’s ex-president stage an assassination … on himself?
The day after former Bolivian President Evo Morales claimed to have survived an attempt on his life on Sunday, Interior Minister Eduardo de Castillo accused Morales of staging an attempt on his own life. Morales, for his part, claims the government attempted to kill him amid a massive power struggle that has divided the ruling party.
What does each side claim? Morales said in a radio interview that a convoy carrying him through Chapare — a rural bastion of both Morales voters and coca production — was stopped by masked men with weapons who shot at his car and wounded his driver before the convoy fled.
De Castillo, on the other hand, said in a news conference that Morales’ car had failed to stop at a drug checkpoint and ran over a police officer while attempting to flee, leading to a chase and small arms fire.
What’s the beef? Morales is technically from the same Movement Toward Socialism party that currently holds power in La Paz, but he and his erstwhile protegé, President Luis Arce, are in a bitter feud. Both men want to stand for election as president next year, but Morales has been found ineligible by the constitutional court (not that this will stop him).
We’re watching for more clarity about what really went down, and whether Morales still commands the populist charm that kept him in office from 2006-2013.
Japanese Prime Minister and leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Shigeru Ishiba bows to LDP lawmakers onstage after a press conference, a day after Japan's lower house election, at the party's headquarters in Tokyo, Japan October 28, 2024.
It’s horse-trading season in Japan after shock election
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is promising deep internal reforms to the Liberal Democratic Party after voters delivered what he called a “severe judgment” in Sunday’s elections, costing him the majority in the lower house of Parliament. The LDP has ruled since 1955 with only brief interruptions, but it lost 56 seats as voters expressed frustration with a funding scandal that has tarnished the party’s image with corruption and entitlement.
An unforced error? The PM only came to power on Oct. 1 in an internal party vote after his predecessor, Fumio Kishida, stepped down. Ishiba could have waited up to a year to call an election but wanted to win a mandate from voters quickly. A little patience might have paid off – and given him time to move away from the scandal and work on Japan’s sluggish economy.
What’s next? Ishiba has 30 days to form a coalition, and he will need to include an extra partner beyond traditional allies from the Komeito party. The most likely contender is the Democratic Party for the People, a fellow center-right party that saw its seat count rise from 7 to 28, but its leader is playing hardball. Yuichiro Tamaki says he would prefer to work with the LDP on an issue-by-issue basis — which would mean catering to his needs on every vote.
Will the US-Japan alliance suffer? Not likely. The alliance is a point of broad consensus in Tokyo, but plans to amp up Japanese defense may need to take a backseat.Crisis time for the politically homeless
It is decision time for the politically homeless.
With 18 days left in the coin-toss US election campaign, both Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a form of political fracking, desperately trying to extract pockets of votes in hard-to-reach places. That’s why you saw Kamala Harris take on Bret Baier on Fox News on Wednesday night.
On the surface, it seemed like a waste of time. Most people who watch Fox News are not going to vote for Harris, but she’s betting that Donald Trump has alienated many long-standing Republicans, like Mitt Romney or Dick Cheney, and she wants to offer them a temporary political home. In an election where a few thousand voters in the key seven swing states may change everything, Harris believes polls telling her that disaffected Republicans are a growing, available group.
A recent New York Times/Siena College survey found that 9% of self-identified Republican voters nationally are voting for Harris, a number nearly twice what it was just five months ago. When Dick Cheney no longer feels at home in the big Republican tent, that’s not a Cheney problem, it’s a tent problem.
Democrats have their own tent problems. Some young people disaffected by the situation in Gaza are opting out of the Democratic Party, while some Jewish voters, traditionally Democrats, are backing Trump because of his overt support for Israel and his tough stance on Iran. And let’s not forget that about 20% of Black and Latino voters — especially men — see Trump as a better leader on the economy. As I have written about before, these men idolize the entrepreneurial genius and give-no-F’s aura of Trump hype man Elon Musk, who is consolidating that support. It is no surprise that former President Barack Obama is frantically out on the stumps chastising Black men for their lack of support for Harris.
This is the age of the politically homeless. Don’t like the MAGA Republicans because of their embrace of extreme voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene, or the rejection of free trade in favor of high tariffs and protectionism? Where do you go? The left has also embraced tariffs, and it too has an extreme side, with protest groups calling President Biden “genocide Joe” for supporting Israel’s fight against the terrorist group Hamas.
The right and left have drifted away from the political center in response to pressure from extreme positions on the fringes of their movements.
“There are a lot of politically homeless folks out there, which is a function of the political realignment we’re seeing to a large degree across the Western world,” my colleague Graeme Thompson, senior analyst at Eurasia Group, told me. “Some former Republicans can’t stand Trump, some former Democrats don’t like left-wing campus politics, but neither have a comfortable place to land.”
