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 }}
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.”
Why freedom is on the ballot this November: Historian Timothy Snyder
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with author and historian Timothy Snyder to discuss the importance of freedom in the final stretch of one of the closest and most contentious presidential races in modern history. Snyder uses his new book, “On Freedom,” to discuss the many ways freedom has been used and, often, misused in politics and society.
Snyder suggests we expand our understanding of freedom to incorporate the notion of freedom "to" rather than just freedom "from." Freedom, he says, is about envisioning a better future rather than just protecting oneself from an outside threat. It's the freedom "to" have healthcare or to love whom you love rather than just the freedom "from" oppression or prejudice.
Snyder also delves into the critical role that newspapers and the press play in talking about freedom. Amid the rising tide of misinformation, Snyder warns that “if we...have different facts, we're not going to end up in a free world because whoever has the most power over fantasy is going to end up deciding things.”
Snyder concludes by discussing how freedom can be applied more globally. In exploring different interpretations of freedom, he highlights Ukraine’s view of freedom as an ongoing journey. Freedom, he says, is the means to a better life rather than the end goal.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Opinion: Charlie Hustle and the problem of American politics
With the baseball playoffs in full swing and the US presidential election looming, I’ve been thinking a lot about one of the most polarizing figures in America: a serial liar, an unrepentant womanizer, a convicted criminal, and a charismatic hero to millions.
I don’t know who comes to mind for you, but I am thinking of Pete Rose.
For those unfamiliar with Rose, who died this week at age 83, he was one of the greatest baseball players ever to take the field. A hard-nosed, scrappy, winning-is-everything athlete nicknamed “Charlie Hustle,” Rose led his hometown Cincinnati Reds to two world titles in the 1970s and amassed more base hits than anyone else in history. Even today, decades later, he holds the hits record by such a large margin that it will probably never be broken.
But a Major League Baseball investigation in the late 1980s found that Rose had broken the rules by betting on baseball games that he played in and managed. He lied about it and, as a result, was banned from MLB for life. The Baseball Hall of Fame voted to exclude him permanently from candidacy.
Despite calls from many players, fans, and sportswriters to reinstate him – and a clumsy late-life atonement campaign by Rose himself – MLB and the Hall of Fame have never budged.
Which is to say that, unlike the other person my introduction might have brought to mind (and a great many other powerful people in America), Rose ran into something that's too rare in public life today: real consequences for doing really bad things.
It didn’t matter that Rose was one of the greats. Or that he was immensely popular, had a quick bat, a flinty charisma, or an inspiring life story. He still paid the price for his actions.
Imagine if our politics always worked like that. What if undermining the legitimacy of, say, an election – the World Series of any democracy, really – or endlessly telling obvious lies to huge numbers of people carried a real cost? In other words, imagine if messing with the integrity of the game got you thrown out of it.
Instead, we live in a world where we often excuse the offenses of players on our own political teams because the other side is so much worse. It’s always the bottom of the ninth with the future of civilization on the line.
The contrast between the world of Pete and the world of Politics couldn’t be clearer. As Sports Illustrated baseball editor Ted Keith, who supports the ban on Rose, puts it in a superb new documentary about the player, “integrity has to be the basis of professional sports, even if it’s not the basis of public life.”
And yet there is, as with so many things in modern baseball, an asterisk to this story.
*If we want a society where people respect rules and laws, then those laws have to be enforced in a fair and reasonably consistent way.
And that's where the Rose story is an example of what not to do if you want to bolster the credibility of rules and the systems that enforce them. Why, many ask, was Rose banned from baseball for gambling on games when a team that won the World Series after a season of cheating faced no serious sanctions?
Why did the Barry Bondses and the Mark McGwires, who broke all-time records while pumped to the eyeballs with illegal steroids in the 1990s, never get banned?
When baseball superstar Shohei Ohtani was implicated in a gambling scandal earlier this year, why did everyone simply accept the explanation that his Japanese interpreter was the one placing the bets? “Boy I wish I’d had an interpreter,” Rose said of the matter.
And all of this is Cracker Jack stuff compared to what goes on outside of baseball.
