Xris Macias, Manager at the Salt Lake City Public Library in Utah

We are long past the era of libraries just being a house for books; they contain STEM/Creative labs, meeting spaces and community kitchens. Today’s Library features essential resources for budding entrepreneurs, historical archives, music curation, Pride collections, information on how to register to vote and provides a sample of the things they are voting for. As an information professional, I can curate the available information to either reinforce someone’s opinion and experiences, or facilitate the exploration of new perspectives and ideas. If all librarians keep a similar code, a local library then becomes a place to foster open dialogue, promote respect for diverse viewpoints, educate about civil rights, and uphold human dignity. Values which are fundamental to any thriving democracy.

I truly believe in the essential democratic purpose of public libraries. It remains important for us to offer options to assist members of our communities to become more informed voters and civic actors. Democracies are built on the ability for citizens to educate themselves and make informed decisions. Public libraries are one of the few remaining places where information is readily available to anyone who might seek it out, making it a fundamental tenet of civil society.

Beyond libraries, looking across the globe, and even during these increasingly divided times, local democracy is finding renewed strength through community-sensitive, small-scale initiatives that uphold democratic values at the grassroots level. Subregional government entities such as city councils, regional planning commissions, and municipal cooperatives, are playing a vital role in reinforcing democratic commitments by empowering local institutions and communities. These entities act as connective tissue between communities and larger governmental frameworks, ensuring that democratic practices remain accessible, participatory, and responsive.

Entities and programs that prioritize civic engagement, from hosting town halls and candidate forums to organizing community dialogues on policy issues can provide neutral spaces for discourse and access to accurate information, and even though neutrality may be a goal, many of these structures, by their very nature, don’t discourage argument and debate. Having the freedom to inform yourself, present your point of view and question authority is essential to democracy. For these reasons, local agencies have become an essential platform for participatory democracy. Such efforts demonstrate how subregional government entities can strengthen democracy by investing in trusted, community-rooted institutions.

Dara Kossok-Spiess , Head of Digitalization and Network Policy at the German Trade Association (“Handelsverband Deutschland”) and member of the District Council in Spandau, Berlin

Democracy is often discussed in constitutional terms: elections, parliaments, courts. But locally, democracy is tangible. It is whether parents have a voice when a school is planned, whether young people can shape decisions before they can vote, and whether residents can follow political debates without sitting in city hall.

In Spandau, one of Berlin’s twelve districts and home to roughly a quarter of a million people, we have tried to expand precisely these opportunities. Local institutions are where people learn whether democracy works for them.

That matters on both sides of the Atlantic. Germany and the United States differ politically, but both face declining trust, polarization and fragmented digital public spheres. Social media can accelerate mis- and disinformation, while foreign influence campaigns exploit existing divisions. Local democracy cannot solve these problems alone. But it can create something digital politics often lacks: repeated, direct democratic experience.

Participation must be continuous, not episodic

In Spandau, we have tried to strengthen exactly that. Meetings of the district assembly are livestreamed. Our group meetings reserve time for residents. We supported the reactivation of the Mobility Council, bringing administration, politics and civil society together. We have also pushed for stronger participation in school construction and for a Youth Parliament, because democracy should not begin at eighteen. What connects these initiatives is simple: participation must be continuous, not episodic.

Political parties need to move beyond an electoral logic of democracy. Too often, engagement intensifies before elections and fades afterwards. Citizens are treated as voters to be mobilized every few years rather than as democratic actors with whom institutions remain in permanent conversation. That requires stronger ties with civil society: neighborhood initiatives, schools, youth organizations, social services and groups representing voices often missing from traditional political processes. Local government can give this engagement an institutional framework instead of leaving it dependent on temporary projects. In both Germany and the United States, public support for democracy, diversity and inclusion programs is currently being significantly reduced. This raises a crucial question for local democracy: how can municipalities and civil society sustain participation, inclusion and democratic resilience when the institutional and financial foundations supporting this work are weakened? Democracy promotion is not decorative policy for good times. Civic education, anti-discrimination work, youth participation and spaces for encounter are democratic infrastructure.

Polarization is not simply disagreement. The danger begins when groups stop encountering one another, opponents become enemies, and people lose confidence that institutions will listen. Digital media can reinforce these dynamics. Local democratic spaces can counter them through participation, accountability and dialogue. The first line of democratic defence can be a library in the United States, a community-owned energy agency in California, or a district council or youth parliament in a district of Berlin. These institutions turn democracy from an abstract political system into something people can experience as part of everyday life: locally, continuously, and together.

Alexandra McGee , Director of Strategic Initiatives at Marin Clean Energy in California

In 2010 there was a fight happening in the halls of Sacramento, California. The investor-owned utilities (IOUs) were funneling millions of dollars into a campaign to squash an emerging government solution to the rolling black-outs that had harmed the state a decade prior. After many years of planning and feasibility studies, Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) were finally becoming a reality for California with the incorporation of Marin Clean Energy (MCE).

This new public agency would demonstrate that you didn’t need to be a private corporate actor to help move our state toward our ambitious clean energy goals. Fast forward fifteen years and MCE is serving almost 600,000 electric accounts with 60-100% renewable energy, supporting 1.5 million+ residents in the Bay Area to clean up the carbon from their energy sources. With a local elected official representing each of the 38 member communities who have signed on to this service, MCE is proof that local governments can wield significant impact in catalyzing change even in difficult technical markets.

As the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at MCE, I’ve seen the agency support, promote, and accelerate technologies and strategies to help California meet its clean energy goals faster and more equitably. CCAs are not-for-profit public agencies governed by a Board of Directors or Council composed of elected officials representing the community voice in agency decisions. In meetings open to the public, these Boards democratically vote on agency policy, approve programs, and set generation rates for electric service. With their autonomy and public mandate, these governing bodies have the flexibility and sovereignty to set the priorities and direction of the agency to reflect community values and concerns, infusing CCAs with a unique sensitivity to local community affairs. The CCA therefore actively makes different decisions than private entities that are required to secure profits for their investors. Given the public nature of their role, they can further align CCAs with the objectives laid out by their corresponding town, city, and county governments, further integrating CCAs into the social fabric of a community.

Why is this important? In the transatlantic dialogue, we’re seeing the erosion of democratic institutions as a growing crisis across various countries and contexts. Having strong local government agencies – like those that generate electricity, those that lend books, those that represent their district – becomes an important line of defense against growing authoritarian sentiment. These agencies often provide direct service to their communities, their forums encourage active civic participation, their elected officials often serve their terms from a sense of duty and patriotism. These institutions represent the everyday practice of democracy. When they thrive, people feel their voice matters. When people feel their voice matters, they are far less likely to be seduced by anti-democratic forces. Local government is where trust in democracy is earned or lost, one lightbulb and storytime at a time.

Defending these civic institutions keeps the door locked against authoritarian creep.

Der Beitrag Local government is where trust in democracy is earned or lost erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Anas El Yousfi

Spend some time in Germany and you will meet a country that is visibly and functionally multicultural. More than a quarter of Germany’s residents now have a migration background, and in 2024 the country naturalized nearly 292,000 new citizens, the most since it began keeping records. Then read the headlines from the same country: fast-track citizenship abolished, family reunification suspended for many migrants, border control turned into the government’s defining issue. I grew up multiculturally, with family from all over the world, so questions of migration and belonging have never been abstract to me. Maybe that is why, traveling through Washington, Brussels, and Berlin this spring with the Atlantik-Brücke New Bridge Program, I felt like I was watching two Germanys describe themselves at once. The society has already become something its politics has not yet agreed to be, and the space between them is where nearly every conversation we had seemed to end up.

A roundtable on migration and integration at DeZIM (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) in Berlin gave that gap a history. We met with researchers who study integration and with a representative of the Turkish German community, whose story begins in 1961, when Turkish workers were recruited to help rebuild the postwar economy. Sixty-five years later there are fourth-generation Turkish Germans, yet for most of that time integration was treated as a test migrants had to pass rather than a process the whole society took part in. Germany did not officially describe itself as a country of immigration until this century, long after it had become one in practice.

“Which parts of the past a country chooses to remember says a great deal about who it considers its own.”

A walking tour of Berlin’s colonial history extended that theme further back in time. Germany’s memory culture is rightly admired. The Stolpersteine, small brass plaques set into the sidewalk in front of the homes of people deported and murdered by the Nazis, are impossible to walk past without pausing. But the tour also covered histories that receive far less attention, including Black Germans persecuted under Nazi rule and the colonial-era crimes Germany has only recently begun to confront. It formally acknowledged the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples in Namibia only in 2021. Our tour ended at a subway station recently renamed for Anton Wilhelm Amo, an African-born philosopher who taught at German universities in the eighteenth century, after decades of public campaigning against the colonial-era name it replaced. Which parts of the past a country chooses to remember says a great deal about who it considers its own.

That question followed me personally as well. When I introduced myself in Germany, people would sometimes ask where I was really from. The question was never hostile, and I understood the curiosity behind it. But Turkish Germans hear the same question in their own country, in their own language, three generations in. Living in a country and being counted as fully part of it are not the same thing, and that small question marks the distance between them.

That distance is now the central fight in German politics. We took a regional train east to Frankfurt an der Oder, a small city on the Polish border, where we met local officials and journalists who described how their region is changing. Eastern Germany is where the far right performs best, often in places where relatively few migrants actually live, which suggests the anxiety has less to do with actual neighbors than with a story about national identity under threat. A panel on democracy and participation raised the other side of the same issue: whether people with migration histories can move from being the subject of policy debates to taking part in them. The far right’s answer is a permanent no. Germany’s democratic future depends on a better one.

As an American, none of this felt entirely foreign, just a bit different. The United States calls itself a nation of immigrants and debates constantly over what that means, and Germany is telling itself a more hesitant version of the same story. What I took home was less a verdict than a sense of direction. Multicultural Germany is not a proposal that can still be voted down. It already exists, at record scale. The real question is how long its politics takes to catch up with its people. I’ll be watching for Germany’s answer, because in the United States, we’re still working on our own.

Anas El Yousfi is a technologist working at the intersection of data, technology, and society. Raised Moroccan-American in New York with family across Western Europe and beyond, he grew up immersed in the questions that define the transatlantic relationship, with a deep interest in geopolitics and how AI and emerging technologies are reshaping governance and public life on both sides of the Atlantic. He’s a 2026 fellow of the New Bridge Program.

The New Bridge Program is supported by the Transatlantic Program of the Federal Republic of Germany, funded by the European Recovery Program (ERP) of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWE), and by the Joachim Herz Foundation.

Der Beitrag “Multicultural Germany is not a proposal” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Robin Fehrenbach

Governor Murphy, what is your perspective on the meaning of the upcoming tournament for the state of New Jersey with the MetLife Stadium being the location for the final?

It’s a huge deal. We are co-hosting the World Cup with New York City. So, it’s New York and New Jersey as partners. My wife, former first lady of the state of New Jersey, Tammy Murphy, is the chair of the host committee. We’ve got a great relationship with New York, and that’s interestingly through three different mayors: Bill de Blasio and I pitched this initially; Eric Adams and I were the honorary chairs, if you will; and now Zohran Mamdani, who’s a huge soccer or football fan, in his case of Arsenal London.

[related]We have eight matches at MetLife Stadium, which will be renamed New York, New Jersey Soccer Stadium, with five first round matches, including Germany vs. Ecuador, which should be terrific. That’ll be Germany’s toughest match in their group stage. Then we have a round of 32. As you know, this is now for the first time ever a 48 nation tournament, which is a new wrinkle with a bigger field. We then have a round of 16. And as you rightfully point out, we have the World Cup final at 3 pm New Jersey time on Sunday, July 19.

We expect visitors somewhere between two to three million coming into the region. The economic impact is measured in the billions of US Dollars. Employment is measured in the double-digit thousands. Not to mention what this will do to football in America, the legacy, that will unfold long after the 39 days. For all the above reasons, it‘s a tremendous deal, both for New Jersey and New York, but more broadly for America, Canada, and Mexico.

You just mentioned it briefly: What are the most important economic ramifications of the biggest sports event in the world for New Jersey and the United States as a whole?

I don’t have a number for the US, but the estimate of the economic impact is 3 billion US Dollars for the New York, New Jersey region. Each of the state of New Jersey and the city of New York and state of New York, plus private sector money will be financing this. But you’ll get a 7 to 10 times return on any amount of money that gets invested in terms of economic impact. I mentioned employment. The number for the United States more broadly, Canada, and Mexico, will be much bigger.

The estimate of the economic impact is 3 billion US Dollars for the New York, New Jersey region.

Interestingly, the last time the US hosted the World Cup was 1994, and it was a 24-team tournament. That was the last year in the history of the event with 24 teams competing in the tournament. To this day, that World Cup set the all-time attendance record. That tells you two things, certainly for America. Number one, the interest in soccer or football and specifically the World Cup is very high. And number two, we have very big stadiums, and we will fill them.

Let’s get to another issue. The brutal ICE operations have shocked not only citizens in the United States, but people around the world. What are the implications for the security of international guests during the event?

First of all, Donald Trump got elected or reelected in large part because he promised to secure our borders. President Biden actually had done that towards the end of his administration, but it was perceived that we had not secured our borders sufficiently, particularly the Southern border. So, President Trump runs full square on that commitment. And that is the case today: The southern border is largely secure. It has been done in a way that I wouldn’t have done it in terms of separating families, diminishing our status as the world’s immigration nation. In other words, there’s a humane, smart way to do that and still achieve the same results. Overwhelmingly, the American people want secure borders. And Donald Trump tapped into that. The problem is he took a very unwise, ill-advised, and brutal step that the American people did not ask for, which was inside of the United States to aggressively prosecute an immigration agenda. He’s paid a price for that. It’s clear that the public pushed back on that, not just in Minnesota, but elsewhere, certainly in New Jersey.

The American public is not just okay with secure borders. They also want a low crime, safe country. They want their communities, their streets, their cities, their states, their country to be crime-free. New Jersey is rated the safest state in the nation when I left office three months ago. A big part of that reason, not the only reason, is that we pursue a criminal justice agenda and not an immigration agenda. If you’re a criminal, we’re coming after you – we don’t care what your immigration status is. As opposed to, we’re coming after you because we want to check on your immigration status when there’s no evidence at all that you’ve ever committed a crime.

I have absolute and complete confidence it will be secure so that families can go feeling good about their personal safety, the fan experience, the transportation to and from.

Specifically to the World Cup, I have absolute and complete confidence it will be secure so that families can go feeling good about their personal safety, the fan experience, the transportation to and from. I cannot speak for the Trump administration. But as we sit here in late April – and I base this as well on our experience hosting nine matches, including both semis and the final for the Club World Cup last summer, where there was some noise around ICE agents at matches, that turned out not to be the case – I don’t expect that will be an issue for this World Cup either.

Could you elaborate on the overall image the United States under the Trump administration would like to convey to the rest of the globe, particularly in the partnership with its Mexican and Canadian neighbors after having some tensions on different policy fields like most of all trade and tariffs?

You can imagine my perspective. I did not vote for President Trump. I’ve tried as Governor and I will always try to find common ground. And we were reasonably successful at that. But so much of what he stands for our image, our turning our back on 80-year-proofed institutions like NATO, on multilateral institutions, on our allies, not speaking to our allies, I don’t support any of that. That is against every fiber I have, both as a former Governor and as a former Ambassador, in my case, to the Federal Republic of Germany. Let me be crystal clear: I know for a fact that President Trump is a huge fan of the sport and of this tournament. You saw last summer a very successful Club World Cup. And you saw him very much in the middle of that, including at the final between Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain. I’m optimistic that the Trump administration knows that this is a big deal and the world is watching. Frankly, that Americans are watching and this will be a success because they will realize that is in their self-interest to make sure that this is a success.

I know for a fact that President Trump is a huge fan of the sport and of this tournament.

When I first became Governor, it was not yet clear that the US, Mexico, and Canada would win the right to host the World Cup. As a Democrat and as a sitting Governor, I supported President Trump’s inclinations and was pitching that he would do the right thing at the end of the day. As much as I’m not a fan, and I’m certainly not a fan of our global image right now, I believe with a high degree of conviction, that this will be a successful World Cup.

Yes, we’ve had our differences with Canada and Mexico. Canada is the principal trading partner with 36 of the 50 American states, including New Jersey. In Mexico, where I’ve been twice in the past six months, there are clearly some more challenges, particularly with the drug cartels and the Southern border, which I understand. But this is our neighborhood. Again, I believe, the tournament will be a success, not just through the American lens, but through the lens of all three countries.

Affordability is a major social issue in the United States. However, tickets for the World Cup matches are very expensive, costs for transportation and accommodation are high. Will the World Cup only be an event for wealthy people and exclude other citizens from participating?

No, with a high degree of certainty. Where that debate is today versus where things settle in June and July, may be very different worlds. But I’ll make a couple of comments. Number one, FIFA has already said they would put aside much more fair-priced tickets for fans of countries that are in those matches. That was a good first step. Secondly, FIFA uses dynamic pricing aggressively, meaning they are very good at finding the supply-demand crossover and getting that into equilibrium. One message I might have for fans is to watch and wait as this settles out. I’m confident that there will be tickets available that are affordable. Only FIFA controls ticket prices.