In Canada, a country that could face a federal election at any time given the precarious nature of Justin Trudeau’s minority government, it’s not so different.
“More than 4 in 10 people likely consider themselves homeless in Canada,” Nik Nanos, chief data scientist and founderof Nanos Research, told me. “Major swaths of voters are not voting FOR anything — they are voting against things — in many cases someone they dislike. The enthusiasm is directed against someone.”
What this means is that the center cannot hold. “The Liberals’ move to the economic and cultural left under Trudeau has forced out a lot of fiscally conservative, socially moderate ‘blue Liberals’ who might end up voting for the Tories but don’t feel it’s a natural fit. Similarly — although to a lesser degree — this is true for so-called ‘red Tories,’” says Thompson.
One consistent error the bleeding center makes is to blame the extremes for the polarization. There is a relentless focus on the “weird” or “crazy” things that happen on the edges. But all this misses the larger point. It’s not that the fringes are inherently attractive — most voters live in the center — but the center has failed to make its case for relevance. There is precious little self-reflection on why the center is suddenly so soft and why it has failed to deliver for so many voters.
“Small ‘l’ liberals seem to have forgotten that liberalism isn’t self-evident, revealed truth — its case has to be made in the political arena,” says Thompson. “Moderates are on the back foot, in part, because “the other guys are worse” isn’t compelling enough in difficult times when voters are demanding answers.”
In his book “Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy,” David Frum, maybe the most famous politically homeless Republican, does a superb job of outlining how the Burkean conservatives he championed squandered their arguments, especially on issues like the Middle East, the economy, and climate change. “In the twenty-first [century],” he writes, “that movement has delivered much more harm than good, from the Iraq War to the financial crisis to the Trump presidency.”
So while Republicans are trying to pick off small groups of politically homeless Democrats, like Black men and Jewish Americans, and Democrats are going after disaffected Republicans who believe Trump is bad for the country, the larger question remains: What can be done about it? Is the political center doomed, or can a new center emerge?
In the UK, Keir Starmer tacked to the political center to lead the once-more leftist Labour Party to a huge majority just a few months ago — a majority he now seems to be squandering.
But merely mouthing centrist words is just political lip-synching to cover up the fact that small “l” liberals no longer know how to play the instrument of government in a way that will solve the problems. Genuinely alienated voters have bolted to the fringes because they no longer believe government can actually solve the problems it promises it will solve. What to do about the cost of living, housing costs, and a feeling of powerlessness? These are deep problems that small “l” liberals have to solve to earn trust. That requires more than blame-game slogans.
“Being moderate isn’t a political program. You have to stand for something,” Thompson argues. “If there’s going to be a liberal, centrist, moderate political revival, it has to speak to the concerns of people.”
The paternalism of a government that spends money and gets involved in solving every problem for people not only fails to live up to its promises — it can’t solve everything — but it also creates a passive dependency, sending an implicit message that citizens can’t solve their own problems, only the government can. “When liberalism was successful in the past, it was about empowering people,” Thompson says. It doesn’t just rely on technocratic solutions from on high.
This doesn’t mean a new centrist party will emerge in the US or Canada. There is no real pattern for that, while the mainstream parties in both countries have a long history of changing and self-renovating, going from the extremes to the center and back again.
But for now, the fringes are ascendent, leaving behind wandering, zombie-like groups of politically homeless folks who can’t stand either side. These people are looking for reasons to vote Republican or Democrat without betraying their core principles, excusing crude mendacity, ignoring pressing problems, or ending up on the wrong side of history.
“With the advent of social media, voting against candidates or parties has been on the increase, which supercharges a negative political discourse,” says Nanos. “This has corresponded with increased anti-establishment sentiment. The impact is short-termism. Who can we punish today? Where can we vent our anger? The casualty is that discussions about long-term decisions are punted in favor of immediacy.”
That immediacy will likely mean most voters will ignore things they can’t stand and pick one salient issue — tax rates, climate, abortion, Israel, or Gaza — and cast a reluctant ballot.
“It’s hard to see the politically homeless being decisive this time around, either in the US or Canada,” says Thompson. “Except to the extent that they’ll hold their noses and pick a side.”
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) attends a news conference in the United States Capitol in Washington, U.S., May 18, 2021.
DonBot is ready to debate
Bentley Hensel, a longshot candidate for the US House of Representatives in Virginia, wants his opponent to debate him. His rival is Rep. Don Beyer, who has spoken to GZERO AI in the past about going to graduate school in his 70s to study machine learning. (Read our April interview with Beyer here).
But Hensel, a software engineer running as an independent, told Reuters he was frustrated that Beyer wouldn’t appear in any debates between now and Election Day — the congressman appeared in a September forum with other candidates. So Hensel took a unique approach to get “Beyer” to debate him. He created DonBot, an artificial intelligence chatbot trained to represent Beyer in a debate — without Beyer’s permission, of course.
