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 }}
Ian Explains: How the US turned red and blue
Do you live in a red state or a blue state? Until fairly recently, such a question would have been nonsensical in the US. Ian Bremmer rolls back the clock on GZERO World to take a look.
On November 4, 1980, NBC News became the first major network to call the presidential election for Ronald Reagan. What stands out about this clip is not the absolute drubbing that President Carter received, but those colors on that map. States that had gone for Reagan are blue, states yet to be decided are that sickly 1980s yellow, and lonely little Georgia, which native son Jimmy Carter had managed to hold on to, is red.
It wasn’t, in fact, until the contested 2000 election between then Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W Bush that major news networks agreed on a standard red-state-Republican // blue state-Democrat map scheme. That’s right, one of the most iconic signifiers of Republican or Democrat identity—second only to the elephant and donkey—is a modern invention, and one borne out of confusion.
Al Gore’s legacy will forever be tied to his fateful decision to put the peaceful transfer of power over his personal ambitions. He was also acknowledging a shared reality, as unpalatable as it might have been for himself, where George W Bush would be the next president of Red and Blue states, alike.
Watch the full GZERO World episode: Al Gore on US elections & climate change
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Trump indicted (again)
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take from Nantucket.
Another exciting week, far more eventful than we'd like in the US political environment, particularly because of more indictments that have come down on former President Donald Trump. You're used to me saying that these are unprecedented times in US politics. Unfortunately, all of the new precedents that are being set are about eroding political institutions. They are corrosive. The guardrails are being weakened, and it is very hard to find structural changes that are strengthening US democracy. All sorts of things that we can say that are promising about the US economy, maybe being able to avoid recession, about the US defense sector, and about its ability to protect not just the US but other countries around the world.
I can go on and on, but when it comes to the political system, it's getting weaker. And that is particularly in terms of the upcoming US presidential election. Now, these latest indictments that have come down from the special counsel, Jack Smith, focusing on Trump's efforts to overturn a legitimate, free, and fair election in the United States, are rejected categorically out of hand by Trump himself. Not surprisingly, that's what he would say in any case. And also by the overwhelming majority of his supporters. They are serious charges. They are, in my view, much more serious than the other charges that we have seen, the charges that we saw about obscuring hush money for sex that he had with a porn star, which also were illegal in terms of framing in the campaign contributions, are unserious charges. They're real charges, but they shouldn't rise to a level of felony, in my view. They are politicized, and I certainly don't think they should have an impact on his ability to run for 2024. I think that the issue of classified documents is more serious, but still, in my view, something that a lot of political leaders have been caught mishandling documents is a massive level of over classification that occurs with documents.
I also think that Trump, the big thing that he has done wrong, in my view, is not the fact that he originally took those documents, but rather that he has acted like a child in lying about the fact that he had them in telling people to destroy video. In other words, it's the cover-up and not because anyone really believes he was trying to do anything particularly malevolent with the classified documents. It wasn't like anyone is credibly accusing him of trying to give them to or sell them to, you know, spies or, you know, other governments. It's more that, you know, Trump just thinks that because he's all-powerful and former president and the Donald, that means that the rules don't apply to him. So he should be able to have those documents, and he's busy, and he shouldn't have to respond to the FBI when they demand a response. In other words, you know, he's just, you know, he couldn't be bothered. I do think those are serious charges. And I think that they should probably have a significant impact in whether or not he can run again. But I don't know that I would try to preclude him from running on the basis of those charges.
These charges are different, these much closer to the second impeachment. These have much more to do with the fact that President Trump attempted to subvert the core principles of rule of law in having a peaceable transition from one president to another. He has never accepted the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He's never accepted the legitimacy of President Biden and did everything in his power and a lot of things that were not in his power to try to ensure that there would not be a peaceful transfer of power. In other words, that there would not be an effective republic that democracy would not hold, and that certainly takes him out of the running for being able to be president going forward in my view. But my view is not just positive here. And unfortunately, irrespective of the severity of the crime, how you feel about this, almost certainly if you're an American citizen, is aligned with how you feel about the person of Trump. If you like Trump, if you would vote for Trump, if you believe that he is someone that is a better and more suitable president than Biden, it is overwhelmingly likely that you feel like these charges are politicized, that the Department of Justice and the FBI are engaged in a vendetta, probably led by Biden to unjustly remove Trump from the running. If you can't stand Trump, if you wouldn't vote for him, you believe that he's guilty before you even have a case. And it doesn't matter what the charges are, he should be out anyway. That is the opposite, of course, of rule of law is the opposite to the way a functional democracy runs. And that's because the United States is increasingly a dysfunctional democracy. It is the weakest part of America's global power status, the state and the trajectory of the American political system. And I don't think this is going to get resolved legally. I think this is going to be resolved politically, which is exactly the way it shouldn't be resolved. What's going to happen is that you're going to have a nomination process for the GOP.