You mentioned affordability more broadly. Having said that, I know there’s been a lot of noise around the transit costs. That will also land in a place that is acceptable. With regard to housing, there’s still plenty of places where you can get a hotel room, an Airbnb, rent a house, whatever it might be. I’m confident that both the in-stadium experience and what it costs a family to get to and from and spend the night will settle in a more reasonable place.

One last comment: In New Jersey and in New York there will be a whole range of fan zones and fan neighborhood activations. We are the most diverse region in America. The diaspora is already present. If you went to Paterson, New Jersey, you’d find one of the largest Moroccan communities in America and in the world outside of Morocco. If you went to the East Ward of Newark and you said, I want to meet someone who speaks Portuguese, whether they be Portuguese or Brazilian, they will line up around the block with folks who speak Portuguese, just to pick two examples.

Do you think that European football or American soccer, as it is called, will finally have its breakthrough moment in the United States through the help of this big tournament?

I politely argue a little bit with your premise. First of all, the 1994 World Cup is responsible for the explosion of interest in soccer that’s already taken place. If you look at the youth level, it’s the number one participated sport in America. Secondly, the World Cup of ’94 gave birth to the men’s high-level professional league, the Major League Soccer, where Lionel Messi plays and David Beckham had played. This was a successor, if you will, to the professional leagues in which Pelé, Giorgio Chinaglia, and Franz Beckenbauer played the end of their careers in the early 1970s. Girls and women have participated, not just in soccer but in sports, at a very high level for five or six decades, partly because of a law called Title IX. It mandates that any public dollars spent for boys and men in athletics must be spent at the same amount for girls and women.

Let’s now accelerate from 1994 to 2026. The MLS has come a long way. It still needs to travel another long way. I think, this World Cup will help propel that. Put differently, I want to see Leo Messi in a club team at the age of 23, not 38. I love him. And I’d love to see Thomas Müller, who came to the Vancouver Whitecaps at the age of 36, at the age of 23. Our very best American players, for the most part, still go to Europe to play. The women are the top one, two, or three team in the world every year. We are the defending World Cup or Olympic champions almost no matter what year you look at for the past several decades. The NWSL, our women’s professional league, competes at world class level. My family and I own a piece of the New York, New Jersey team called Gotham FC. The German Ann-Katrin Berger is our goalie. Esther González, who was the striker for Spain, is our striker. Rose Lavelle, who I would argue is our best player, plays in our club team.

You’re going to see a lot more pitches built in neighborhoods that right now don’t have any access to soccer. You’ll see an increase of playing boys and girls who otherwise would not have played the sport.

I also think finally you’re going to see a lot more pitches built in neighborhoods that right now don’t have any access to soccer. You’ll see an increase of playing boys and girls who otherwise would not have played the sport. The World Cup of ’94 put us on the map and built a foundation. This World Cup will take us to new heights.

Let’s come to the final question. How will the US team and the German team perform throughout the tournament?

Well, those are two very different answers. Right now, if you look at the betting odds, you’ll see Spain, France, England in that order as the three favorites. Then you have a cluster, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Holland, and the Germans. By the way, we speak with our German friends, who know a lot more about this sport. Sami Khedira has become a very close family friend among others. The German lens on this team is more critical than the non-German lens. Folks look at the back line and perhaps the goaltender in the absence of Manuel Neuer, and I assume the answer is Neuer is still not going to be on the squad, and raise more questions than they normally would for a German team going into a World Cup. I have no issues with the midfield and the strikers. They hold up against everybody with the possible exception of France and Spain. I personally think they will surprise. It’s not hard to get into the round of 32. If you look at the brackets, I believe they would meet France in Philadelphia on July 4th, which is the 250th birthday of America. That will be their toughest match. They play Ecuador in New Jersey. Germany is at a minimum a quarter-final to semi-final team.

Regarding the Americans, I’m hopeful. They had a very challenging recent international window. They got outclassed by Portugal and Belgium. We’ve got a lot of good players. Mauricio Pochettino is a world-class trainer. The tournament needs the Americans to do well which means at least a quarterfinal presence. That’s where they were in 2002 when it was South Korea and Japan as hosts. The Canadians and Mexicans probably also are pleading the same. The Americans are our favorite team. Right behind that would be the Germans. But the tournament is a better tournament if the Americans go deep, certainly if the Mexicans go deep, if Alphonso Davies is healthy and the Canadians can go deep. If you’ve got the hosts still in it, you will keep the three countries, their citizens and fans excited. That has a spill-on effect into the broader success of the World Cup.

 Philip Murphy was U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Governor of the state of New Jersey. He is also a long-standing member of the Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag „This World Cup will take us to new heights“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Canada plays an important role at this year’s World Cup, as the country, together with the United States and Mexico, is taking on the role of host of the tournament. As the venue for several matches, Canada is at the heart of this international event. In an interview with the Canadian Ambassador to Germany, Vera Alexander, we spoke about sports diplomacy as well as the mood in Canada ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Der Beitrag „There is already a Hype in Canada about the World Cup“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag “The World Cup is an opportunity to showcase Méxiko” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We were honoured to welcome Phil Murphy, former Governor of New Jersey and former US Ambassador to Germany, and Tammy Murphy, former First Lady of New Jersey and political activist, for a fireside chat during their visit to Berlin. Emily Haber, former German Ambassador to the United States, moderated the engaging discussion on current domestic policy developments in the US as well as its foreign policy.

In a short interview with Atlantik-Brücke, Phil Murphy talked about his long-standing relationship with Atlantik-Brücke, the importance of sub-national cooperation between Europe and the US, and his view on German and US competitiveness. And he found clear words for the violence caused by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis and beyond – and on how to push back.

Der Beitrag “I have enormous regard for Atlantik-Brücke” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

There was much speculation in the days following the January 20^th, 2025  executive order to freeze all U.S. foreign aid spending. Working for a partner NGO of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), my colleagues and I speculated that the Secretary of State would defend development assistance as a critical foreign policy tool–as he had publicly for more than a decade. When instead we were faced with blanket stop work orders, we speculated as to how 6,200 aid programs would be fairly reviewed in only 90 days. We speculated about which words we should use–and shouldn’t use–to justify our work. How could we explain programs that improve water systems in Ghana or the Gaza Strip, provide meals to students in Madagascar, or operate community centers for women and children displaced by the Syrian War in the context of making America safer, stronger and more prosperous?

“A staggering human toll of half a million lives lost.”

[related]This was no easy task. For decades, NGOs implemented programs on behalf of the federal government whose merits were measured more intrinsically: the number of lives saved, jobs created, school attendance rates improved, agricultural output increased, disease incidence reduced. As we compiled such impact metrics to facilitate the 90-day review, we questioned whether they would still be compelling. We speculated about whether we’d be paid for work already conducted or whether the dismantlement of USAID was constitutional. Many of these questions remain tied up in complex court cases. No matter the answer, the damage was done. Before the 90 day review period had even concluded, 83% of programs were terminated. Quite literally overnight, from Sub-Saharan Africa to Pacific Island nations to the frontlines of Ukraine, health clinics closed, food aid sat undistributed in warehouses, child vaccination campaigns ceased, demining efforts stalled. This amounted to more than disrupted programs, layoffs, and contractual questions for implementing organizations. According to estimates by the Center for Global Development, the shuttering of USAID exacted a staggering human toll of half a million lives lost and counting.

There was also speculation as to which donors might step up to fill the gap in humanitarian and development assistance vacated by the United States. The European Union, Germany, France, or the United Kingdom were floated in many conversations as alternative donors we could pitch our programs to. I was more skeptical. In 2024, Germany had already passed steep reductions to foreign aid, cutting its humanitarian budget nearly one-fifth over 2023 and slashing it another 50% in 2026. The imperative to fund more military spending in support of Ukraine’s right to self-defense has provided several European nations further ground to renege on foreign aid commitments.

“What is needed are commitments to international development with staying power.”

One year since the first executive order, I continue speculating often about the future of international development and humanitarian assistance. At the time of writing, the U.S. Congress is moving forward a bill that would provide $20 billion more in foreign aid than proposed in the President’s budget package, and global health programs in particular seem poised to return to prior funding levels. Though I enthusiastically welcome this news, international development proponents would be loath to return to the previous reliance on U.S. assistance. What is needed are commitments to international development with staying power—commitments that survive political cycles, crowd in diversified private and public funding, and cultivate locally owned solutions. Multilateral institutions, including UN agencies, the European Union, and international development banks, remain potent examples of how pooled resources can buffer against the shifting priorities of any one country and safeguard the extended time horizons needed to tackle the world’s most intractable development and humanitarian challenges.

The events of 2025 left many of us in this sector shaken but not deterred. I do this work because I believe strongly that development is not zero sum. Economic security, political stability, social justice, healthy people, and a healthy planet: more of this everywhere is a win for humankind.

Tessa Coggio is a 2023 Atlantik Brücke Young Leader. She is a Monitoring and Evaluation practitioner with a background in international development and humanitarian assistance across Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Tessa is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign Service. The views expressed by the author are shared in a strictly personal capacity.

Der Beitrag Shaken but Not Deterred: Why I Still Have Hope for International Development After 2025 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interview with Düzen Tekkal

Der Beitrag “Democracy is fighting for survival” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

He was a Jew, a banker, a helper of escapees, an intelligence officer in the US Army, a transatlantic bridge builder, and a Cold Warrior. And with the help of the cooperation channels he set up, West German and US social groups were aligned with the West amidst the turmoil of post-war Europe.

The history of the transatlantic partnership has, overnight, become highly topical; in fact, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it has been invoked in Europe as a key reassurance.

In her life of Eric Warburg, Heufelder tells the story of the nephew of the art historian Aby Warburg, whose world-famous library Eric relocated to London and saved from the Nazis. Coming from a long line of German-Jewish bankers, Eric Warburg emerged from the looming shadow of preceding generations of Warburgs, and repurposed their liberal values to form the core of his own Atlanticist convictions.

Warburg spent the inter-war years working closely with the American branch of his family and their connections in government to promote the cause of international peace and stability in the wake of the Great War. After Hitler’s rise to power Warburg became a helper of escapees, an intelligence officer in the US Army, and later a Cold Warrior. His life, and that of Aby Warburg’s library, tells the story of Europe’s twentieth century, the legacy of which continues to inform and inspire the transatlantic partnership today.

You can find the book on Amazon or at Editorial Haus Publishing.

Der Beitrag A Transatlantic Life erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The program began in Berlin, where we first got to know each other and received an initial thematic introduction through discussions with representatives from politics, academia, and public administration. Particularly memorable was the lecture by Prof. Sebastian Jobs from the John F. Kennedy Institute at Freie Universität Berlin, who vividly traced historical trajectories of U.S. politics and society – from American exceptionalism to the role of migration in shaping the economy and national identity.

[related]In Washington, D.C., we met with stakeholders from politics, media, and civil society. Conversations at institutions such as Future Caucus, NBC News, and the State Department provided a multifaceted view of American perspectives on security, democracy, and social change.

The third part of our journey took us to Detroit, where the realities of structural transformation and social change became immediately tangible. Discussions with representatives from Ford, trade unions, local initiatives, and city government underscored how closely economic renewal and social cohesion are intertwined. Detroit thus became a powerful symbol of how societies can actively shape change.

Transatlantic cooperation in transition

The discussions in Washington, D.C. confirmed that the transatlantic partnership continues to be a high priority for the United States. Europe is seen as a key factor for stability, and Germany is expected to take on more responsibility in security policy – particularly in cyber security, defense innovation, and energy independence. This stance makes it clear that it is less about US withdrawal and more about a reorientation of the partnership on an equal footing.

This impression was also confirmed at the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., particularly with regard to the media’s perception of the supposed isolation of the US. It was noticeable on the ground that the United States continues to attach great importance to multilateral cooperation, especially on issues such as climate protection, technology policy, and global security. American foreign policy today pays greater attention to its own interests, but continues to see international cooperation as a key instrument for tackling global challenges.

“The US expects Germany to take on a stronger leadership role within Europe”

At the US State Department, Paul Stucky, German Desk Officer, elaborated on this perspective. The US expects Germany to take on a stronger leadership role within Europe, particularly in building joint security architectures, supporting Ukraine, and countering authoritarian influence from China and Russia. Germany is seen as a bridge builder whose diplomatic credibility and mediation skills are crucial. The discussions showed that transatlantic cooperation is being redefined. It is evolving from a unilateral security guarantee to shared responsibility based on common values and mutual reliability.

Detroit as a mirror of structural change

Detroit showed that economic change is always also a social process. In discussions with initiatives such as the Design Build Green Hub and activists such as Martina Guzmán Miranda, it became clear how closely issues such as urban development, social inequality, and trust are linked. Unlike Germany, where the state often organizes structural support, many U.S. cities rely on local initiatives, philanthropic engagement, and cooperation with companies.

“Electromobility is understood not only as a technological transformation, but also as a social one”

Visits to the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center and United Auto Workers Local 600 made the profound industrial change tangible. Here, electromobility is understood not only as a technological transformation, but also as a social one. Trade unions, companies, and urban society are working together to find ways to combine innovation with social stability. This approach can also be inspiring for European regions undergoing structural change.

The conversation with Abdullah Hammoud, the first mayor of Arab descent in the US, was particularly impressive. In Dearborn, we experienced how diversity, integration, and community strength can intertwine. The city is a prime example of active representation, civic engagement, and economic resilience. These encounters showed that social progress can only succeed if political participation and economic development are considered together.

Conclusion: New answers to old questions

Our trip made it clear that the transatlantic partnership is facing a period of renewal. In Washington, it was evident that the US expects initiative from Europe, not distance. In Detroit, it became apparent that change can only succeed when community, innovation, and inclusion work together. The supposed contradictions between economic transformation and social justice or between national interest and international responsibility cannot be completely resolved, but they can be constructively renegotiated.

The insights gained on site were not always clear-cut, but they always opened our eyes to a relationship characterized by pragmatism, mutual respect, and a shared desire to shape the future. This is precisely the bridge that the New Bridge Program is building and that we would like to continue to strengthen in the future.

We would like to thank Atlantik-Brücke, in particular Laura Vogel and Muhammed Ali Sen, for the excellent organization of the program, the Joachim Herz Foundation for its support, and all those who welcomed and accompanied us so warmly in Berlin, Washington, D.C., and Detroit. We look forward to now being part of this valuable network and actively shaping the transatlantic dialogue.

Fellows Johannes Aclassato, Fatima Hussain, and Oleksii Kysliak also shared insights they gained from the program. Watch the interviews here:

New Bridge to the US is supported by the Joachim Herz Foundation.

Der Beitrag „A Reorientation of the Partnership on an Equal Footing“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Amy Brownlee

In June, I was privileged to be part of a group of U.S. teachers who spent nine days in Germany on a transatlantic study trip learning about the country’s modern aspects, including education, politics, government, and culture, and also delving into its complicated history.

While in Berlin, I visited “The Empty Library“, a memorial built in the public square where, on May 10, 1933, in front of a crowd of 40,000, Nazi university students burned 20,000 books deemed “objectionable” and “un-German.”

Organizers prepared a speech to be read at various book burning sites, including the words: “Against decadence and moral decay! For discipline and decency in the family and the nation” (Book Burning Memorial at Bebelplatz).

The book burning was carried out by a group of people trying to suppress ideas they didn’t agree with or find acceptable. Sound familiar?

The memorial, easy to miss if you don’t know to look for it, is made up of a glass panel set flush with the cobblestones. It serves as a window into an underground room featuring empty, white bookshelves, representing both the physical and intellectual void created by destroying books. Several feet away, a metal plate on the ground describes the purpose of the memorial in just a few powerful words.

Part of the memorial plaque reads: “That was only a prelude. Where books are burned, people will be burned in the end.” The quote is from a play by German-Jewish writer Heinrich Heine, whose work was banned by the Nazis. It is likely that copies of his work were burned in that very spot in 1933.

Among other blacklisted books targeted for burning that day was a title by American author, speaker, and activist Helen Keller. In a letter to German university students dated one day before the burning, Keller wrote, “History has taught you nothing if you think you can kill ideas. Tyrants have tried to do that often before, and the ideas have risen up in their might and destroyed them.”

Powerful words.

“A violation of the marketplace of ideas that is a bedrock principle of American life”

More than 90 years later, across the Atlantic, an Ohio man set fire to around 100 library books on Jewish, African American, and LGBTQ history according to a May 14, 2025, report from NBC News.

The incident elicited shock and outrage, especially from those who felt personally attacked due to identifying with the targeted groups.

Ohio Democratic Senator Kent Smith responded by saying this book burning incident “cannot be tolerated”.

Senator Smith went on to say: “I condemn this act, not only because it is a crime against our institutions and community, but also because it is fundamentally un-American. This act of violence is not just a crime against the public catalog of literature that was destroyed, but also is a violation of the marketplace of ideas that is a bedrock principle of American life”.

From Empty Library to Full Shelves: Moving from Censorship to Freedom

In another part of Berlin stands the American Memorial Library. Built during the 1950s and partially funded by donations from Americans, it became the central public library in West Berlin when the city was divided by the Berlin Wall.

The leader of our transatlantic study trip grew up in East Berlin. She told us about a childhood experience of going to the top of the TV Tower, a historical landmark with an observation deck that is the highest point in Berlin. She remembered seeing the spectacular view from the top and looking over into West Berlin and thinking, “Will I ever set foot there?”