The debate will stream online on Oct. 17 and will feature Hensel, fellow independent David Kennedy, and DonBot. Representatives for Beyer did not respond to a request for comment from GZERO AI but told Reuters that the congressman still has no plans to participate in the October debate.
Homes and cars were damaged in the Avenir development by a tornado from Hurricane Milton on October 10, 2024, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
To the victim belongs the spoils: Why is there such a big political fight to become a victim?
The real victims of the deadly hurricanes Helene and Milton are the citizens of Florida, North Carolina, and four other states. Republicans and Democrats alike. Hurricanes don’t distinguish between voters, and all people are deserving of the same level of support. At least 230 people were killed by Hurricane Helene just weeks ago, and now, as I write this, the carnage of Milton, which just ripped through Florida, is still being assessed. How these victims vote should have no place in the discussion.
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, aka MTG, has pitched a different theory: She believes the real victims of the hurricanes are Republicans, who are being targeted by Democrat-controlled storms to tilt election results.
“Yes they can control the weather,” she wrote on X after Hurricane Helene. “Anyone who says they don’t, or makes fun of this, is lying to you. By the way, the people know it and hate all of you who try to cover it up.”
Who are “they,” exactly?
MTG explained on social media that the hurricanes are partly controlled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (I assume that is …“Deep Weather”?). Then she brought out the maps for the kicker.
“This is a map of hurricane affected areas with an overlay of electoral map by political party shows how hurricane devastation could affect the election,” she wrote on X, suggesting that Republican voting districts are being targeted by the … Democrat-controlled hurricanes.
A few months back, I wrote an article called “Fake Clouds, Seeding Doubt” to debunk the weather conspiracy about a well-known program called cloud seeding that has been used to promote small amounts of rain in drought-prone areas. It has been used for more than 50 years and is not even close to controlling the weather with massive hurricanes. That is all paranoid nonsense, but very much on-brand for a Category 5 conspiracy theorist like MTG. Who can forget her 2018 antisemitic theory that Jewish-controlled space lasers caused forest fires?
As Ian Bremmerwrote yesterday, the disinformation surrounding the genuine FEMA support for the victims of Hurricane Helene has proven dangerous, but it is just part of a bigger storm surge of campaign disinformation about everything from abortion to immigration to taxes to crime. Beneath it all, there is one strategy: Make your supporters feel like victims.
This is an old political tactic because it bonds a tribe of voters with a sense of identity against perceived and real threats, and, more importantly, it provides moral validation for counter-action. If the system is stacked against you, then any response — including, say, peaceful or violent protests — becomes justified. Vandals become activists. Insurrectionists are transformed into patriots.
A strategically cultivated sense of victimization is where the extremes on the right meet the extremes on the left. Some left-wing groups discovered the benefits of self-declared victimization long ago, and they have used it as a cudgel to silence debate, destroy property, and create odious conditions of political correctness.
Some groups on the right see themselves as constantly targeted by Big Pharma, Big Tech, fake media, biased justice systems — and now, by hurricanes.
This dynamic played out in painful ways on Oct. 7, marking one year since the brutal massacre of 1,200 innocent people in Israel and the kidnapping of 250 more by the terror group Hamas. For many in Israel and around the globe, the anniversary of Oct. 7 was a day to remember and honor those victims of Hamas.
But for some who have criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy toward Palestinians and see his military actions in Gaza as an illegal form of collective punishment, Oct. 7 was a day of resistance.
Each side made the case that they are the real victims and therefore their response is justified, but in the endless regression of victimization and partisanship — you did this, but you did that first, etc. — basic morality got lost. One case of victimization doesn’t invalidate another.
Protesting Israel’s war tactics in Gaza against Hamas and the horrifically high civilian death toll is valid in any democracy — and it’s as common an occurrence inside Israel as it is outside of it. But should that prevent the acknowledgment and condemnation of the massacre of 1,200 innocent people in Israel? Should that disqualify a sovereign country’s right to self-defense against a terror group?
At its worst, the self-identifying of victimhood can be used to lend a moral fig leaf to cruel actions, but even victims of the worst violence must adhere to the rule of law, the rules of war, and the protection of human rights. That is not a sign of weakness in a society, but a sign of strength.
It also doesn’t mean you have to fall into the trap of false moral equivalency or mealymouthed both-sidesism. Calling out lies or excesses does not always reveal political bias, but an adherence to facts and humanity.
In the military, one of the worst sins is stolen valor, when someone pretends to have done things they didn’t do or pretends to have served when they didn’t. On the campaign trail, we see something else: stolen victimization.
Instead of focusing on the actual victims of violence — or weather — the stolen-victim folks make it all about them, hoarding the attention so it can be used for their political agendas, treating the suffering of people as props for their latest campaign.