People see the way that some countries get support when they kill civilians while others get sanctioned. Or the way that some leaders get booked for sexual misconduct, while others get book deals, or how some rioters get sentenced while others get sympathy. They understand that this is a world where some people get bailouts while others go broke, and some countries kill journalists or dissidents with impunity while others get stern lectures from "the free world." They know that some speech is deemed “violent” while other similar speech is declared “free.” They see all of this and think: The fix is in.
In baseball, and even more importantly in the world outside baseball, either we have a reasonably consistent “rules-based order” or we don’t.
And if not, is it any wonder that our hustlers become heroes?
Opinion: The lanternfly law of American politics
You have probably heard the news. New Yorkers of all ages have become gleeful, merciless killers.
On the streets. In the subways. In the parks. Even in their own homes. The massacres here continue, with no end in sight.
But it’s not what you think.
The tens of thousands of nameless dead are in fact Spotted Lanternflies, nickel-sized insects with kimono-like layers of spotted gray, black, and fiery-red wings. “A sexy cicada,” as my colleague Riley Callanan aptly describes them.
And the trouble with the Lanternflies around here is simple: they’re out-of-towners.
Native to Asia, they’re believed to have hitched a ride to the US on a shipping container about a decade ago. The population exploded across the Northeast, along with concerns about their impact on forests and farms.The Lanternflies, it turns out, secrete a gooey honeydew that foments deadly fungi.
Experts began warning of billions of dollars in damage. And so local governments urged us all to kill them on sight.
People listened.
Today, if you point out a lanternfly on any New York sidewalk, stoop, shirtsleeve, subway platform, or slide, people will spring into action: stomping, swatting, crushing, squashing. The bloodlust for this tiny creature is immense. As one popular science magazine put it, we must “destroy this useless garbage insect ... without mercy.”
Even the youth have been conditioned to kill. My 8-year-old son told me yesterday a girl in his class has declared herself head of “The Lanternfly Committee.” Her primary responsibility in this role is to scream that there are lanternflies around whenever there are lanternflies around. And when there are lanternflies around, all committee members (and present non-members) must stomp them into oblivion.
I will say this – it can be cathartic to stomp the shit out of lanternflies. Boss chewed you out at the office? Stomp a lantern fly. Mets blew a lead in the ninth? Die, lanternfly. Fed up with your kids asking you about lanternflies? Stomp more lanternflies.
No one is sure if all this killing is really controlling the lanternfly population, but so what? We aren’t just venting – we’re doing our part for society. This violence is virtuous. The killing must go on. And it will.
In that sense, I think there’s actually a little of the lanternfly in our politics more broadly these days. Call it the Lanternfly Law of Politics. It says: our opponents are no longer simply people we happen to disagree with, they are a threat that must be wiped out before they can do more harm.
You see this kind of thinking everywhere these days. Depending on what your views are, you might see liberals, or conservatives, or Donald Trump, or Kamala Harris, or the media, or the tech companies, or the police, or the federal government itself as a menace steadily devouring the foliage of our society.
As a result, in response, our political culture is becoming more extreme, more violent. People on the left will point to January 6th or the broader increase in threats of rightwing terrorism in recent years. People on the right will point to the not one but two plots to kill Donald Trump that occurred this summer.
We should all point to this as evidence that we are in a bad place.
Perhaps nowhere is the Lanternfly Law more obvious, or more dangerous, than in the language used to describe immigrants. When Donald Trump describes his political opponents as “vermin”, or immigrants as parasites who are “poisoning the bloodstream” of our country, he is tapping into a rich, vile history of demonizing foreigners as invasive species.
It’s powerful, of course, because it works. True vermin and invasive species are, by definition, threatening to our organisms, our communities, our ecosystems. So that kind of language taps deep into our lizard brains and provokes a primal emotional response.
But we aren’t … lizards, we are human beings. And immigrants or people you disagree with politically aren’t vermin, they are … also human beings.
We can argue about sensible rules for immigration, abortion, speech, guns, Lanternflies, whatever. But giving ourselves permission to dehumanize our neighbors and rivals like this is always dangerous.