She pointed out the American Memorial Library to our teacher group and shared memories of visiting this library as a teenager after the Berlin Wall came down and Germany was reunified. She told us the American Memorial Library was important because it was available to everyone, spread the ideals of democracy and freedom, and provided open access to ideas and information.

My librarian heart was singing when I heard that.

The message was loud and clear: Books are sacred. Libraries are powerful. Intellectual freedom is worth protecting.

Amy Brownlee is a reading teacher and librarian at a small, rural school district in Kansas. She was named the 2017 Kansas School Librarian of the Year and was selected for a National Endowment for the Humanities institute. She won a Fulbright-Hays fellowship and spent a month in Africa with the non-profit Ethiopia Reads and was part of this year’s cohort of Atlantik-Brücke’s Transatlantic Study Trip for Teachers.

Der Beitrag Book Burning and Freedom to Read: Transatlantic Connections erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In the US, President Trump promises to make the country great again. In Germany, the AfD is gaining significant support with calls to return to traditional family structures and a more homogeneous society. Why is the idea of a supposedly better past attracting so much support right now?

Our analyses show that the longing for a “better yesterday” is primarily an expression of growing insecurity, driven by changes in social dynamics, new technologies, and both global and personal challenges. For many, a return to traditional values and structures offers a sense of stability and orientation in an increasingly complex world.

In addition, although the number of recorded crimes has been declining since the 1990s, many citizens’ subjective sense of security has not increased to the same extent. Media coverage plays a central role here, often focusing on individual cases and thereby creating a distorted picture of everyday society. Emotions often have a stronger impact than statistics, especially when insecurity is already the prevailing feeling.

Furthermore, we live in a time when traditional securities such as a stable career path, clear family models, or firm political convictions are increasingly losing their reliability. Orientation is shifting from institutions to personal networks, digital communities, or individual value systems. Yet, especially during moments of social transformation, community, cohesion, and dependable relationships are gaining importance once again.

The challenge lies in understanding this return to tradition not as a step backward but as an opportunity: a chance to reinterpret established values such as responsibility, reliability, and community spirit and translate them into a modern, open society. Only when change is combined with trust can uncertainty turn into confidence — and the longing for the past become a creative force for the future.

At the same time, in an increasingly complex and confusing world, the need for stability and orientation is growing. Many people’s daily lives are characterized by a fast pace, constant availability, and the feeling of already having too little time for family, friends, or themselves. As a result, engagement often takes a backseat — not due to lack of interest but because of overwhelm.

For more citizens to become actively involved, one thing is above all needed: trust — in institutions, in fellow citizens, and in the effectiveness of their own actions. Participation must not remain mere lip service but must be concrete and tangible through easy access, genuine opportunities to shape outcomes, and recognition on equal footing. Last but not least, a social culture is needed that not only invokes cohesion but actively fosters it — through encounters, dialogue, and the awareness that engagement is not a luxury but a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

Civil society often seems to be in retreat — major political parties and trade unions are losing members, sports clubs as well, and large protest movements like Fridays for Future are barely visible anymore. What is a positive example of a movement that has succeeded in encouraging more people to get involved in recent years?

A current example of a vibrant and active civil society are the large demonstrations against right-wing extremism that have taken place across Germany since early 2024. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have self-organized — independent of political parties or traditional institutions — to stand up for democracy, diversity, and cohesion.

What makes this movement so powerful is its decentralization and spontaneity. It shows that civil society engagement today often takes place beyond established structures — through social networks, local alliances, or personal connections. It also makes clear that those who feel seen, needed, and effective are more likely to engage and do so sustainably.

Especially in times of social uncertainty, many people seek ways to be part of a meaningful movement. The protests against the far right have not only raised visibility — they have also given many a sense of belonging and personal effectiveness.

For a resilient democracy, this means that spaces, opportunities, and structures are needed to enable such participation. The willingness is there — it just needs to be met with resonance.

At the event “Trust Lost? Expectations of Politics” hosted by the Regional Chapter Hamburg on July 15, 2025, Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke, Jürgen Großmann, Partner of Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH, and Professor Dr. Ulrich Reinhardt, Scientific Director of the Foundation for Future Studies — an initiative of BAT Holding GmbH — discussed Germany’s future viability.

Der Beitrag “Engagement is a cornerstone of our democracy.” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Gerd Braune, Ottawa

“We miss you,” says Maggie Hassan, Democratic U.S. Senator from New Hampshire. “We miss you all.” She’s addressing the Canadians who, these days, are doing everything they can to express their disapproval of the United States, from boycotting American products in supermarkets to avoiding cross-border trips for shopping or vacations. New Hampshire is one of the northeastern border states feeling the strain of the animosity between the once closely allied neighbors. Hassan says she knows that the current “instability in our relationship” has led many Canadians to cancel trips to popular tourist destinations in the U.S. “But we hope you’ll come back,” she adds.

There’s little talk of friendship and trust between the U.S. and Canada in the months since Donald Trump’s second inauguration. When Ontario’s conservative Premier Doug Ford ordered that American wine and whiskey be removed from the shelves of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), the move was met with applause. That sentiment is shared by Sergii, who is browsing the Ontario wine selection at an LCBO store in Ottawa. “We support our local wineries, breweries, and distilleries,” he says. “The shelves are full”—even without U.S. products.

“Geography has made us neighbors, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners.” (John F. Kennedy)

“Geography made us neighbors, history made us friends, economics made us partners”,  that’s how John F. Kennedy described U.S.-Canada relations in his 1961 speech to the Canadian Parliament. That is the past, the last millennium. Trump’s talk of Canada as the 51st U.S. state and his belittling of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who held office until March, by calling him a “governor,” has sparked anger and outrage in Canada. The Intelligencer newsletter of New York magazine notes: “Canadians are angry. Trump achieved what once seemed impossible: our northern neighbors have united against us.”

According to surveys by the polling institute Nanos Research, “pessimism and anger” are the prevailing feelings in Canada toward the U.S. In early July, 34 percent described their feelings toward Americans as “pessimistic,” 24 percent as “angry.” Seventeen percent were indifferent, and just over 21 percent expressed positive feelings such as optimism and satisfaction.

“Especially the talk about Canada as the 51st U.S. state offended Canadians,” says Nik Nanos, Chief Data Scientist at Nanos Research and chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke Canada. There have been disagreements before, such as during President George W. Bush’s administration, but not this level of anger. “No U.S. administration has said such provocative things about Canada,” says Nanos. Trust between the two countries might return someday, “but how long will that take?” Tensions were particularly high in the spring when “a very aggressive Trump” repeatedly attacked Canada with tariffs and threats, and it was unclear who would govern Canada going forward. Since Carney took office, that tension has eased somewhat. To some extent, Canadians have become “desensitized,” according to Nanos. Because “he (Trump) can say one thing today and something else the next day.”

Canada and Europe should strengthen their relations

In any case, Nanos now sees the challenge for Canada and Europe to deepen their relations, and Canada’s opportunity to reduce its dependence on the U.S. Eighty-five percent support lowering trade barriers and connecting Canada’s economy more closely with the EU. “There is a strong mandate to build a stronger relationship with Europe,” says Nanos.

Brian Schmidt, a professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, believes that Canada is shocked by how strongly the U.S. has turned against their country. “They are deliberately trying to damage the Canadian economy.” Canadians see this as a betrayal given the many forms of assistance Canada has provided over the years. Schmidt recalls the Canadian firefighters who helped fight wildfires in the U.S. and the aid given after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. “Canada was always the first to help.” Now, there is “a lot of animosity and anger.”

“The attack with talks of Canada as the 51st U.S. state caught us completely off guard“

The attack with talks of Canada as the 51st U.S. state and the belittling of the Prime Minister as a governor “caught us completely off guard.” Given the size difference between the economies, there is an “asymmetric relationship” between the U.S. and Canada. “Trump sees our vulnerability.” Schmidt sees the U.S. on a path toward “a kind of fascist authoritarian state.”

One person aiming to send a message during these times of Trump’s attacks is the German-born chocolatier Heinrich Stubbe in Ottawa — with chocolate.“Canada is not for sale” is written on dark chocolate bars in white chocolate, as is “Elbows up.” “I had to do something,” he says. The slogans supporting Canada resonate with everyone. “These are statements that anyone who loves Canada can identify with.”He offers the political chocolate in the official languages English and French, as well as in German, Spanish, and  Mandarin. Stubbe plans to keep this sweet culinary tribute to Canada in his product range until Trump is “gone.”

Gerd Braune has been living in Canada’s capital, Ottawa, since 1997 to report on the vast country in North America. Braune studied political science and law in Trier and then worked for the news agency AP as a correspondent for Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate, and from 1992 to 1997 as a news editor at the Frankfurter Rundschau.

Der Beitrag Canada’s new perspective on the US erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

 

In July, Atlantik-Brücke alumni hosted a webinar on the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) on both sides of the Atlantic. Rejoice Jones, founder and CEO of Vower and New Bridge Program alumna, moderated the panel, which featured fellow New Bridge alumnus Enver Cetin, Senior Manager of AI at Ciklum, and Young Leaders Alumnus Sandro Gianella, Head of Europe and Middle East Policy at OpenAI.

By Alexandra McGee, edited by Pia Kauer

During the 60-minute conversation, the panel tackled many different issues concerning AI, including coordination on a transatlantic policy on responsible AI, the need for workforce development to ensure this technology doesn’t widen the “digital divide,” as well as the power of democratizing information and ideas in a fast-paced modern world.

When asked about the impact of AI in general, our speakers cited numerous advantages like its ability to speed up learning in a dramatic fashion in any domain, such as guiding users without any formal training in software development through the process of coding. They highlighted that AI could provide access to capabilities for people who previously couldn’t afford them and pointed out how it could save users time that’s better spent on relationship building, creativity, and – importantly – even rest.

[related]Together, the panel explored the complex challenges involved in achieving unified AI governance. Although collaboration between leading AI labs and policymakers is already showing signs of alignment, geopolitical obstacles remain. The growing power of AI systems raises critical issues, particularly with regard to their potential military applications.

Ultimately, everyone wants AI systems that are safe, transparent, and beneficial

Ultimately, everyone wants AI systems that are safe, transparent, and beneficial, our panelists claimed – so why not create common safety benchmarks that allow a wide range of different applications?

The societal implication of AI was front and center of our discussion. One panelist stressed the urge for proactive policies that support people who lack digital skills. They referred to an initiative by ChatGPT that allows users to talk to the AI using a land line, which might appeal to the less tech-savy and thereby remove access barriers to the new technology. 

The panel went on to discuss the fear of job displacement caused by the rise of AI, drawing historical parallels with the Industrial Revolution, which rendered many jobs obsolete but also created countless new ones. However, they also acknowledged the stark insecurity surrounding AI’s potential impact in the coming years and the fact that no institution can anticipate the myriad possible futures and prepare society for them. Proposals such as a universal basic income were discussed, after which the audience pitched in with critical questions including about the environmental impacts of AI data warehouses and comments emphasising the importance of ensuring that communities are not left behind in this fast-paced transition.

One audience member cited an MIT study showing that frequent ChatGPT users experience a reduction in neural activity and memory decline, and voiced concerns over the regression of critical thinking capacities. Our speakers admitted that AI has the potential to turn us into ‘passive users’, but argued that it can also be used to aid critical thinking skills, for example by actively engaging with content and refining answers rather than blindly copying and pasting them. They also highlighted collaborations between AI companies and universities that address this issue.

In conclusion, the panelists all spoke with excitement about this technology being a democratizing force, creating additional access to skills for folks who might otherwise be left out of the digital transition to the Age of Ideas. 

 About the panelists:

Rejoice Jones is the Founder and CEO of Vower. As an entrepreneur with over 9 years of experience in building strategic partnerships to train underrepresented youth with the job skills necessary to work for tech companies on either side of the Atlantic, she is determined to understand if technology and culture can be the solution to institutional voids in the urban community. She took part in the New Bridge fellowship as part of the second US cohort in 2022.

 Enver Cetin is a Senior Manager of AI at Ciklum where he deploys the latest technologies, including Generative AI. He leads strategic implementations, driving innovation and transforming business processes with AI solutions. He took part in the New Bridge fellowship as part of the second German cohort in 2024. 

 Sandro Gianella leads OpenAI’s Policy & Partnerships team across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. He’s previously built the EMEA Public Policy function at Stripe, worked on technology regulation at Google and the G7/G20 process as a lead analyst for the G20 Research Group and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. He was a Young Leaders Fellow in 2016. 

 Alexandra McGee is the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at Marin Clean Energy (MCE). She was part of the sixth US cohort of the New Bridge Program 2023 and is the Chair of Marketing and Communications for the NBP Alumni Council.

Der Beitrag AI as a Democratizing Force? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Afterwards, Reem Alabali Radovan gave us insights into her work and the effects of the US withdrawal from development aid in a short interview.

Reem Alabali Radovan is a political scientist and, since 2021, an member of the German Bundestag for the social democrats (SPD). Prior to her appointment as Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development in May 2025, she was the Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees, and Integration.

Der Beitrag „We can’t compensate the gap left by USAID“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On the sidelines of the event, we interviewed Armand Zorn about the regulation of AI, European Social Media platforms and the fight against misinformation.

Der Beitrag AI: Consider not only the risks, but also the benefits erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Read this insider account to learn how the resulting uncertainty is affecting researchers at US universities.

We knew there was gravity to be felt by this administration, but I don’t think we knew it would happen this quickly and harshly. Universities in the South were already shifting gears under Biden’s Administration as state laws were being passed to stop education on crucial aspects of history such as critical race theory and interrupting mandates that ensured all employees were educated on current Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and best practices. Although pressure was placed on universities to shift their language, I don’t believe we expected to rewind the clock back three decades.

[related] Since the start of 2025, there have been several universities who have closed their doors to DEI offices, employees, practices, and policies, while expecting to recruit a “diverse” student population and critical thinkers with false advertisement of multiracial individuals on pamphlets. Where I work, there was already an uphill battle to get the department established and for others to see the true need for these intentional spaces. As soon as the Department of Education sent out their “Dear Colleague Letter”, I knew another shift was coming.

My heart dropped. I didn’t know if I would still have a job. For a moment, I did not know if I should carry on as normal or start to change everything slowly in my department to hopefully not draw too much attention. My direct report finally set me down, after what felt like an agonizing week.

On the “bright” side, my job was conditionally safe. I was no longer allowed to publish materials that stated the words: diversity, equity, inclusion, privilege. On the dark side, my landing page and social media of the department were “hidden” to give the university lawyers time to figure out if it was “worth the risk”. The landing page included several diversity scholarships, resources, contact information, and more helpful aids for students needing more assistance in this complicated time. I felt helpless. I did not feel true security past that conversation.

To threaten the fabric and integrity of what makes college a life-changing experience for most is embarrassing and shameful.

The Department of Education sent a follow-up notice of FAQs with detailed answers and examples, given that the first notice was vague and unclear, yet threatening. There was a bit of relief reading the new notice, but overall sadness and deflation. Cultural celebrations, such as Heritage Months, could be celebrated but trainings educating others on privilege would be condemned. The irony with the last statement is that when one learns why Heritage Months were initially created (to celebrate and acknowledge various ethnic and marginalized groups), a concept, like privilege, is unavoidable.

I am disappointed and nervous. Higher Education is supposed to be a place of progressive ideals, debates, conversations, and forward movement. To threaten the fabric and integrity of what makes college a life-changing experience for most is embarrassing and shameful. And this is only the beginning.

This article was written by a fellow of our New Bridge Program, who wishes to remain anonymous. Their identity is known to the editors. 

Der Beitrag „My heart dropped“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On January 20, 2025, the new administration issued a flurry of executive orders. Among them, Unleashing American Energy put an immediate pause on funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA).  I had recently secured a Department of Energy (DOE) grant with IRA funds to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at locations identified as critical by our residents living in underserved and Disadvantaged Communities (DAC). Given the grant’s emphasis on including diverse voices in transportation planning, I received the following message:

Recipients and subrecipients [of DOE funding] must cease any activities, including contracted activities, and stop incurring costs associated with DEI… Costs incurred after the date of this letter will not be reimbursed.

[related]That week, we had a number of focus group sessions scheduled to identify what clean transportation solutions would work for our neighborhoods. We were put in the position of deciding whether we’d cancel those sessions or pay for the cost of holding them ourselves. Given the preparation we’d done and the commitments we’d made to the community, we decided to eat the cost and hold them anyway.

“The flurry of orders is creating a sense of uncertainty and instability.”

Unfortunately, these sorts of decisions are being held everywhere. During the Biden administration, many of us were tasked with securing as much federal funding as we could in order to advance renewable energy and community commitments. With the federal funding freeze, all of that work is now possibly all for naught. Even beyond specific grants, the flurry of orders is creating a sense of uncertainty and instability. This translates into a chilling effect on projects. California remains committed to our ambitious climate goals, but if our state faces a deficit due to the withholding of federal funding, many of the state budget allocations designed for such projects are unexpectedly in jeopardy.