In the hurricane of voices on the extreme right and left claiming the mantle of victimization, the partisanship divides grow deeper, and what democracies need most to solve problems gets lost: basic empathy.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S. August 20, 2024 and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 15, 2024 are seen in a combination of file photographs.
Harris vs. Trump remains too close to call
Less than six weeks from Election Day, current polls suggest a razor-thin margin in the race for the White House. Aggregations of national polls (see examples here, here, and here) show a lead for Vice President Kamala Harris of 2-3 points. That’s small comfort for her campaign since most of the polling results that make up these aggregations are within their margins of error, and because national polls offer an imperfect estimate of the electoral college outcome. Harris knows that George W. Bush (2000) and her opponent, Donald Trump (2016), both won elections despite losing the popular vote.
That’s why both campaigns and most major polling firms are focused on the seven states that will decide the winner: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. Neither candidate needs all these states to win, but the latest polls show tiny advantages for Harris in the first four states and minuscule leads for Trump in the others.
If the margins remain this close, the election will be decided by “undecided” voters. It’s important to remember that in most cases, these voters are undecided between the candidate they prefer and the choice not to vote, rather than being torn between the two candidates.
FILE PHOTO: UN General Assembly votes at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, U.S. May 23, 2024.
Can the UN save our future?
Today marks the first major day of the UN General Assembly, a forum where the UN’s 193 member states gather to debate global problems and work toward solutions. The event kicks off with the Summit of the Future — a two-day event that UN Secretary-General António Guterres says is a “once-in-a-generation chance” to reinvigorate international cooperation and forge a new global consensus on shaping our collective future.
GZERO will be on the ground delivering exclusive content from UNGA, but before we get to the high-level meetings and major speeches next week, here’s what to expect from the Summit of the Future:
Day one kicks off with the kids. The first day focuses on youth participation at the UN, a fitting start for a summit aimed at creating a better future. On the agenda is gender equality, sustainability, peace building, and digital equity. Climate change will be a central focus of the day, as the event coincides with Climate Week beginning in New York City, and comes ahead of the review of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (spoiler alert: they are off track).
Studies show that people 18 to 29 years old are more favorable toward the UN than those ages 50 and older, but that optimism is rarely translated into tangible power when it comes to UN resolutions and actions. GZERO’s Riley Callanan will meet with Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs Felipe Paullier ahead of the summit to discuss why young people should care about the UN, and the role they can play in revitalizing the 78-year-old institution for a new generation.
Day two gets into the nitty-gritty with the aim of figuring out how the UN can harness international cooperation to actually create a better future. There are three key parts of the day: sustainability, peace building, and technology.
On technology, the UN is unveiling its“Governing AI for Humanity,” report, which lays out how the UN can create aframework for global AI governance. The aim: ensure AI development is humane, equitable, and harnessed to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
They are also expected to agree on the Global Digital Compact, which will task the UN with ensuring that AI is used safely and for global benefit, and with bridging the technological divide that exists between wealthy countries and the rest of the world. The difference: One is a framework, one is a global agreement. Both could be monumental in creating international governance over the technology that will likely shape the future.
Ian Bremmer, founder and president of both Eurasia Group and GZERO Media, served as a rapporteur for the UN High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and will be presenting the report and the Global Digital Compact alongside other experts at the event on Saturday.
We will be bringing you all of the highlights of UNGA in our newsletter, but if you want to really get a feel for what it's like to be on the ground, follow us onX,Instagram, andYouTube.
Chinese honor guard stand in formation as the plane carrying Kenya's President William Ruto arrives at the VIP terminal of the Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing, China, September 2, 2024, ahead of the China Africa Forum.
African leaders gather to hear Beijing’s pitch
Leaders from 50 African nations are expected to gather in Beijing on Wednesday for the 9th triennial China-Africa Cooperation summit — aimed at deepening strategic coordination between China and Africa – but China’s ongoing economic woes have shifted the tone considerably.
The background: These fora used to be an opportunity for Beijing to splash the cash about, but spending peaked after the 2015 summit, which promised some $60 billion in loans and investments over 3 years. By comparison, Chinese loans in Africa totaled just $4.61 billion in 2023 — and Beijing’s guests will want to hear why pledges from the 2021 summit to buy $300 billion in goods from Africa have gone unfulfilled.
Beijing will also need to reassure its partners about several incomplete infrastructure projects, including a major rail project to link East African population and industrial centers.
What’s the pitch? Beijing wants to sell a vision of a green economy future powered by African minerals supplying Chinese manufacturers. But Beijing isn’t alone: Africa’s role in the global economy is only set to grow more important in the 21st century, and the US, UK, South Korea, Italy, and Russia have all set up African summits in recent years. We’re watching how China’s overtures are received.