The Lanternfly Law is, in the end, the root of all demagoguery: it’s a kind of political conjuring trick that gives people license to express their basest impulses under the cloak of civic virtue or community protection. You aren’t behaving like an ideologue, a loon, or a psychopath, the Law of the Lanternfly says, you are defending society as you know it.
So the next time a Lanternfly scuttles by or settles down, by all means stomp it to death if that makes you feel good.
But when it comes to the way we speak and think about our politics and society more broadly, be careful before you go chasing those sexy cicadas.
Hard numbers: Teamsters make their choice, US drug deaths plummet, Google wins big fine appeal, Brazil’s drought reaches records, Australia sees a “Ghost”
58: In a stunning break with decades of tradition, the Teamsters, one of the largest unions in the US, declined to endorse a presidential candidate. The organization has historically leaned left, and it endorsed the Democrat in the last four cycles. But after internal polling revealed that 58% of its members now support Donald Trump, the union bosses announced Wednesday that they wouldn't side with either candidate. Shortly after, however, the West Coast Teamsters announced that they were endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, signaling a possible rift among the membership.
10: Some rare positive news from the frontlines of America’s war with addiction, as new public health data show that US overdose deaths fell 10% nationwide between April 2023 and April 2024. In some states, such as Ohio, the drop was triple that. The findings suggest that the acute wave of overdose deaths that began during the pandemic is ending. Experts aren’t sure what caused the drop, but they point to expanded treatment for drug addiction and overdoses, the gradual end of pandemic-era economic dislocation and isolation, and efforts to crush the supply of illicit narcotics. Still, more than 100,000 people a year die of drug overdoses in the US.
1.5 billion: Google notched a victory in its ongoing tussles with Brussels, as the tech giant won an appeal against a €1.5 billion (nearly US$1.7b) EU fine for violating European competition laws. The EU’s general court found that while the company had unfairly blocked rival online advertisers for a decade until 2016, the fine was too large. The news gives Google some relief after getting hit with a fine nearly twice as big last week in a separate EU antitrust case concerning online shopping services.
4.25 The Solimões river, a main tributary of the Amazon, has fallen to 4.25 meters below its historic September average, the lowest level ever recorded. This is the second consecutive year of severe droughts and scorching heat across Brazil and South America more broadly. A recent analysis showed there have been more than 345,000 wildfires on the continent this year, a record. Experts say underlying climate change dynamics are exacerbating the dry conditions produced by this year’s El Niño weather phenomenon.
5: In a first-of-its-kind case in Australia, authorities have arrested and charged a man with five crimes related to running an online messaging app used by organized criminals to traffick drugs and plot killings. Police say they were able to crack the app, called Ghost, in an operation that led to the arrests of as many as 50 people who allegedly used it for nefarious purposes. They also face charges.Ian Bremmer on Trump second assassination attempt
Now, it's not going to have much impact on the election, in part not just because so many unprecedented things get normalized these days in U.S. politics, but also because there's no video that suddenly... The last assassination attempt you had Trump literally escaping with his life less than a fraction of a second, and the blood on him and the rest. Here, the Secret Service did what they should have. They shot at the perpetrator well before Trump was in the sights of this would-be assassin. The U.S. did what it was supposed to, and he's in custody, so one assumes that we're going to learn a lot more about him as a consequence of the interrogations and the rest. Trump can and will fundraise on the back of it, but I'd be very surprised to see any movement in the polls as a consequence or any change in policy, so really not going to move the needle on the election itself.
And yet I think we have to ask ourselves, if Trump had actually been killed, can you imagine how much different the environment today would be? The political environment, the social environment, the violence, the reprisals. This is already considered to be an illegitimate election by a lot of Americans. Many, many Americans believe shouldn't be allowed to run because he's a convicted criminal. He was twice impeached, not convicted, but impeachment is broken as part of the political process. Many of Trump's supporters, a large majority, believe he should be president now, that he won the election in 2020, and that they're going to do everything possible–them, the deep state, the political opposition, the Democrats–to prevent him from becoming President again, to jail him, and even to call for violence against him. And that means that if we did have Trump assassinated, I think it would be much worse than January 6th in the U.S. It would be much worse, more saliently perhaps, than January 8th in Brazil, where you would have George Floyd-style riots, but larger and also much better armed.