This particular DOE grant was later granted permission to move forward, only to be paused again later. This choppy stop-and-go movement is not only frustrating for staff but it actually increases costs and timelines as staff navigate these confusing and sometimes contradictory directions. While we remain committed to building a sustainable future, the road ahead just got much more difficult.

Alexandra McGee is the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at MCE, California’s first Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program. As an Atlantik-Brücke New Bridge fellow, she speaks on the importance of democratizing the just transition to a clean energy economy and the strength of local efforts to combat our shared global concerns. 

Der Beitrag “The road ahead just got much more difficult” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

After the exclusive presentation, Richard Edelman was available to answer further questions. Looking ahead to the next German government, he said:

 The key for the next german government is to deliver specifically for individuals.

Lesen Sie mehr zum Edelman Trust Barometer here.

Der Beitrag „We need to give people back a sense of optimism“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On October 7^th, 2023, Hamas terrorists invaded Israel from the Gaza strip and committed the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust. The degree of glee and barbarity with which the terrorists murdered and slaughtered that day even surprised Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt who has dedicated her entire career on the study of antisemitism. And as Secretary Clinton noted, the high degree of planning and organization behind the attack, all in order to kill and mutilate as many innocent civilians as possible, was particularly abhorrent.

“There is an invidious strain of antisemitism that has never gone away, but we had hopes it had been certainly submerged, that had been poking its head up for quite some time now.” Hillary Clinton

What happened in the days, weeks, and months after the attack up until today was similarly surprising, abhorrent, and organized. Both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Lipstadt pointed out that antisemitic outbursts celebrating the Hamas massacres in demonstrations and the online world happened within days or even hours after the attack, long before Israel went into Gaza. This underscored, in Secretary Clinton’s view, that “this was not spontaneous, this was highly organized” by groups that “had been on alert before October 7^th”. In this sense, October 7^th put the spotlight on the fact that “there has been a growing movement of antisemitism in many places in the world.”

But besides the outright antisemitic clamor, there was also a horrifying silence in the aftermath of October 7^th: “More horrific, however, [than the gender-based violence against women on October 7^th itself] was the silence of the feminist organizations [and] the human rights organizations”, Ambassador Lipstadt said to call out the antisemitic hypocrisy of many organizations which deem themselves progressive. The only difference between the attacks against women of October 7^th and similar attacks in the past, where these organizations were highly outspoken, the Ambassador noted, was the perception that the victims of October 7^th were Jewish.

A Different Kind of Hatred

[related] The striking fact that antisemitism is virulent and rising in all parts of society, including those which are otherwise considered highly aware toward of racism and hatred, indicates that antisemitism is not merely another form of racism, but structurally a different kind of hatred. While antisemitic discrimination in many ways resembles racist discrimination – Secretary Clinton pointed to the similarities between the antisemitic legislation of Nazi Germany 1933-1939 and the Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation in the southern United States up until 1965 –, antisemitism functions in a specific way: The antisemite, Ambassador Lipstadt explained, “punches up” against the Jews imagined as superior, powerful, and deceitful; the racist “punches down” against black people imagined as inferior, not smart enough and incapable.

This insight helps a great deal in understanding why antisemitism is not only virulent in right-wing white supremacy circles, where racism and antisemitism come together in conspiracy myths like the “Great Replacement Theory” according to which Jews are staging behind the scenes the mass immigration of non-white people into western societies in order to destroy them, but also connecting with rather left-wing, liberal or progressive milieus. The idea of an all-too-powerful, deceitful force as an oppressor can be easily smoothed into a worldview that is largely based on the distinction of oppressor and oppressed. This is how age-old antisemitic tropes like the blood libel also found their way into the discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian context before and after October 7^th, often poorly disguised as mere criticism of the Israeli government.

“Antisemitism is a threat to democracy and national stability. If you buy into the conspiracy myth which is at the heart of antisemitism, that Jews control the banks or the electoral system, you have given up on democracy. Authoritarian governments love antisemitism because it becomes the spoon to stir up the pot.” Deborah Lipstadt

So, what can be done against the “invidious strain of antisemitism that has never gone away, [and] that had been poking its head up for quite some time now”, as Secretary Clinton described it? The first advise both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Lipstadt offered is to recognize antisemitism as a threat to democracy, national stability, and security. This is insofar plausible as the idea that banks, the electoral system and many other institutions of modern democratic societies are somehow controlled and rigged by Jews is at the core of antisemitic belief systems. If this belief spreads, trust in democracy which is a necessary perquisite of democracy inevitably collapses.

Speak Out Against Antisemitism and Stand Up for Democracy

On a more practical level, Ambassador Lipstadt urged the audience to take antisemitism seriously, not to accept any “but” to antisemitism, to stand up and speak out against antisemitism. She highlighted that far too many Jews in all spheres of societal life – on the streets, in restaurants, or on college campuses – go undercover and hide their Jewishness. Wherever one encounters antisemitism, it is everyone’s responsibility to speak out against it. Because the alternative to speaking out would be silence, and as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany Amy Gutmann impressively stated in her opening remarks to the conversation: “Silence is injustice.”

Der Beitrag Clinton and Lipstadt: Combating Antisemitism erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag New Publication: Current Study on the State of Transatlantic Relations erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

by Steven Hill

The summer is barely halfway over, and already extreme heat has rattled nerves around the world. From Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal to Canada, California and other locations around the world, the increasingly severe impacts of global warming, including massive and unpredictable wildfires, have become disturbingly frequent.

[related]I still vividly remember the morning of 9 September 2020, when I woke up and stared out my bedroom window in San Francisco at the sight of an ominously orange glowing sky. It looked so ashy and dim that for a moment I thought the sun hadn’t come up. Then I saw the clock, and realized that the eerie orange hue was being caused by a thick haze of wildfire smoke that had fallen over the city from hundreds of miles away in Northern California. This made me shiver with alarm; I knew it was a forewarning of the day of reckoning to come.

This summer the New York City skyline was visited by its own orange sky day, the result of blazing wildfires hundreds of miles away across the Canadian border. Borders will not save anyone from this menacing global threat of climate change. Thousands of wildfires across Canada have scorched more than 30 million acres, an area bigger than North Korea, and more than four times the acreage burned in a typical wildfire season. Many towns have been evacuated and it’s only halfway through the fire season.

Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece also have faced unrelenting heat for weeks, but the European Space Agency has warned that the current heat wave is only the beginning. In Italy, which has been particularly hard hit, temperatures in many cities have soared to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) and higher, and deadly wildfires have ravaged the south. Climate scientist Hannah Cloke compared the effect to that of a giant oven swallowing the Mediterranean.

“The bubble of hot air that has inflated over southern Europe has turned Italy and surrounding countries into a giant pizza oven,” she said.

Most recently, the tropical island paradise of Maui in the US island state of Hawai’i went up in flames. The resort town of Lahaina turned into a towering inferno in which people had to flee into the nearby ocean to save themselves. The Maui death toll has surpassed 110 people, with more dead likely as firefighters search through the rubble. It is the deadliest wildfire in the US in a century, even more deadly than the Camp Fire in California in 2018, which killed 85 and destroyed an entire town, turning it into ashes. The only thing left standing were the remnants of brick chimneys. Ironically, the name of the obliterated town was Paradise.

In 2017, California wildfires caused $12.1 billion in damage, the highest in state history. In 2020, fire suppression costs surpassed $1 billion for the first time, as fighting fires drained the public taxes needed for education and health care.

Across the planet, this past June was the hottest month on record, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. It was accompanied by record high ocean temperatures and record low levels of Antarctic ice. Unlike previous years, the nights don’t always cool down and droughts have intensified, even as computer models predicting fire behavior have become unreliable. The first week in July was the hottest week on record, according to data from the World Meteorological Organization. These heatwaves have led to many premature deaths, especially among the elderly.

All of the evidence makes it clear that the planet is in what the World Meteorological Organization has described as “uncharted territory.” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, has urged world leaders to “act now” on the climate crisis.

So how are the world’s governments responding to this unprecedented challenge?

Climate change leaders – and foot-draggers

Environmental researchers at Yale and Columbia universities regularly rank the world’s nations according to their levels of eco-friendliness. The 2022 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) graded 180 countries, from Albania to Zimbabwe, on 32 key sustainability indicators, taking into account the latest data on critical things such as CO2 emissions, air and water quality and other public health factors. A few findings of the report stand out.

First, the world’s top fifteen most green, climate-conscious countries are all in Europe. In fact, 23 out of the top 25 green countries are European, with the other two countries in the top 25 being Japan (ranked 25th) and Australia (ranked 17th). Europe also holds 29 out of the top 35 spots. The European continent is leading the world.

Meanwhile, China (160), Russia (112) and India (180) are among the biggest carbon polluters. Even more disappointing, the United States is ranked only 43rd, right between the developing nations of Namibia and Dominica. That’s a decline from the 2020 EPI, when the US was ranked 24th. The world’s wealthiest nation is projected to fall far short of its net-zero greenhouse gas emissions targets established by the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. In fact by 2050, over 50% of global emissions are expected to come from just four countries – China, India, Russia and the US.

Opinion polls demonstrate that two-thirds of Americans believe that the US government should do more on climate. Unlike the authoritarian states of China and Russia, the US is a representative democracy, which in theory is supposed to be responsive and accountable to “the people.” So why isn’t the US government responding by following through on the public’s beliefs and commitments regarding climate change? This is perhaps one of the most significant policy dilemmas of our times.

The value of robust democracy

To understand Europe’s leadership in climate policy, it is helpful to understand that Europe’s vibrant democracies are quite different than the US, with very distinctive robust institutions and practices. Research by political scientists like Arend Lijphart and G. Bingham Powell has demonstrated that European democracies are far more representative of the varying political perspectives in society, and therefore are more reflective of a society-wide consensus than has been possible in the US.

Nearly all European nations use proportional representation electoral systems, as well as some degree of public financing of campaigns, free media time for political parties and candidates, inclusion in televised debates, and universal/automatic voter registration. These in turn result in a number of other good government features, such as multi-party democracy, higher voter turnout, more robust political debate, and the ability of everyday citizens to make sense of their political world (what political scientist Henry Milner has called “civic literacy”).

Multiparty democracy creates dialogue between the dominant mainstream parties and the junior parties, between the political center and the flanks of the spectrum. Minor parties in Europe mostly are welcomed for the valuable role they play as the “laboratories for new ideas,” challenging and stimulating voters, the media, and the major parties to think outside the conventional political box. In the short run that political dynamic can sound noisy and untidy, but in the medium and long terms it allows a much fuller airing of the issues and achieving a broader consensus, and a greater effectiveness to pass policy that reflects that consensus.

When it comes to environmental issues, pro-environmental parties across Europe have played an indispensable role. They have championed positions that initially had little public support because they were ahead of their time; now those same positions are the core of mainstream European politics, having been adopted by the major parties, even the conservative parties, as those positions became popular due to the increasingly obvious impacts of global warming and other environmental threats. European democracies are not perfect and have their own challenges. But on the whole, many have performed more effectively than most other governments.

A failure of America’s two party “winner take all” system

Representative democracy works very differently in the United States. Voters are mostly bunkered down in non-competitive, one-party districts and states where their frame of reference is not even of a two-party system, but of one party that dominates their entire region. Smaller parties are weak and unfunded, and rarely elect officeholders. Political monocultures result, where debate becomes all but frozen.

Without proportional representation, public financing, free media time and universal/automatic voter registration in the US, forward-looking voices have a hard time breaking through the duopoly and gaining a place at the table. Complicating matters further, in the U.S. Senate it takes a super-majority of 60 out of 100 Senators to pass legislation, due to a process rule known as the “filibuster” which can be used to terminate debate on any legislation. The US political system is still rooted in its antiquated, 18th-century origins, and that reality has led to a destructive form of “minority rule” in which a right wing Republican party led by Donald Trump has been able to kill environmental policy or any attempts to reach consensus on controversial issues.

Last year, President Joe Biden’s administration made progress with its passage of federal legislation that will spend an $369 billion on energy and climate change. That amounts to the largest investment in clean energy to combat climate change in US history. With the incentive of federal tax credits, companies have announced nearly 200 new clean energy projects totaling more than $110 billion in investment.

But in the 2022 elections, Republicans won back control of the US House. So the lack of a truly representative democracy that translates public opinion into effective policy will continue to hamper US efforts. Given the crucial role that America plays in the world, this lack of policy responsiveness is perhaps the greatest threat to the world’s future.

Steven Hill is publisher and chief author of DemocracySOS and is the author of “Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope In an Insecure Age.” You can reach him @StevenHill1776

Der Beitrag A hot summer of wildfires underscores the global urgency of governmental action erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In June, I participated in the fifteenth edition of the Oslo Freedom Forum, a global gathering of human rights activists and pro-democracy supporters. Few conferences are able to bring together such a collection of dissidents, persecuted individuals, and advocates; I wanted to hear and see what was on people’s minds. In the plenary sessions, keynote speakers described a litany of human rights abuses. Gulbahar Haitiwaji spoke about surviving China’s concentration camps – set up to terrorize the Uyghur population. Felix Maradiaga described Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s brutal campaign to silence his opponents. Victor Navarro, a journalist and former prisoner of conscience, talked about enduring torture during imprisonment by Venezuelan authorities. Nazanin Boniadi exposed the Iranian regime’s systematic assault on its population, noting that “Iranians are no longer afraid of prison, because Iran itself has become a prison.” After three grueling days of plenary presentations, side conversations with activists, and discussions in small workshops, three big themes emerged.

[related]First, the current landscape for human rights is grim. Democracy continues to backslide around the world – Freedom House’s 2023 report notes 17 consecutive years of democratic decline. Activists and dissidents face heavy pressure from authoritarian leaders in every region across the world. Democratic bright spots which emerged in the past decade have reversed. In the Middle East, the exuberance of Arab Spring has been replaced by civil war, authoritarian retrenchment, and political reversal. The last democratic holdout in the region, Tunisia, is fast turning into a dictatorship. In Africa, the Sudanese revolution has devolved into a bloody civil war as the army and RSF militia battle in the streets of Khartoum and throughout the country. In the meantime, its citizens face a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. In Myanmar, the country’s once promising transition to democratic rule has been violently extinguished. An illegitimate military junta governs through coercion and fear, arbitrarily detaining thousands of individuals and displacing millions of citizens.

Second, China and Russia are bolstering a rising bloc of authoritarian states through the provision of military arms, financial assistance, and political support. In Venezuela and Cuba, China has helped both regimes withstand popular uprisings by respectively furnishing Caracas with advanced surveillance technology and establishing joint military training facilities with Havana. In Africa, Russia’s private military army, the Wagner Group, has meddled in elections, obtained extractive concessions, and paved the way for a new generation of strongmen to consolidate power. The support goes both ways. Russia itself has received vital support in its military campaign against Ukraine in the form of imported drones and missiles from Iran, or shipments of assault rifles, body armor, drone parts, and other critical military equipment from China (much of which is flowing through Hong Kong).

Third, the Ukraine war has emerged as a signal test of democracies’ commitment to confronting the global authoritarian tide. As Francis Fukuyama intoned from the Oslo stage, the fight in Ukraine will be decisive, not just for relations between Ukraine and Russia, but for the world overall – “because it’s going to demonstrate whether the strong state can actually get away with this kind of naked aggression.” Thus far, democracies have demonstrated resolve in providing billions of military assistance to Kyiv to recapture territory and strike Russian forces. While a Ukrainian victory against Russia will not save global democracy, it can make a material difference in curbing authoritarian momentum. The stakes are high. On the one hand, authoritarian regimes have shown surprising weakness – from China’s failed Covid lockdown policy to Iran’s bumbling attempts to quell mass uprisings. Russia’s defeat in Ukraine would substantially change the narrative about the triumphal march of global authoritarianism. It would demonstrate that aggressing nations will be punished and that international norms will be enforced. Moreover, a Russian loss would drastically weaken Putin’s grip on power – thereby diminishing the overall strength of the authoritarian bloc. Conversely, a victory by Russia would lock in an alternative account – that democracies lack the stamina and political will to confront autocratic forces, and that countries can make a better bet aligning with Beijing and Moscow rather than remaining with Washington and Brussels.

The conversations in Oslo were tough, but pro-democracy advocates and human rights defenders remain hopeful. While authoritarian governments appear to be on the ascent, dictatorships are inherently brittle (such is the peril of ruling without the consent of the governed). When political collapses occur, they are often swift and sudden. Autocrats around the world should take heed.

Steven Feldstein is a Senior Fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before joining the Carnegie Endowment he worked as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of State under President Obama. He is also a Young Leader Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke from the class of 2012. You can learn more about Steven Feldstein here.

Der Beitrag The Ukraine war as a signal test of democracies’ commitment of confronting the authoritarian tide erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Carl Luna

“The secret of being a topnotch con man is being able to know what the mark wants and how to make him think he’s getting it.” Ken Kesey

There are three parts of the con: convince your marks you can fulfill their deepest desires, convince them that you can do it on the cheap, then take their money (or, in politics, power) and run. In 21^st Century, economic insecurity and frustration has allowed hucksters posing as statesmen to run such a gambit, transforming the American Dream into the Great American Con.