It is very likely Trump is going to be the GOP nominee. It is more likely because of these crimes, which is, of course, the opposite of what it would be in a functional democracy because of the tribalism, because of the political alignment, because of the belief that this is a witch hunt. And it is possible that one or two of the cases will be resolved before the actual election. But it is not probable. It is more likely that the election itself will be held without having any of these cases concluded, which means that the outcome of the vote is what's going to determine to what extent and whether Trump himself will be punished or whether Trump will be president again. It is a horrible position to be in. It means that the election increasingly looks likely to be seen as illegitimate by virtually the entire political opposition, no matter who it is. In other words, if Trump wins in that environment, Biden supporters believe that he should be president and that the election was not legitimate. If he loses, Trump's supporters believe that the election is not legitimate.
This still has a long way to go because, of course, American elections are entirely too long. They are way too expensive. The Republic would probably be better off if there wasn't an election going on in 2024, even though, of course, that's also a subversion of the US political process and of course, around the world for all of those countries that look to the United States as an ally, as a partner, as someone you need to count on. In this environment, it becomes much harder to do so, much more dangerous going forward because we are in an environment of active war with the Russians, of much greater political tension and crisis with the Chinese. The only countries out there, the only actors out there that are excited about the 2024 US elections are rogue actors, rogue states, core adversaries of the US and terrorist groups. Really not what you want to say about the most important political transition that occurs in the world. What I'm not looking forward to, but one I'll certainly be focused very closely on. We'll be talking about it over the coming months and year plus.
So that's it for me. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence
Has the Supreme Court become too politicized? American confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. Just 25% of US adults have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court, a low in Gallup’s 50 years of polling.
In our "Ian Explains" segment on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer looks back at the history of SCOTUS and the idea that justices are supposed to be impartial “umpires” that stay above the fray of politics.
Major rulings from the conservative supermajority, like the 2022 Dobbs decision that struck down Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion after 50 years of precedent, have many Americans arguing the court is enacting a political agenda by quickly moving the law to the right.
But if you look back at history, the idea of nonpartisan Supreme Court justices is a relatively new phenomenon. From the first ever chief justice, John Jay, to Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 nominee, Abe Fortas, plenty of judges have a history of blurring the line between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Recent ethics scandals involving Clarence Thomas––his wife Ginni pressed lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election, and revelations he accepted undisclosed gifts from a billionaire Republican donor––have critics calling for major changes on the Supreme Court.
Only in the last half-century has the court formed its identity as a neutral referee, which makes calls for reform by either party feel politically motivated. But the truth is, the court has always been political.
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: "Who polices the Supreme Court?"
- Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon ›
- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Are US state courts the new battleground? ›
- Who polices the Supreme Court? ›
- The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June - GZERO Media ›
- How will the summer of 2024 be remembered in US history? - GZERO Media ›
Ian Explains: Has a US president ever been arrested before Trump?
The recent indictment of former President Trump has created an unprecedented legal situation that is polarizing the country. While other US presidents, such as Nixon and Clinton, have faced criminal investigations, no president has been arrested since Ulysses S. Grant, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
In 1872, Grant was arrested for the crime of racing his horses and buggy down a Washington DC street. He was let off with a warning. The incident was not widely reported at the time, but in 1908, retired police officer William West recounted the story in an interview with The Sunday Star of Washington.
The arrest of Trump is a different situation because the trial is taking place at a time when the defendant is also running for reelection, which adds to the political tension. It remains to be seen if New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has the goods to win a conviction, or if his indictment will be the last that Trump faces. At least we can take heart in knowing that in one very specific way, history won’t be repeating itself: President Trump doesn’t go anywhere without a chauffeur.