A lot of people, including militias, but even Trump supporters in police forces in low-level positions in the military and National Guard that engage in protests that could easily become very violent, certainly in red states across the country. And I think that because it hasn't happened, even though it's been very close, we're not talking about it, we're not thinking about it. But the lack of resilience, the vulnerability, the frailty of U.S. political stability in this environment, I think is remarkable and deserves more focus, more attention because it would prioritize the steps that Americans need to take and political leaders need to take to rebuild that resilience, rebuild that trust, which is nowhere on the political agenda right now. I have to say, we have to give Trump and the GOP credit in the sense that they oppose all gun restrictions as a matter of policy, and that hasn't in any way changed even after both of these assassination attempts of Americans that are unhinged, that have access to these powerful weapons.
And that doesn't happen in other countries. That is a huge difference between the U.S. There's vastly more gun violence in America, not because there's so much more mental health issues, not because there's so much more economic inequality, but because there's so much less restrictions on assault-type weapons, on military-type weapons. The United States has more guns per capita than any country in the world except for Yemen, and Yemen is in the middle of a civil war. The United States is not, and yet there is no feasible capacity politically in the near term to do anything about that. No political will. Very relieved that this series of headlines does not include an actual assassination. Very relieved that former President Trump has survived this. Deeply concerned that it continues to happen. And of course, everything about U.S. politics promises you that you're going to see a lot more of it.
That's the state of play today and this election, and in the broader context that we talk about. So I hope everyone's well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- After Trump attack, will the US unite? ›
- Trump, Reagan, Roosevelt: Does surviving an assassin’s bullet help at the polls? ›
- Breaking news: Trump shot in apparent assassination attempt ›
- Trump safe after possible assassination attempt ›
- Iran official denies Donald Trump assassination threats - GZERO Media ›
Debate Bingo: Kamala Harris v. Donald Trump
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will face off in their first presidential debate of the 2024 US election campaign on Tuesday, September 10th. That means it is time for another round of: DEBATE BINGO!
Tuesday's 90-minute debate will air on ABC News at 9 PM ET and will be moderated by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. It will be held at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. This marks not only the first time that Harris and Trump will debate, but also the first time they will meet each other in person.
Some tips on DEBATE BINGO: you can make it a competition with your fellow politics nerd pals by printing out GZERO Media's debate bingo cards. Or just screenshot them and share with your friends to compare online. There are four different cards so that each player can have a unique board. Every time one of the candidates says one of these words or terms, X it on your card. The first player to get five across wins. And if you really want to jazz it up, you can mark each of your words by taking a swig of your favorite beverage, doing five burpees, or donating to your favorite charity or political candidate.
Enjoy! Follow our coverage of the debate with us on social media too - we'll be on X @gzeromedia.
Harris Trump Debate Bingo Card 1
Harris Trump Debate Bingo Card 2
Harris Trump Debate Bingo Card 3
Harris Trump Debate Bingo Card 4
Remember, there's more going on in the world than just the US election, so subscribe to GZERO Daily, our newsletter on global politics, and watch our weekly show GZERO World with Ian Bremmer right here and on public television.
Trump wants a voter ID law – or a government shutdown
Two months out from the presidential election in the United States, Donald Trump is spoiling for a voter identification law, but he’ll settle for a government shutdown.
Trump is leaning on Republicans in Congress to push the SAVE Act, a bill that would require voters to present proof of citizenship to vote. Critics say the bill is redundant since non-citizen voting is already illegal. They argue voter ID laws are ineffective and suppress turnout, especially among minority communities.
As the Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government approaches, Trump wants Congressional Republicans to tie funding to passing the voter ID bill – a move the party is considering, and one that would throw an already rambunctious election season into total chaos.
Since 1980, the federal government has shut down 14 times, most recently in 2018-2019 during the Trump administration. A partial shutdown, it lasted 34 days and carried a hefty price tag of around $11 billion.
Congressional Democrats oppose both the SAVE Act and the idea of tying government funding to its passing. Trump’s gambit is a test of his influence among Republicans in Congress and comes as reports circulate that a growing number of party members are “privately” at peace with, or even rooting for, a Trump loss in November.