[related]Emerging out of the unprecedented national prosperity following World War II, the American Dream was simple: in a land of endless opportunity, if you worked hard, you would make it – at least to the middle class, if not upper. As the economy exploded, the idea of doubling the national standard of living every generation was no longer an aspiration. It was a birthright. By the 1970s the post-war boom petered out. The American economy continued to grow (often faster than that of its other high-income allies) but the costs of securing three pillars of the middle class status – affordable higher education, healthcare and housing – rose far faster than income and the fourth, guaranteed retirement, disappeared for millions. Life may have been getting better, but it now took 2-3 generations to double the standard of living rather than the one promised by the American Dream. With expectations delayed came an increasingly anxious middle class, angry working class and disconnected upper class. This sense of failure of the American Dream led to its amendment in the 1980: If someone doesn’t get ahead in America then they didn’t work hard enough and don’t deserve support or sympathy. The age of “Welfare Queens” – a derogatory term used to stigmatize women on welfare, often specifically targeting single black mothers – was born. Government began a decades-long quest to cut the social safety net for the “underserving” with the false promise that doing so would free up monies to support massive tax cuts, stimulating a great economy for all. Instead, the rich got richer faster and the rest slower, if at all.

In the 21^st Century, another, more insidious amendment to the Dream was added. Politicians began speaking of “real” (hence deserving) Americans (traditional – usually white and male –blue collar workers) and argued if these hardworking real Americans weren’t succeeding it had to be because Others were keeping them down. Real Americans needed champions to vanquish these enemies and return America to its golden days of yesteryear. This is the Great American Con.

Where the American Dream was based on aspiration, the American Con is based on aspersion– and despair. From the 1960s to the 1990s, this Con sat on the edge of mainstream American politics, as politicians from George Wallace to Pat Buchanan blamed minorities and immigrants for declining blue-collar wages. It was only in the aftermath of the Great Recession that the Great Con achieved true national power. The Con, sitting at the core of MAGA-like movements in wealthy nations where the status of dominant majorities is being shaken by demographic and technological shifts, is based on a simple promise: If only We can find Them (immigrants, racial and gender minorities and elites of all sorts – academic, cultural, economic, political, urban elites) and stop Them, We, the real (fill in blank: Americans, British, Germans…) can return to the glorious past.

The Great Con flourishes because neither mainstream progressives nor conservatives really know how to address an economy changing more rapidly than at any time in history.  Progressives work to recycle social programs that worked for 20^th century industrial economies while conservatives seek to time warp back to an even earlier mythological age of laissez faire economics. Neither paradigm deals with the utter disruption of 21^st century post – and, with the rapid emergence of AI, post-post-industrial societies.

At least progressives and conservatives share a common faith that adopting their policies would result in positive change for people. The hucksters of the Great American Con, like all great conmen, could care less about people, seeing them only as a source of power to exploit. But today’s political conmen have a problem: having launched their con, they can’t easily take the money and run. Just as their ilk did in the 1920s and 1930s, their only endgame is to ride their con either to infamy or permanent power – the inevitable authoritarian payoff.

You can’t con someone unless they want to be conned. As long as Americans lack the resolve to grapple with the fundamental consequences of unprecedented revolutions in technology and economics and, instead, continue to look to the cheap fix of blaming others, we will remain mired in the Great American Con. But the American Dream is a dream of hope. America is still, despite real problems, a beacon of possibilities across our planet. You don’t hear as much about people wanting a piece of the Russian or the Chinese Dreams (though with a baby born in Shanghai now projected to live 7 years longer than a baby born in Washington, DC, how much longer this will be the case is the great question of the 21^st century.) America can make itself Great for the 21^st century. But not if we continue to fall for our own con.

Der Beitrag The Great American Con erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany John B. Emerson, Chairman of the American Council on Germany, and Chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke Sigmar Gabriel, former Federal Foreign Minister, spoke about the domestic and foreign policy priorities of Germany’s new government represented by the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Free Democrats. They analyzed the political handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, the international fight against climate change and the appropriate reaction to the tensions with Russia in the Ukraine crisis. Juliane Schäuble, U.S. Correspondent, Der Tagesspiegel, moderated the discussion. The event was held in cooperation with the American Council on Germany and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall.

Der Beitrag The priorities of Germany’s new government erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Internationally, confidence in the U.S. president has increased significantly from Trump to Biden. At the end of Trump’s term, only 17% of polled publics in 16 different countries were confident in the U.S. president, whereas this year, 75% said they were. Similarly, confidence in the U.S. president’s ability to manage international affairs increased.

Jacob Poushter, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research, Pew Research Center, presented these and other insights from the latest Pew survey results.

Most of the polled international publics do not think that the U.S. is taking their country’s interest into account when making foreign policy decisions. In Germany, about half of respondents, 51%, thought so.

Domestically, President Biden’s approval rating had decreased significantly: 44% of Americans approved of the job Biden is doing, which is worse than presidents Bush and Obama fared during the same timeframe in their terms, and down from 54% at the beginning of his time in office. His approval rating is similar to that of President Clinton and higher than President Trump’s. According to Poushter, lower approval ratings for presidents have become more common: the deep polarization in American politics means that presidents now rarely get above 55%.

In Biden’s case, the 10% decline in approval since the beginning of his term is to a large degree due to foreign policy – a policy area that is “generally not the top priority for Americans,” says Poushter. Yet, 69% of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, feel that the U.S. has failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan and 42% say that the Biden administration has done a poor job handling the crisis in Afghanistan.

You can take a closer look at the survey findings in this Pew Research Center Slide Show.

Der Beitrag Changing Views of and in the United States erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Panel 1: The Pollster and the Policy Expert

Janina Mütze, Co-Founder and CEO, Civey

Julia Reuschenbach, Lecturer for Poltical Science,
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

Moderator:
Sudha David-Wilp, Deputy Director Berlin Office, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Panel 2: The Politicians

Marieluise Beck, Director for East-Central and Eastern Europe, LibMod and Former Member of the German Bundestag (Alliance 90/The Greens)

Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke and Former Member of the German Bundestag, Vice Chancellor and Secretary of State (Social Democrats)

Ruprecht Polenz, President, The German Association for East European Studies and Former Member of the German Bundestag (Christian Democrats)

Moderator:
Ambassador John B. Emerson, Chairman, American Council on Germany; Former Ambassador of the United States to Germany

Panel 3: The Pundits

Steven Erlanger, Chief Diplomatic Correspondent in Europe, The New York Times

Dr. Anna Sauerbrey, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Der Tagesspiegel

Moderator:
Dr. David Deißner, Executive Director, Atlantik-Brücke

Der Beitrag Election Readout 2021 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“Saving Democracy: Reinventing Institutions & Practices for the 21st Century”

On July 12, 2021, Dr. Jan-Werner Müller, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, discussed his new book, “Democracy Rules,” which suggests that we need to re-invigorate the intermediary institutions that have been deemed essential for democracy’s success: political parties and free media. World Affairs Councils of America President and CEO Bill Clifford moderated the conversation.

Democracy is under attack. Rising populism, waning trust, and a period of unprecedented uncertainty caused by the Covid-19 pandemic have strained democratic institutions. What can be done to reinvigorate the intermediary institutions that have been considered essential for democracy’s success since the nineteenth century: political parties and free media?

According to Dr. Müller, there is reason to be optimistic; the wide spread discontent with the current state of democracy, apparent from numerous surveys, is not necessarily dangerous or a rebuke of democratic ideals. Instead, it could be seen as a healthy sign of democracy in action and as a response to increasing polarization. Dr. Müller stressed that deep levels of polarization – as they can be currently observed in the US, for example – are not inevitable. Polarization, he argues, is an outcome of political processes, and can also be reversed by it.

Dr. Müller also stressed that rightwing populists are learning from each other, adapting successful strategies, and “refin(ing) right-wing populist authoritarian governance”.

“Democracies in Distress: Europe and the US”

On July 13, 2021, Anne Applebaum, Staff Writer at The Atlantic, spoke with Dr. David Deißner, Executive Director at Atlantik-Brücke, about the current state of democracy, both in the United States and in Europe.

In recent years, public opinion surveys have indicated a rising level of distrust in democratic institutions and practices on both sides of the Atlantic. Populist movements have gained support and political divisions have deepened in many countries, making political compromise and normal democratic governance increasingly difficult. The discussion tried to give answers as to what causes these trends and what can be done to address them.

Applebaum highlighted that there is no monocausal explanation for these trends. However, as she argues in her recently published book, a part of this change can be traced to intellectuals and journalists of the 1990s, who could be described as center right at the time, but have since transformed into populists or nationalists. Applebaum argued that the danger lies in their quest to undermine the institutions of democracy.

Among this movement, she noted, there seems to be a “unifying theme of disappointment” and a “strong element of nostalgia,” either for an imagined or real past, as well as a deep disappointment with the present and a dislike of rapid societal change. Many are disillusioned by social, demographic, and political change, they feel that something drastic needs to be done to get the country back to how it used to be. However, there is also often a component of personal disappointment and many saw a personal opportunity in the ascend of the far right.

„Understanding the Rise of lliberal Politics in Europe and the U.S. – And What to Do About It“

On July 13^th, 2021, Dr. Daniel Ziblatt, Eaton Professor of Government at Harvard University and Director of the Transformations of Democracy Group at the WZB Social Science Center Berlin, spoke with the moderator of the discussion, Paulina Fröhlich, Head of the Future Democracy Programme, Das Progressive Zentrum, about the rise of illiberal politics in the Western world and what can be done to reverse the trend.

The decline of established political parties, media, and interest groups has opened the door to anti-democratic forces, posing new challenges for our democracies. Europe’s establishment parties are faltering and the rise of social media poses new challenges on both sides of the Atlantic. What can be done to rebuild confidence and to increase citizen engagement to improve the effectiveness of our democracies?

According to Ziblatt, at the core of today’s issues lies the fact that “the establishment’s gatekeeping power has eroded dramatically.” Ziblatt’s main argument is that the crisis of democracy can be traced to the weakening of the political establishment – namely political parties, interest groups, and media outlets – in many countries. The establishment’s control over resources has been dwindling, which has made politicians more responsive to popular demands, but, at the same time, has also given rise to dangerous populists.

Der Beitrag Germany, the US, and the Future of Democracy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

President Biden campaigned on a pledge to unify the country. He also promised to help middle and working class Americans and to address racial gaps. All of this is a tall order and will be difficult if not impossible to accomplish in a very closely divided country in which his party has a one-vote margin in the U.S. Senate.

His diagnosis was right. America’s middle class has not been doing well. As Richard Reeves and I show in our mini-book, A New Contract with the Middle Class, their incomes have risen only very slowly over the past 40 years. This contrasts with families at both the top and, more surprisingly, with those at the bottom of the distribution. The more affluent have benefitted from a rising wage premium for the best-educated along with soaring returns from capital at the very top. The story at the bottom is more complicated but is primarily the result of their increased eligibility for subsidized health benefits whose price – if not their value – has soared. Whether we should count those benefits in income at all remains controversial and the American safety net, although it has some new threads, remains skimpy by European standards. Overall, income inequality has risen to unprecedented levels with most of the problem being runaway incomes and wealth at the top.

America’s middle class has not been doing well.

The only reason that middle class incomes have grown at all is because this group is working harder than ever. Most of them are now supported by two earners and virtually all of the increase in their incomes is the result of women’s entry into employment and the growth of women’s wages over this period. So, these families have paid a cost in terms of foregone time at home.  Over the same period, men’s wages have declined among the working class without a college degree and many have withdrawn from the labor force. These longer-term trends were, of course, exacerbated by the pandemic-induced recession, which was especially hard on the less educated unable to work remotely as well as on women and minorities.

So far Biden is making good on his promises to help these groups. He has already pushed through a short-term relief package that provides stimulus checks to most families, bumps up unemployment insurance, provides help to states, to schools, to the health care system, and to small businesses. Included in the package was a child tax credit, similar to a child allowance, providing $3,000 per child to children 6-17 and $3,600 to children under the age of six. That provision alone reduces child poverty by about half. But even for a middle-class family, earning as much as $100,000 a year, the credit is equivalent to providing unconditional cash assistance of roughly $10,000 a year (if the family has 3 young children). In an American context, that is unprecedented and a major victory for the progressive wing of his party.

The American Rescue Plan was just a first step – a short-term effort to deal with the pandemic and restart the economy.

The American Rescue Plan was just a first step – a short-term effort to deal with the pandemic and restart the economy. The next step is, in the words of the new Administration, to “build back better.” That means making large investments in infrastructure, in clean energy and the environment, in research, and in long-term care facilities for an aging population. It also means investing in families – in their education, child care, paid leave, and making the child tax credit enacted in the relief package permanent.

The President most concrete effort to address racial injustice is to reform policing. He also wants to provide immigrants a path to citizenship.

These proposals are big and bold. And they are also expensive. The Administration’s first budget calls for spending $5 trillion over the next 10 years, with about three-quarters to be paid for by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and the remainder to be charged to the nation’s credit card – adding to an already whopping debt that is over 100 percent of the U.S. GDP and projected to grow for at least another decade.

Given the large amount of fiscal stimulus already enacted with still more contemplated, some mainstream economists believe that the risk of this entire agenda being inflationary is high.  True, the Fed could always step on the brakes if needed, raising interest rates and choking off some of the demand but that involves a level of fine-tuning that won’t be easy to get right.

Budget hawks are also worried about the effects on the national debt. Can we borrow our way to prosperity? A new, and quite influential, view is that it’s acceptable to borrow as long as the spending represents an investment in the future and as long as interest rates remain low. Of course, if inflation starts to get out of control, and the Fed needs to step in, interest rates will almost surely rise and the cost of sustaining a massive debt burden will escalate, possibly to unsustainable levels.

Unifying the country is far more difficult than repairing the economy.

Politically, America is badly divided and unifying the country is far more difficult than repairing the economy. One third of Americans and about two-thirds of Republicans believe that Joe Biden stole the election and should not be President. Efforts to strengthen democracy such as a proposal to secure the right to vote, and another one to investigate the violent insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, have been blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Democrats have a razor thin margin in the Senate and efforts to find bipartisan compromise had, at this writing, failed to bear fruit. The President’s pandemic relief bill was enacted without Republican support, using a special legislative procedure called “reconciliation” that can only be invoked when a bill is primarily a spending or revenue bill affecting the federal government’s budget. That special procedure cannot be used to accomplish other items on the President’s agenda such as raising the minimum wage or providing greater access to the vote or reforming immigration. Frustration with the process has led many Democrats to seriously consider doing away with the filibuster – a procedure intended to encourage bipartisanship but one that allows a minority of 41 Senators to block any proposed bill. Donald Trump may no longer be President but his hold on the Republican party seems as firm as ever, making the space for compromise almost nonexistent.

Behind the political divisions is an unravelling of social norms and civic good will that used to undergird American society.

Lurking behind these political divisions is a still more troubling epistemic and cultural unravelling of the kind of social norms and civic good will that used to undergird American society and its democracy. Epistemically, there is no longer any agreement on the facts. Trust in the mainstream media, in government itself, and in other people has declined substantially.  Political identity is now as important as race or religion or gender in defining the subgroup to which one belongs. Over a third of Americans don’t want their children to marry someone from the opposite party.

Cultural battles loom large. Legislatures in Republican states have enacted laws that seem designed to deny racial minorities access to the vote, other laws that severely limit access to abortion, and still others that define what should and shouldn’t be taught in the schools about the nation’s troubled racial history. While such laws are being challenged in the courts, with a 6 to 3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, conservatives have the upper hand. Finding compromise on these or other cultural issues is unlikely, leaving the social fabric weakened and even families divided in their personal beliefs.

President Biden’s proposals may be big and bold, but they are also pragmatic.

My view is that both economic and cultural issues are playing a role in America’s divisions.  Economic problems lead those who have been left behind to lose faith in their government and to search for scapegoats. But whatever economic problems they face are exacerbated by disagreements over values. President Biden’s proposals may be big and bold, but they are also pragmatic, focused primarily on improving people’s lives while cooling their cultural passions.

Can democracy in America survive these challenges? Unfortunately, that is no longer a rhetorical question. So far, our legal system and a somewhat peaceful transition of power have prevented the worst from occurring and the current occupant of the White House has adopted a moderate tone designed to unify the country. Most ordinary Americans are moderate in their views and one can only hope that, in the end, they will not want to see their country destroyed by activists pursuing more extreme agendas. The turnout in the 2020 election was unprecedented, suggesting that citizens are increasingly aware of the stakes. On the one hand, the electorate is becoming more liberal as young people and minorities increase their share of the population. On the other hand, political rules – such as the electoral college and the disproportionate representation of small states in the Senate – work in the other direction. America’s future, and that of its friends and allies around the globe, rests on whether a pragmatic and moderate President can steer the country to a better place.

Isabel V. Sawhill is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, working in the Center on Children and Families and on the Future of the Middle Class Initiative. Dr. Sawhill’s research spans a wide array of economic and social issues, including fiscal policy, economic growth, poverty, social mobility, and inequality. Her most recent book is “A New Contract with the Middle Class” (available for free at Brookings.edu), co-athored with Richard Reeves.

Der Beitrag Can President Biden Unify America? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In Pew’s latest survey of America’s image abroad, you look at how the international perception of the United States has changed after the election of Joe Biden. Within the transatlantic community, there has certainly been a feeling of renewal and optimism after November 3. Has this feeling reached the broader publics in Europe and Asia that you surveyed?