Parsing Donald Trump's indictment
Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, stopped by GZERO World to discuss three big legal stories in the news: the charges facing former US President Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's gifts from a billionaire Republican donor, and the recent classified documents leak.
According to Bharara, the charges leveled against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, could establish a precedent for justice and the rule of law, with significant consequences for American democracy in the future. Bharara ranked the severity of the three other potential charges that could be brought against former President Trump, with the conduct relating to the January 6th riot "being the most severe."
Though this is not the first US president to be charged with a crime, Trump's plans to run for president in 2024 while fighting criminal charges could have wide-ranging implications for the future of democracy.
"There are people who are not allies of Trump, who I think are responsibly raising the question, "What is the level of seriousness of a crime on the part of a former president that justifies bringing it?" Bharara tells Ian Bremmer, "And they're really great arguments and I struggle with this."
- Trump's indictment is problematic ›
- Trump indicted ›
- Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes ›
- Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look ›
- US intel leak shows rising risk of NATO-Russia conflict ›
- Why you should care about the legal case against the Trump Organization - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's uncertain future amid new indictments - GZERO Media ›
- Trump indicted (again) - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Has a US president ever been arrested before Trump? - GZERO Media ›
Top US national security threat: the myth of the stolen election
David Sanger knows a thing or two about national security. After all, it's his beat at the New York Times.
So what does he think is the biggest threat to America's national security right now?
An "insider threat" to the stability of the election system coming not from Russia, not from China, and not from North Korea. The biggest menace is Americans willing to engage in political violence, Sanger tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
- US political violence increases; Democrats seek Jan 6 ... ›
- Democrats hope to use Jan 6 Trump focus to gain edge in midterms ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: Dem/GOP voters' very different views of Jan 6 ... ›
- US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies - GZERO Media ›
- US national security depends on domestic progress - GZERO Media ›
Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed, but GOP will dominate SCOTUS for years
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses the Supreme Court confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Today's question, what does the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson mean for the US?
She'll be the first black woman ever to serve on the highest court. What's the political significance of this? Not much. After Republicans took at 6-3 advantage on the court during the Trump administration, the conservatives now have what looks like a durable majority that will dominate the court for years to come. Brown Jackson's vote is unlikely to be decisive in many cases, which frequently split along partisan lines with the six conservative justices aligning in a block against the three liberal justices on issues like separation of powers, the scope of the federal government, and voting rights.
So the real story at the courts is what direction those six justices are likely to push the court in, and several big cases are likely to come this year that will question or challenge long-standing precedents of the court. The biggest is the potential decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which is a case that could potentially overturn the 40-year-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade that prevents states from banning abortion. Nonetheless, several states have banned abortion over the last several years, some in preparation for a decision in Dobbs and some because they wanted to force the issue and put it in front of the newly conservative Supreme Court. This is likely to be the blockbuster case on the court's docket with massive political implications in the US, and will be the culmination of effort by a generation of conservative activists to overturn what they see as the canonical example of judicial overreach.
But there are several other longstanding precedents the conservative court may challenge, including on affirmative action in college admissions, gun rights, public support for religious schools. And perhaps most significantly for the economy, the court could rule in a case challenging the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions, which could set a new precedent that would further limit the executive branch from pushing major new regulations that are not explicitly authorized by Congress. This would be a huge rollback of the US administrative state and could affect everything from environmental regulation to financial regulation.
So the Brown Jackson confirmation represents a near-term win for the Democratic Party that's only a minor part of a series of long term losses for the Democratic Party who are unlikely to be able to move the balance of power back in their favor on the court, at least until the next time they control the White House and the Senate, and have two openings on the court from either conservative justices passing away or retiring. This could be in 2028 or even later, depending on what happens in the 2024 presidential election.
The Supreme Court’s role on Black voting rights
When the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page had just finished high school. This legislation changed the lives of Black people in America because Jim Crow laws had virtually prevented Blacks from voting in the South, he said in an interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
But in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the law by taking away pre-clearance for states, which had blocked states — especially the former Confederate ones — from changing their voting laws based on racial discrimination.
At the time of the SCOTUS ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts said pre-clearance wasn't needed anymore. But many disagree.
Now, Page says Republicans tend to benefit from making it harder to vote, while Democrats want to make it easier.
"We're getting right at the heart of what democracy is all about, when we're at loggerheads over who should be allowed to vote and, and who shouldn't."
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022