Richard Wike: This survey highlights a big change in how people in Europe and Asia view the United States, with attitudes turning much more positive. In fact, these are some of the largest shifts we’ve seen since we began surveying on this topic two decades ago. For example, if you look at 12 nations that we polled both in 2020 and this year, a median of just 17% across those nations had confidence in Trump last year, but 75% have confidence in Biden this year. The percentage across those 12 countries with a favorable view of the U.S. overall rose from 34% last year, when we saw all-time lows in many nations, to 62% in this survey. So there’s been a big change in how key allies and partners of the U.S. view who is in the White House, and that’s had a big impact on America’s overall image.

What, ultimately, is more important for Joe Biden’s positive rating in the international community – his policies or his personality?

Both are important. Part of the approval is about personality and personal leadership characteristics. Not many people thought that Trump was well qualified for the job. They do tend to think that Biden is well qualified. The majorities typically thought that Trump was arrogant and dangerous, and not many people say that about Biden. Trump’s best trait according to our polling when he was in office was that he was a strong leader. But even there, Biden gets better ratings than Trump did. So, regarding leadership characteristics and personality characteristics, Biden does better than Trump. But beyond personality it’s also about policies. During the Trump presidency, there was a lot of opposition to his key policies, people did not approve of the US withdrawing from international commitments, they didn’t like the US putting a barrier between themselves and the rest of the world. People now welcome the turn to multilateralism that they see from the Biden administration. Climate is a good example. There was a lot of opposition to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, and a huge majority say they approve of President Biden’s reentry into the Paris Agreement. Similarly, people welcome the US rejoining the WHO, they approve of Biden’s policy to allow more refugees into the United States. Overall, there is a much more positive view about the Biden administration’s policies so far compared to what we saw during the Trump years.

Would you consider the upward trend in America’s image abroad sustainable, even if Joe Biden, due to the close majorities in Congress, is not able to put all his policies into action?

There is always a certain reservoir of good will towards the United States, even during times when people are frustrated with the United States. But it also matters what the US does, whether it is able to deliver on its promises. Even in this survey with high ratings for President Biden, there are still concerns about America’s promises. There is a sense that the US doesn’t always act in a multilateral fashion. Majorities in every public that we surveyed said that they don’t think the US considers the interests of countries like theirs when it makes foreign policy decisions. That is a consistent finding that we’ve seen over the years, no matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. There is a sense that the US does not always live up to its ideals or listen to other countries.

You show that a similar uptick in Western European’s trust in the US President happened when President Obama was elected. Are we seeing the very same trend today as 12 years ago, or are different factors at play?  

There are some similarities between the rebound in America’s image today and what we saw in 2009 after President Obama had come into office: in both cases, people reacted positively to a more multilateral approach to foreign policy compared to the predecessor. It is important to note that although Obama was pretty popular overall, there were certain policies that people did not like during the Obama years, as well. What has changed since then is that the world has changed in many ways. The rise of China has changed the geopolitical environment in which an American president is operating. The pandemic has changed the world, and there has been a continued economic anxiety in many countries. So despite the similarities in numbers, it is important to note that Joe Biden is inheriting a world that has changed since the Obama years.

With the significant shifts in global dynamics that you described, what are the major differences you are seeing between the perception of the United States among publics in Europe and those in the Asia-Pacific region?

We do a lot of polling on views about China. A couple of things that are interesting have come out of that in recent years. One is that people very much see China’s power on the rise. And the other is that views towards China have turned negative in many of the countries where we do our surveys. 2020 in many ways was a low point in America’s image. There was a widespread perception that the US mishandled the pandemic and that, among some other things, led to record lows in ratings for the US. At the same time, there were also record lows for China in many countries. That was driven by concern about how China handled the pandemic, in some cases concerns about China in the security realm, in others China as an economic partner. So both superpowers, the United States and China, have been seen in an increasingly negative light over the past couple of years. The US’ image has now rebounded, and we will have some new numbers on China, soon.

How has the political divide in the United States and especially the events of January 6^th of this year influenced the international community’s view? Has America’s image and credibility as a world leader been compromised by this development?

That was one very interesting finding of this survey: the overall rating of the US improved, but people have concerns nonetheless, including concerns about the health of American democracy. We asked people: “Do you think the US is currently a good example of democracy? Or was it never a good example of democracy? Or did it use to be a good example, but hasn’t been in recent years?” In most places, people say that the US used to be a good example but is not any longer. Fewer than one in five say the US is currently a good example of democracy. We didn’t ask specifically about the events of January 6^th, when a violent mob stormed the US Capitol, but certainly that’s the kind of thing that will affect how people are feeling about the health of American democracy. And there is great concern about that in the publics we’ve included in this year’s survey. That is an important finding for America’s overall soft power, in which being regarded as a model democracy played a big role.

Later this year, we’ll release more survey results on views of the U.S., with a particular focus on how people see various elements of American soft power. And soon we will also release a report updating many of our key trends on attitudes toward China.

Richard Wike is director of global attitudes research at Pew Research Center. He conducts research and writes about international public opinion on a variety of topics, such as America’s global image, the rise of China, democracy, and globalization.

Der Beitrag America’s Image Abroad erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In the kick-off discussion for our series on the new U.S. administration, A.B. Stoddard, Associate Editor and Columnist, RealClearPolitics, and Bob Cusack, Editor in Chief, The Hill, share their expectations for Biden-Harris and the 117th Congress. The two high-profile journalists discuss topics such as the COVID-relief package, the role of the left wing of the Democratic party, and the migration crisis at the border.

Former Representative Barbara Comstock (R-Virginia, 2015-2019) moderated the discussion.

The event was held in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag President Biden and the 117th Congress erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Biden is likely to be a one-term president and is, therefore, more willing to push the boundaries to get his policy priorities passed. [quoter]A.B. Stoddard[/quoter]

Joe Biden’s narrow election success in November 2020 foreshadowed a difficult time ahead for the new president. As a candidate, Biden had emphasized bipartisanship as key to his governing. The passing of the Covid bill in March, however, revealed President Biden’s willingness to also govern along strict party lines to get legislation passed. A.B. Stoddard observed: “Biden is likely to be a one-term president and is, therefore, more willing to push the boundaries to get his policy priorities passed.”

The Covid relief package was ultimately not passed through a bipartisan effort but the so-called “reconciliation process”. This process enables legislation to pass by a simple majority, which the Democratic Party currently holds with Vice President Harris’ tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

The slow response to the migration situation at the border was the first political mistake of the Biden administration. [quoter]A.B. Stoddard[/quoter]

As Stoddard points out, the new government not only faces a potential partisan gridlock in Congress but also opposing sentiments within the Democratic Party itself. The current migration influx at the southern border poses the first challenge to a unified Democratic government. Whereas some in the Senate may call for a more progressive approach, others emphasize the need to focus primarily on the domestic situation before anything else. Stoddard warned: “The slow response to the migration situation at the border was the first political mistake of the Biden administration: it divides the party and creates a diversion away from the success of the Covid vaccine program.” It might affect the president’s current high favorability among voters. 

Internationally, Joe Biden is expected to combine a return to traditional foreign policy while also adapting to the new challenges that arose under the prior administration. While President Biden reenters the U.S. in international accords and treaties, Cusack also points to the new foreign policy confrontations and dynamics, such as toward Russia, Iran, and China, that the U.S. government will have to face: “The Biden administration’s foreign policy has been cautious and is still evaluating many situations. The traditional allies, however, that have been pushed away by the former administration, are back in the fold of the U.S. government, ” Cusack said.

There has been a clear emphasis on multilateralism thus far, shaping the U.S. foreign policy theme. According to Stoddard, the cautious undertone mentioned by Cusack could also serve the administration’s interest in keeping the international stage calm and free of conflict, to better focus on domestic challenges instead.

If there is one thing that won’t go back to normal, it’s trade.[quoter]Bob Cusack[/quoter]

Cusack warns that not all will go back to as it used to be: “If there is one thing that won’t go back to normal, it’s trade,” the journalist observed. Both parties share skepticism in terms of how trade will continue to be conducted going forward, and this won’t change even under the new administration.

Der Beitrag President Biden and the 117th Congress: Journalists’ Perspectives on What to Expect erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA, 1993-2017), Senate predecessor of now Vice President Kamala Harris and  Co-Chair of the political advisory firm Mercury, spoke with Marie-Astrid Langer, U.S. Correspondent, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), about the high levels of polarization in the U.S., the future of the Republican Party, and the state of the transatlantic partnership.

Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, a national reckoning for racial justice and the fallout from the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol in early January, tension and political polarization in the United States grew. While running for president, Joe Biden pledged to work towards healing a deeply divided nation. However, the question remains how the new president will deliver on his promise in today’s highly polarized political climate.

Bryan Lanza and Morris Reed, partners at Mercury and colleagues of Senator Boxer also participated in the debate. David Deißner, Atlantik-Brücke’s Executive Director, moderated the discussion.

Der Beitrag “Maybe We’ll See a Realignment” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Just under a year after the outbreak of the Corona pandemic, Germans’ confidence in institutions (government, companies, media and NGOs) continued to grow. This makes Germany unique in international comparison, as shown by the latest data from the 21st “Edelman Trust Barometer”. On the occasion of the survey’s launch in Germany, Atlantik-Brücke organized a panel discussion together with Edelman Germany.

If you would like to rewatch the event, please click here.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO of Edelman, and Christiane Schulz, CEO of Edelman Germany, outlined which institutions have gained or lost trust and discussed how institutions can meet expectations in the long term. Atlantik-Brücke board member Julie Teigland, Managing Partner EY Europe, Middle East, India and Africa, Ernst & Young, and Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, commented on the survey results.

David Deißner, Executive Director of Atlantik-Brücke, moderated the event.

The “Edelman Trust Barometer” is an annual study by the communications firm Edelman that examines trust in institutions. For this year’s study, 33,000 people from 28 countries were surveyed. The results of the study can be found here.

Der Beitrag A Trust Crisis? The Edelman Trust Barometer 2021 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Over the last few years, political views in the US seem to have become more and more ideologically entrenched. With your polling firm Echelon Insights, you have thoroughly studied voters’ opinions. Looking at these polls, which issues would you say are at the heart of the political divide? 

The divisions in American politics are about positions and priorities. People in different parties hold very different views about significant issues like race, gender, economics, religion – a very wide range of topics. But they are also divided about what issues are most important. Democrats hold issues such as racial equality and climate change to be at the top of their priority list, while for Republicans those issues are not seen as crises. Republicans would instead prioritize issues like “cancel culture” and pushing back against what they view as a progressive push to drive conservative views out of the public discourse. Democrats and Republicans are divided about what issues are most important.

How have these topics changed over the years, particularly for Republican and swing voters? What has driven this development?

We tend to think of issues in America as divided into two varieties – “social and cultural” issues and “economic” issues. Donald Trump was able to build a larger coalition by adding cultural conservatives who hold more “big government” type economic views into the GOP. He did not talk very much about cutting spending or shrinking the size of government. In today’s Republican Party, issues like government spending are lower on the priority list than they were a decade ago at the height of the Tea Party movement. Additionally, the sorts of issues within the “social and cultural” issue category have changed. Republicans talk less these days about something like gay marriage or even abortion, which were the social issues of the 2000s, and talk more about issues like religious freedom and fighting what they view as the growing influence of a hyper-progressive ideology coming out of universities and media organizations.

Swing voters meanwhile remain mostly focused on their own economic wellbeing and safety. They are less animated by these hot buttons and are more interested in good governance and a strong economy. This is how Donald Trump was able to perform reasonably well with swing voters despite taking some positions and actions that are off-putting. But this was also Trump’s downfall, because he received poor ratings for his handling of COVID-19 and this was a very serious pocketbook and wellbeing issue this past year.

When Donald Trump won the Republican party’s nomination and was subsequently elected President of the United States, pundits and politicians alike commented that Trump had “hijacked” the party. Would you agree with this assessment?

Trump revealed that a large portion of the Republican voter base was not necessarily on the same page as many Republican politicians. In the 2016 campaign, of the seventeen candidates on the Republican side, sixteen ran claiming to be the most “conservative.” Donald Trump meanwhile never even bothered much with that label, and in fact won over a surprising number of moderate Republicans. He realized that what people cared more about was not who was most conservative but who was most willing to fight. It is true that initially a majority of Republicans did not like him but when it became a choice between him and Hillary Clinton, Republicans were willing to support him, and that support stayed relatively consistent throughout his presidency.

Trump revealed that a large portion of the Republican voter base was not necessarily on the same page as many Republican politicians.

What influence does former President Trump have on the Republican party, now that he is no longer in office?

Donald Trump remains influential because he reoriented the policy agenda for Republicans away from limited government and around issues like immigration, cultural issues, and China. In some ways, because he shook the GOP from its old orthodoxies, it has created an open landscape for new leaders to present policy agendas that look different than the past. However, there does not seem to be a large appetite at the moment for advancing a new agenda, as the party is still caught up in fights over whether to be pro- or anti-Trump. My colleague Patrick Ruffini put it best when he said the future of the party cannot be about fighting over pro- or anti-Trump but rather whether the party will be ABOUT Trump or will be ABOUT new leadership and new ideas. At the moment, there are not many voices rising up to propose a different path that is appealing to many Republicans, so Trump remains the de facto leader until someone comes along with something better that can lead Republican voters in a new way.

Because Trump shook the GOP from its old orthodoxies, it has created an open landscape for new leaders to present policy agendas that look different than the past.

With such vastly different political figures as Marjorie Taylor Greene, who openly embraces conspiracy theories and continues to allege that the election was rigged, and Liz Cheney, who has spoken out in favor of impeaching former President Trump, what common ground is there for Republicans? What might the future of the GOP look like?

I still believe that there are things that unify Republicans despite these overwhelming divides. For instance, Republicans of all stripes are skeptical of government as a problem-solving tool, generally favor low taxes, and believe that sharp shifts in social and cultural norms are to be viewed skeptically. And being the party in opposition is always unifying in so far as people with otherwise very different styles can agree that they oppose what the other side is doing. Being the opposition party will help unify Republicans in the near term. But simply opposing what the other side is doing will not be enough to truly rebuild the party’s standing with the voters who have drifted away during the last five years.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is co-founder of the D.C.-based opinion research and analytics firm Echelon Insights. At the end of January, the firm conducted a survey asking registered voters about their views on the presidential election, the storming of the capitol, and the impeachment proceedings. You can take a look at the survey results here.

Soltis Anderson is also a columnist for The Washington Examiner and author of the book “The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up)”. She is a regular contributor for Fox News and hosts the show „What Are The Odds?”.

Der Beitrag “Being the opposition party will help unify Republicans” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Robin Fehrenbach

Scientists have predicted the outbreak of a pandemic for some time now. To be well prepared for such an outbreak, worldwide different initiatives are working at the intersection of genome research, biology, and artificial intelligence. One such initiative, the Human Vaccines Project (HVP), was initiated by Wayne Koff at Harvard University in 2016. Today, he is the president and CEO of the initiative that started out conducting research on HIV. Together with a global network of companies and research centers, Koff and his team are pursuing a visionary goal: “In the long-term, the Human Vaccines Project is looking to create a model of the human immune system, with the help of A.I.,” says Koff. Within a decade, he estimates, experts in the field of artificial intelligence will be able to create such a model.

In the long-term, the Human Vaccines Project is looking to create a model of the human immune system, with the help of A.I.[quoter]Wayne Koff[/quoter]

Another important actor in the worldwide fight against diseases is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation that was established by the Microsoft founder and his wife had also warned against the outbreak of a worldwide epidemic, long before the outbreak of Sars-CoV-2. The foundation specializes in supporting the development of vaccines. The Gates Foundation supports Koff’s work at the HVP. Anja Langenbucher, the Foundation’s Europe Director, made a plea for multilateral cooperation. She argued that the COVID-pandemic “serves as a textbook example” of “a global problem that can only be solved globally.” The discussion was moderated by the former federal minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who is also affiliated with the Human Vaccines Project.

Sequencing has allowed us to more accurately develop the right diagnostic tools, but it has also guided the development of vaccines.[quoter]Anja Langenbucher[/quoter]

However, the work on genetic sequencing is not just needed to combat COVID-19. Treating and eradicating polio, malaria, and various types of cancer also relies on cutting-edge R&D and technological progress. “Sequencing has allowed us to more accurately develop the right diagnostic tools, but it has also guided the development of vaccines,” Langenbucher stated. The already known mutations of the coronavirus underscore the importance of understanding how the virus is transmitted and how it spreads. This is why geopolitics play a crucial role in the development of safe and effective vaccines. Without the exchange of knowledge and data across continents and without the joint use of research facilities, production sites, and storage capacities, understanding the spread of the virus is much more difficult. Especially developing nations in Africa should be provided with adequate supplies and resources – such as personal protective equipment, testing capabilities, and later on vaccines – to fight the virus.

Der Beitrag Research Strategies against Pandemics erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In order to understand the Democrats’ win in Georgia, it is necessary to take a closer look at Atlanta. In recent years, there has been an influx of young liberals in the state’s capital. Democrats can now win state-wide races in the formerly staunchly conservative state. It was argued in the discussion that another factor had helped Democrats in this election: the ties of the Republican candidates to President Trump, which discouraged suburban voters and other moderate conservatives from voting Republican. While this might not signal a lasting realignment, politicians who are able to appeal to moderates from both parties will be successful in future state-wide races in Georgia.

Change in Atlanta is also due to the arrival of more African Americans and Latinos, one of the speakers pointed out. The “Get out the vote”- efforts from Democrats were successful, whereas Republicans’ outreach efforts proved to not be enough. Unless Republicans found a way to appeal to a more diverse group of people, including minorities and young people, Georgia might become a true swing state. Georgia’s general assembly, it was argued, should pass a bill to ensure that every legally cast vote in the state counts and that no illegal votes are cast, so that voters can have confidence in election results.

On the future of the two party-system, it was argued that it is easier to take over an existing party than to start a new one, a process that could be observed in both parties. Trump has taken over the Republican party, and, to some, it seems as if left-leaning Democrats around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done the same in the Democratic party.

The storming of the US Capitol on January 6 was also addressed in the discussion. Speakers argued that the violent mob only represented a small percentage of a large population, but that these people were spurred on by politicians who lied to them about the security of elections. The other panelist agreed that the issue runs deeper than one party and can be found with congressional leadership and certain members of congress.

For the future of the transatlantic relationship, hope was expressed during the discussion that the incoming administration will be a positive signal.

This discussion was the last event of our virtual Battleground Tour-series in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag All Eyes on the US – Implications of the Georgia Election erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The fourth discussion of our “Virtual Battleground Tour” in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC) dealt with the election results. Former members of Congress Jim Blanchard (D-Michigan), Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida), Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania) and Karan English (D-Arizona) discussed voter turnout, exit polls, and vote counts in their contested home states and analyzed the outcome of the presidential election and Senate races.

The discussion was moderated by Lukas Streiff, Diplomat at the German Embassy Beirut and 2016 Young Leader Alumnus.

Der Beitrag U.S. Election Debrief erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

As part of the virtual 2020 German-American Conference, Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany held a joint video discussion titled »Changing Demographics: Diversity in the United States and Germany«. The speakers were Prof. Dr. Petra Bendel, Professor of Political Science, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, The Honorable Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, United States House of Representatives, Janet Murguia, President and CEO, UNIDOS, and Cem Oezdemir, MdB (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Deutscher Bundestag.

The discussion was moderated by Michael Werz, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and Member of Atlantik-Brücke’s Board of Directors

The panel discussed the demographic shifts taking place in both Germany and the United States and the likely effects of such changes. The United States is likely to become a “majority-minority” country by the early 2040s, and German society is becoming increasingly diverse – with nearly a quarter of the population with a migration background – and also aging quickly. The panelists also debated how transatlantic relations can become more inclusive and how changing demographics demographic might help – or hinder – transatlantic cooperation.

Der Beitrag “Changing Demographics: Diversity in the United States and Germany” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The second stop of our Battleground Tour was the state of Michigan. Garlin Gilchrist, Lieutenant Governor of Michigan, analyzed the impact of COVID-19 on the elections, as well as the impact of ethnic differences on voting behavior, in conversation with James J. Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan and former U.S. Ambassador in Canada. They also discussed whether the presidential election might have an impact on Senate and other down-the-ballot races.

https://vimeo.com/473479930

Wisconsin was the focus of our third Battleground Tour event. Mark Pocan, Member of Congress (D-Wisconsin), U.S. House of Representatives, and moderator Scott Klug, former Member of Congress (R-Wisconsin), U.S. House of Representatives, debated which voter groups might play a decisive role in Wisconsin and the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on voting behavior in the contested battleground state.

The five-part “Virtual Battleground Tour” is a cooperation between Atlantik-Brücke and the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Presidential Election erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Professor Daniel Ziblatt, political scientist at Harvard and co-author of the bestseller “How Democracies Die” and Donald Wise, former CEO of Metzler North America, discussed the state of democracy in the US. Wise and Ziblatt explored whether American democracy is merely facing a temporary crisis or a fundamental threat.

Wise emphasized that the American public is not as deeply divided as politics may make it seem. The existing cultural divisions, he stated, can be overcome – starting at the local level. Ziblatt on the other hand warned of the deep level of polarization and argued that the damage to the unwritten rules of democracy could only be surmounted by institutional reforms.

The speakers also touched upon current debates such as the nomination of Supreme Court Justices and answered questions from the audience, for example on Trump’s long-term legacy and how he has changed foreign policy.

Der Beitrag American Democracy in Crisis? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Four leading American pollsters give us their take on the upcoming election.

[related]Glen Bolger, Public Opinion Strategies, Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners, Fred Yang, Hart Research and Amy Walter, Cook Political Report speak about how the pandemic is affecting the election, which groups of voters the presidential candidates can each win, and how the Senate election differs from the presidential election. In addition, the four experts talk about why pollsters did not predict the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty moderated the discussion. Atlantik-Brücke’s five-part “Virtual Battleground Tour” is being held in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag A Pollster’s Analysis on the U.S. Election erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The 2020 election will decide many things beyond just the presidency of the United States. If Joe Biden wins, it is very likely that the nation will continue to be divided into the identity groups that have emerged in America since the 1970s. If Donald Trump prevails, we may see a segmentation based along traditional social-class and cultural interests.

[related]The left’s groups are based on “identity politics.“ which divide society into groups based on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc.—anything that confers a degree of victimhood on group members. They can then use their status as victims to demand attention, respect, rewards or restitution.

For political leaders of the left, however, the most important thing is that this victimhood breed resentment, which can then be turned into a catalyst for change. The ultimate goal is to transform America.

A traditional division of the country along social-class interests under Trump would scramble these identities. If Trump wins, and this realignment takes place, it would be the first turning point in American politics since the 1960s and 1970s.

Under this scrambling, a poor black person would be seen as having more in common with a similarly situated white person than with, say, Oprah Winfrey, a black celebrity said to be worth $2.5 billion.

President Trump is making a very clear bid for the vote of African-Americans.

President Trump, for example, is making a very clear bid for the vote of African-Americans, especially the young and male. There is some evidence that he is having some success.

Data collected by a project led by the University of California-Los Angeles’s (UCLA) Democracy Fund, working with the Democracy Fund, discovered that Trump is astonishingly popular with young blacks, compared with previous Republicans. Among black voters aged 30-44, 29% found Trump “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable,” while 21% of the 18-29 did likewise. GOP presidential candidates usually get less than 10 percent of the black vote.

The gap is not just age-oriented, but sex-oriented as well. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll discovered earlier this year that “There is a significant gender gap in views of the president; among black men, 24 percent approve and 72 percent disapprove, while among black women, just 6 percent approve and 93 percent disapprove.”

None of this is to say that 24 percent of black men will pull the lever for Trump in November. If that happens, it will be a watershed event. But even if this gap means that many young black men decide not to vote, that would make it harder for Biden to unseat Trump.

As for the so-called Hispanic component of the Biden coalition, that may be easier to scramble. Hispanics are an artificial category created by the Office of Management and Budget in 1977. They are not homogenous in race, culture or history—and that is even truer in politics.

Cuban-Americans, a powerful force in Florida (a key “swing” state in the presidential race), have always been conservative. In 2016 they voted for Trump at a 52 percent rate, helping him win the state. This year, Bendixen & Amandi, a Democratic-leaning polling company, conducted a poll with the Miami Herald that has struck panic in liberal circles: Trump is winning Cuban-Americans with a 38-point margin. Venezuelans are also supporting Trump in large numbers.

And on September 13, with only seven weeks to go before the elections, a Fox News poll showed Trump winning 41 percent of support among all Hispanics, just short of the high-water mark of 44 percent won by George W. Bush in 2004, the highest since the Hispanic category was created.

The main group that will lead Trump to victory, if he gets one, are non-college educated whites.

But the main group that will lead Trump to victory, if he gets one, are non-college educated whites, a growing force inside the GOP. As I explain in my book, The Plot to Change America, “In 2016 white noncollege voters made up 60 percent of Republican voters, but just 29 percent of Democratic voters.”

This is a huge gap, and one that should worry Republicans going forward, as more and more Americans are getting college degrees. We will see in 2021, as the parties realign, what will happen to both the Republican and Democrat Party. That re-shuffling of the pack will come no matter who wins on November 3.

Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, writes on national identity, diversity, multiculturalism, assimilation and nationalism, as well as foreign policy in general. He spent close to 20 years as a journalist, 15 of them reporting from Europe, Asia and Latin America. He left journalism in 2005 to join the administration of President George W. Bush. He joined Heritage in 2009.

Der Beitrag The Republican Strategy for November erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The US and Germany are friends and partners, regardless of any political tensions. People on both sides of the Atlantic are closely connected through personal relationships, through business contacts, through friendships formed as exchange students or through the military. German-American relations have developed over decades and run deep. America has supported Germany tremendously at crucial points in its history.

In view of the dramatic situation, we asked ourselves what we could do. How can Atlantik-Bruecke provide direct help to those in need? How can we send a signal that the transatlantic partnership will hold even in difficult times?

The organization Save the Children has launched a program to help children in poor rural areas of the United States who have no access to education and are threatened by hunger due to the pandemic. We would like to ask you to come together and donate to this important program. Our help here really reaches those who are suffering immensely from the pandemic and whose future is at risk.

We appreciate your donations, and we thank those of you who have already donated generously!

You can make your donation here using the form set up for Atlantik-Bruecke on the Save the Children website. The form allows the use of credit cards and PayPal. Comprehensive information about the program and Save the Children can also be found on this website.

If you prefer to wire the money to the donation account, please use this information:
Save the Children Deutschland e.V.
Bank für Sozialwirtschaft
IBAN: DE92100205000003292912
BIC: BFSWDE33BER
Keyword: Atlantik-Bruecke

Der Beitrag U.S. Corona Relief: Donate Now! erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

With:

• Dr. Jan Philipp Burgard, Correspondent and Deputy Bureau Chief, ARD German Television; Young Leader Alumnus (2016)
• LaSean Knox-Brown, Young Leader Alumnus (2016),
• Dr. Imani Perry, Hughes-Rogers Professor, Department of African American Studies, Princeton University,
• Kirsten West Savali, Executive Producer, Essence Magazine
• Moderation: Léa Steinacker, Chief Strategy Officer, ada; Young Leader Alumna (2016)

The death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American, who died while being pinned to the ground by a white Minneapolis police officer, has sparked outrage in the United States. Over the last weeks, protests have occurred nationwide demanding an end to systemic racism and police brutality. It has been argued that George Floyd’s death, as well as the protests, show fundamental flaws of law enforcement in America: militarization, the lack of real accountability and transparency, and misplaced incentives. In this call, our speakers discussed these topics and talked about whether they anticipate any fundamental changes as a result of the protests.

Der Beitrag A Conversation on Racism and Police Brutality in the U.S. erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

But stepping back from this uncertainty, we do have some basic empirical evidence of what both political parties face in terms of the demographic landscape of the election. The analysis presented below is adapted from a longer report by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin entitled, “The Path to 270 in 2020”, available at the Center for American Progress website.

Looking back at the 2016 election, Donald Trump failed to command a national majority, losing the popular vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes and more than 2 percentage points nationwide (48.2 percent to 46.1 percent). More importantly, Trump did manage to capture enough states with high concentrations of white non-college voters to produce an official Electoral College victory of 304 votes to 227 votes. Declines in Democratic turnout and support rates among key constituencies in Florida and the Great Lakes states magnified Trump’s ability to motivate new voters and to convince a considerable number of former Obama voters to back his nationalist message on the economy, immigration, elites and the media, as well as racial and gender divisions in the country.

The big question heading into 2020 is whether President Trump and Republicans can repeat this success.  Is there a strong and growing Trump coalition that can replicate his successes with base Republicans and party switchers from 2016 and possibly expand to other places with additional voters?

In 2016, Hillary Clinton built her national plurality above all on strong support from nonwhites (27 percent of voters). She carried Blacks (12 percent of voters) by 80 points; Hispanics (9 percent of voters) by 36 points; and Asians and people of other races (6 percent of voters) by 20 points. She also carried white college graduates (30 percent of voters) by 7 points. Her support among these groups was enough to counter her large 31-point deficit among white non-college voters (44 percent of the electorate).

Looking ahead to the 2020 electorate, we estimate that the nonwhite share of the eligible electorate will increase by 2 percentage points, almost entirely from increases in the shares of Hispanics, Asians, and voters of other races. That will be balanced by a commensurate decrease in the share of white non-college eligible voters; the share of white college-educated eligible voters will actually increase, but only very slightly.

These patterns suggest the Democratic candidate in 2020 has a very good chance of carrying the popular vote again. Indeed, under a scenario where nothing changes between 2016 and 2020 except the relative sizes of the demographic groups making up the eligible electorate, we find that the Democratic candidate would win the popular vote by a larger margin: 3.2 percentage points. This result holds constant the turnout levels and voter preferences of demographic groups between the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Other changes would increase this margin. If Black turnout returned to its 2012 levels, the Democrat would carry the popular vote by 4 points. If Hispanics, Asians, and voters of other races increased their support for the Democratic candidate across states by 15 margin points (+7.5 for the Democrat; -7.5 for Trump), the Democrat would win the popular vote by 6 points. Roughly the same margin would obtain if the Democratic candidate carried white college graduates by an additional 10 margin points (+5 for the Democrat, -5 for Trump).

For Trump to win the popular vote, he needs—above all—to increase his support among his strongest demographic: white non-college voters. If he increased his support across states among these voters by 10 margin points, he would in fact carry the popular vote, albeit by just 1 percentage point. But if he increased his margin among Hispanics, Asians, and voters of other races by 15 points or among white college graduates by 10 points, he would still narrowly lose the popular vote (0.8 points and 0.2 points, respectively).

In presidential elections, however, it is the electoral vote rather than the popular vote that is decisive. Looking at some of the same scenarios considered for the popular vote in 2020, how might the electoral vote turn out?

Under the scenario where turnout and voter preferences by demographic group remain the same as in 2016, and only the underlying demographic structure of the eligible electorate changes in 2020, the Democratic candidate would take back Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to carry the Electoral College by 279 votes to 259 votes. If Black turnout in 2020 matches 2012 levels across states, the Democrat would win the Electoral College by 294-244, adding North Carolina as well. If Hispanics, Asians, and people of other races swing to the Democrats by 15 margin points, the Democratic candidate would win the Electoral College by 319-219, including flipping Florida and Arizona.  And if white college-educated voters swing to the Democrats by 10 margin points, the Democrat would carry the Electoral College by 334-204, including flips of Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.

Under the scenario where Trump would carry the popular vote—a swing of white non-college-educated voters in his direction by 10 margin points—he would also win a strong 2020 majority in the Electoral College, by 329-209, adding Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire to the states he carried in 2016.  But in the scenario where there was a 15-point swing in support among Hispanics, Asians, and people of other races to Trump, he would still, as mentioned, lose the popular vote but carry the 2020 electoral vote by 315-223, adding New Hampshire and Nevada to his column. And if college-educated white voters swing 10 points in Trump’s direction in 2020, he would get edged out in the popular vote but triumph in the Electoral College by 323-215, adding Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire to his coalition.

Der Beitrag Demographics and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2020 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Rough, what is your takeaway from the Democratic primaries so far?

From the debacle of the Iowa caucuses to the resurrection of Joe Biden, the Democratic primary has turned into a great drama with major plot twists. Underlying it all is a fairly sharp shift to the left in the party relative to previous election cycles, with each of the Democratic candidates embracing identity politics and rolling out new initiatives that add up to trillions of dollars in spending.

The shortage of viable candidates in their 40s, 50s, and 60s speaks to how badly the Obama years decimated the party: aside from Buttigieg (30s) and Klobuchar (50s), the finalists for the Democratic nomination have all been in their 70s. This is remarkable for a party that claims to represent the young.

[related]These factors may explain why turnout has disappointed thus far, falling short of thresholds that would signal high enthusiasm in the party for the nomination process. It’s unclear what this means for the general election, where antipathy for Trump among Democrats may improve turnout.

Irrespective who wins the primary, however, it seems clear that the Democratic party is undergoing change. If the Democrats retake the White House this fall, they will not embrace the policies of the past, from free trade to a muscular America abroad. Instead, the party is continuing its evolution from Clinton to Obama to a new era.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden in a direct contest with President Trump in the General Election?

Bernie Sanders is nothing if not authentic. For decades, he’s preached the same unbending left-wing ideology with zeal. The Democratic party’s lurch leftward and the country’s general political churn has allowed him to emerge from recluse senator to political superstar. At the same time, however, Sanders stands far to the left of the American mainstream. His rigid, unbending attitude, expressed through an outrage that borders on anger, alienates all but the most committed progressives. He has yet to win over African Americans, for example, a key moderate Democratic voting bloc.

Joe Biden likes to hype his Scranton, Pennsylvania roots. It is generally accepted that he performs well in the industrial Midwest—precisely the states President Trump must carry in order to win reelection. In a field of left-wing progressives, Biden articulated liberal yet moderate positions that appeal more to African Americans and suburbanites. At the same time, his status as the establishment’s choice may put off some left-wing voters who reject mainstream institutions. Worse, Biden is well past his prime. It’s unclear whether he has the acuity and stamina to thrive in a grueling general election campaign. Moreover, Biden’s electability is predicated on a theory, not evidence. His past forays into politics beyond Delaware have crashed and burned.

What is the current situation of the Republican Party en route to President Trump’s nomination as the GOP candidate for this year’s election?

There is no primary race for the GOP: Donald Trump has all but sewn up the nomination for president. Trump holds an iron grip on the Republican base, which remains enthusiastic about his case for reelection. His support among suburban voters is less impressive, however. To make up for this weakness, he is making a concerted play for two other demographics: African Americans and Hispanics. These voters traditionally support the Democrats but are far from progressive, providing an opening for the Trump campaign and the Republican party.

As his State of the Union address demonstrated, Trump’s argument builds off a strong economic foundation, which has delivered results for minority voters. The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is not the Democrats, therefore, but the coronavirus and its attendant shocks. Ultimately, presidents are elected and reelected based on performance and sentiment. The coronavirus will test the president like no other crisis to date and voters will be watching.

Link to Peter Rough’s biography on the Hudson Institute website.

Der Beitrag “The coronavirus will test the president like no other crisis to date“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The following transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity:

David Deißner: Hello and welcome to Atlantik-Brücke On the Record. My name is David Deißner, I am the executive director of Atlantik-Brücke and our guest today is Lord Stephen Green. Lord Green looks back on a remarkable career in both banking and politics. He served as Group chairman of HSBC, the world’s largest private bank and was then Minister of State for Trade and Investment in the British government, retiring in 2013. He now chairs the Natural History Museum and Asia House. Lord Green is also an ordained priest in the Church of England and, of course, a member of the House of Lords. He has published numerous books on a wide range of topics such as Europe, Germany, European identity, and globalization. His most recent book is entitled the Human Odyssey: East, West and The Search for Universal Values. Lord Stephen, welcome to Atlantik-Brücke On the Record.

Lord Stephen Green: Thank you, great pleasure to be here.

Deißner: In your book The Human Odyssey you argue that it is somewhat misleading to conceive of Europe and Asia as two different continents, both geographically and perhaps even culturally. Could you briefly explain why?

Green: Well, geographically it is certainly one single landmass, if you think of it from Ireland at one end and Vladivostok at the other. That landmass includes two-thirds of the world’s population, produces now about two-thirds of the world’s economic output, and is home to all of the world’s great living cultures. With increased connectivity, these cultures are jostling up against each other more and more. And that is one of the principle features of life in the 21st century.

Deißner: At the same time, you also describe that there is no real sense of shared identity in Eurasia. And that consciousness of nationhood is at least as strong as ever. Do you concede this is a contradiction?

[related]Green: No, I think it is the outworking of history and cultural differences. It is probably not even realistic to think of a common identity in such varied forms of human life. What is important to note is that in Asia there is a very strong sense of cultural assertion and national identity. We Europeans tend to be rather embarrassed about thinking about national identity for all the obvious reasons. That’s not the case in Asia.

Deißner: When people look at China, the hope 20 years ago was that with economic growth eventually democracy and individualization would come, but that obviously has not been the case. In your book, you state that the process of continuous urbanization will lead ultimately to the discovery of the individual. Not necessarily in an egoistic sense, but that people will strive for good lives and overcome thinking in terms of nations and national identity. Could you elaborate a little bit on this idea?

Green: Yes, urbanization is the great phenomenon of our times. Europe is now well over 80 percent urbanized, Asia is less than that, 55 to 60 percent, but is rising rapidly and within the next few decades will catch up. Urbanization changes people, and because we live in the midst of it in Europe, we have forgotten how deeply this affects us. You move from a traditional rural environment, where social structures are in place and are born into them. Expectations as to what you do in life and your place in society are all kind of ordained for you. That is not true in urbanized environments, and it will be just as liberating or disturbing for Asians who migrate to big cities as it was for Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Urbanization will change the way people think about themselves, and it is creating greater pluralism. One of the things that Chinese authorities are constantly balancing is the long-term direction they want to take the country in against a vibrant private sector economy and an increasingly pluralistic private sphere, which is very urban. That is a tension within modern China.

Deißner: Are you optimistic that urbanization will ultimately challenge autocratic systems, which really try to control people and that we see is going on at the moment in China?

Green: Well, I don’t know about that. I have visited many Chinese and Indian cities. What you see on the streets are vibrant, buzzing modernized cultures. Families are doing exactly the same sorts of things as they do at this end of the Eurasian landmass. That doesn’t mean that this is a simple narrative of Asians waking up to democratic liberalism of the kind that we take for granted in Western Europe and North America. It’s more complicated than that. Because I think the world faces some common challenges, and we need to discover a shared approach which must entail learning more about each other and respecting and valuing what the other brings. If you think just about the two big powers of this coming century, America and China, one is profoundly individualist in its whole make-up. This isn’t just about modern consumerism, it goes back to the founding fathers, to the pursuit of happiness, and is deeply embedded in the philosophic traditions of John Locke, on the one hand. And on the other, in China, you have a strong Confucian bedrock, very ancient and long predating the communist era, in which the individual’s role is defined more by their place in society and in the cosmos and more in terms of purpose, role, and obligation than in rights, liberties, and freedoms. But there is a lot to be said in that human beings have responsibilities as well as rights. There is a great amount of learning that can take place, which will mutually benefit both their Confucian perspective and our libertarian one. Actually, if we want to meet this common, existential challenge, we are going to have to do this, and I do have is a great deal of hope. We need to be determined to learn from each other and perhaps discover a truer, more mature individuality that recognizes that the more we engage with each other, the more we become ourselves. That sounds rather philosophical, but actually it is going to have to underlie the way the great powers, America and China, engage with each other. Right now, the signs are not very good on that front. But it also affects the way communities think about each other and how we, as individuals, think about our place in modern society. This profoundly important for the challenges of the coming decades.

Deißner: Still, it sounds quite idealistic to me. If you look at some of our current debates, it seems that the set of values, for example in China, Europe, and the U.S., are not easily reconciled. Particularly, if we look at social media, which in China, is used an instrument to control people’s lives.

Green: I think it is much too simplistic to think of it like that. China is wrestling with the Corona virus, and you see that social media is full of comments and criticisms and hopes and experiences, both heroic and tragic. This is absolutely not just an instrument of social control.

Deißner: Let’s look more at the big picture now. You also mention in your book that the European enlightenment project has in a sense succeeded all too well. Do you think that the willingness to raise doubts about ourselves, to be self-reflecting and self-critical has maybe undermined Europe’s sense of identity, of who we are, as opposed to autocratic regimes or other countries, which have a less complicated approach to national identity?

Green: It is certainly true that Europe has a complicated approach to national identity and tragically the British have just made matters worse by stepping out of the EU. You can tell from my comments that I don’t sympathize with the Brexiteers. But, it is certainly true that Europe has difficulties with national identity, and there are historical reasons behind this. And in a sense, yes, the enlightenment project succeeded all too well. Europe needs to discover what it stands for on the world stage and to present itself as cohesively and coherently as possible. I think this has resulted in Europe punching below its weight, and I am afraid this will continue for some time yet. It’s tragic for the world because I think Europe has some important insight into the role of the individual, which everyone needs to listen to, including the Asians. We have learned much of this out of our own history, which, as we all know, has been traumatic, divisive, and full of bloodletting. So, we are not coming from the same place as the Americans, and we should not be forced to choose between an American or Chinese worldview. We Europeans need to avoid that choice.

Deißner: But sometimes it seems to me it’s very hard to avoid this choice, right? If you look at certain policy issues at the moment, the 5G question or telecommunication infrastructure, it seems as if we have to make a decision: do we want to stick to the U.S. narrative? If we involve Huawei in infrastructure there will be certain consequences, but we also might face retaliation.

Green: We are going to do what is pragmatically sensible. Now, that is a very short-term, rather specific, almost technical question about how to equip European societies with a 5G competence. I am thinking in broader and longer-term perspectives. Do the Europeans see themselves as simply part of the West? I would suggest we shouldn’t think of ourselves like that. Europe, although it has much in common with America and overlaps in very important ways, including the commitment to democracy, is nevertheless a series of societies, which in their self-understanding is in a different place from America’s. And you see this in questions like capital punishment, gun control, and the readiness of people to move around. I am not making value judgements; I am just saying they are manifestly different. Anyone who actually goes to the United States or lives there, as I have done, will recognize, (1) what a hugely exciting, vibrant, creative, reinventive society it is, and (2) that it is actually rather different from the European perspective. So, I think that Europeans have something really important and distinctive to offer on the world stage. I think it will be dominated by America and China for a number of decades to come. The contest for legitimacy, between a world view that is fundamentally individualistic and a world view that is more communitarian and more structured, the Confucian versus the libertarian, is one where the challenge is to learn to understand each other’s strengths and how they can be meaningfully brought together in a more comprehensive approach and enable to rise to the huge challenges that are looming over all of us.

Deißner: I think this is a wonderful wrap-up. Lord Stephen Green, thank you so much for being with us today.

Der Beitrag “The Confucian and the libertarian world view need to learn from each other” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Königswinter, January 25, 2020

The Untold Story

Good evening everyone, my name is Karoline Klose, I was a young leader in 2017 and I am excited to be here today.

It is actually funny that I am up here sharing my story. Because I was actually thinking about not coming to the reunion because I was embarrassed to show up here empty-handed, with not so much to show at the moment among all these high-flying, over-achieving leaders.

I am currently on a sabbatical; taking time out from the rat race we call life and helping build an eco-village in northern Germany (Hitzacker). When I was asked if I want to speak I thought: maybe I should do this. Maybe I should speak up for those who don’t dare to or can’t speak up. In order to change the conversation, to break the taboo and by being open and vulnerable, allow others to be open and vulnerable rather than continuing the charade saying that everything is fine while inside you are burnt out or suffering from trauma.

Here the mandatory trigger warning, I won’t be offended if you leave the room at some point.

For the next 10 minutes – I know many of you here today have different backgrounds – I want to take you on a journey into the world of the United Nations and international development, this is my very personal journey.

I can tell you two different stories: one of living the dream of working for the United Nations, saving the world, living and working in 10 different countries over the past 10 years, including Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Tunisia, and a couple of others.

Here the obligatory humble brag picture every UN staff does, me in front of a UN helicopter in Haiti.

Or I can tell you the impact this kind of work had on me, something no one talked about before I started my career, or at least not in a way that would have made me listen.

So when I started, I used to feel invincible, I didn’t really pay attention to self-care workshops or online trainings. When friends or colleagues, well-meaning, said to me: “Karoline, you have to meditate, you have to do yoga to reduce the stress”, I waved them off. Thinking to myself: “I have my friends, my sports, I don’t need that.”

I had done a kidnapping/war zone training with the German military and had survived being robbed and held for several hours in Tanzania, and a nightly break-in in Sudan, all without a problem.

So when it hit me in Haiti, I didn’t know what it was, I was not warned, I did not recognize it, I didn’t know what to do.

In the beginning it was the classic psychosomatic symptoms:

• stomach cramps on the day before I had to fly back;
• almost daily outbursts of crying or anger, felling helpless, like I was not in control of my life anymore, like I had given up the power over my life to someone or an entity that was failing to keep me safe.

Then halfway through my year in Haiti my first panic attack: I was back home in Germany and just could not stop crying at the thought of having to take a plane back.

But I did get back on that plane, despite all the warning signs, I pushed myself. I did not want to risk my job, the career I had worked so hard to get. I also felt guilty: I had asked for the transfer to Haiti from New York and as a specialist for fragile states, I thought I should be able to handle this!

I finished the year but I did not extend for a second.

After that I thought I would be fine the moment I left Haiti. What I did not know is that trauma knows no time. When I was safe back home, that’s when it really kicked in and things really got started:

• First, a restless mind, racing thoughts making it impossible to sleep, especially sleep in, causing stomach upsets;
• not wanting to leave the house by myself anymore;
• no energy or will to do anything.
• Wanting to hide from people, even friends. Previously an extrovert who got energy from talking to people, I suddenly dreaded the simple question: “Hi, how are you? How are you doing?” Because, what should I answer, how should I explain how I am feeling if I don’t understand myself what is happening to me?
• Everything about Haiti agitated me, but at the same time I could not let go, still checked the security alerts on WhatsApp every day.

This was over a year ago. What has helped me since: talking to ex-colleagues and finding out that I am not alone, that others were experiencing the exact same or similar symptoms.

• A former colleague started lying fully dressed in a bathtub when she got back to her home country, the bathtub being the only place she felt safe.
• Or a male colleague with secondary trauma because he worked on Syria, unable to continue with his job and suffering from insomnia since.

Eventually I looked for help. I started therapy and got diagnosed with classic symptoms of trauma, a form of post-traumatic-stress-disorder and burnout from cumulative stress. Every session left me in tears, in emotional turmoil. But I also did not want this pain to disappear, because it was the only evidence I had. I wanted the organization to take responsibility for the damage done.

Like a carpenter who breaks his back falling off a roof while at work, unable to work on a construction site in his job anymore.

I wanted it to be recognized that this is a professional risk. We are warned that we might be bodily harmed working in crisis countries, but nobody talks about the psychological harm.

We get a medical checkup before heading out to check if we are fit to deploy, but no one checks in what state we come back, your contract and health insurance just runs out.

There is a deal you enter with the organization: “I will go anywhere you need me to go, in return: you will keep me safe.“ This deal was broken.

You are probably asking yourself what happened to me. What big traumatic event caused this.

I will have to disappoint you. I don’t have that one sensational story. Actually, what happened to me is not that important, it is very subjective, it is more about how we experience things.

I blamed myself a lot, thought it was my fault that I could not handle it. I felt very alone with everything. But what helped was finding people who had had similar experiences, whether it was firsthand trauma or secondary trauma from doing interviews with refugees or handling disturbing content.

The worst that you can do when someone comes to you with something like this, wanting to share is to keep silent. Just say something, anything is better than silence, so they feel heard and understood.

So what caused my trauma?

• Was it the daily fear of being robbed at gunpoint?
• Or the question whether I should take the dog of my housemate for a run, but then deciding against it because in case I got robbed or kidnapped, they probably would shoot the dog first, so I went alone.
• Or the headlights in my rear window at night of a motorbike following me, me being afraid whether they were going to rob me at the next corner.
• Or a colleague getting killed in a robbery coming from the airport, shortly after I had left.
• Or was it the hatred of the local population against foreigners, especially the UN? A single stone thrown, smashing the window, showing you that a car is no protection at all.
• Or maybe the shots at night in the neighborhood?
• Or the dead body lying in the middle of the road during rush hour – half undressed, eyes open, bloated, flies circling – and not being able to talk to anyone about it since apparently this is normal and I should toughen up.
• Or the lack of freedom of movement? But then again, friends working in Iraq or Afghanistan seem to be better protected, better taken care of.

I don’t know what it was and I don’t want to create fear. I would probably choose this career again. I just want to break down the taboo that we can openly talk about trauma, not only of soldiers. And support each other and reach out and have an open ear and heart.

Even if you are not in the world of international organizations and development, it does not have to be a war zone but it can be a job or environment that is not good for you: get help and just don’t stay too long.

Thank you for listening to me.

Karoline Klose, founder of Trauma Talk UN
For more information: www.traumatalk-un.org
To contact the author: talk@traumatalk-un.org

Der Beitrag The Untold Story erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

75 years ago, Auschwitz was liberated. In the five years of its existence, almost one million Jews were killed there at the behest of Nazi Germany. What does the date of the liberation mean to the Jewish community today?

The anniversary evokes a range of intense, almost indescribable, feelings. Above all, for me, even after 75 years, I live with an anger that is quite primal, that wants to shout from the rooftops, how could people achieve such a level of bestiality and inhumanity? This is coupled with an enduring sense of incomprehension, as if to say it’s not possible that one human could commit such crimes against another. I still wonder how the administrators and the guards could go home after work, eat a normal meal, perhaps spend time with their family if their spouse and children were with them. How could they kill by day on such an unprecedented scale and live with themselves and their conscience by night? In other words, many of us still wrestle to this day with the excruciating pain and bewilderment, and questions about everything that Auschwitz-Birkenau represents. And yet, there is also a third feeling that necessarily coexists with the other two. Despite all the horrors and travails of Auschwitz, the few survivors found their faith, fortitude, and footing, built new lives after the war, and exemplified the indomitability of the human spirit, or, in this case, the Jewish spirit.

How could people achieve such a level of bestiality and inhumanity?

In Europe, but also in the U.S., populism is on the rise; anti-Semitic attacks have become a frequent occurrence. What should be done to counter this trend, by governments, but also by civil society?

I have to begin by revising the premise of the question. To be sure, antisemitism surfaces when populism mixes with illiberalism and xenophobia. That’s a real danger, as history has amply shown, and again poses a threat today. But there are two other sources of antisemitism in Europe (and beyond) that also threaten Jews. The first comes from jihadists. Indeed, with the exception of the attack at the synagogue in Halle on Yom Kippur, just about every single violent act of antisemitism in recent years on European soil has come from jihadists, whether in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Bulgaria, or elsewhere. And the other concerning source is the extreme left. Just imagine what would have happened had Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party won the recent election and governed the United Kingdom. Antisemitism, joined by anti-Zionism, is rife within the current Labour Party, starting at the very top. And what about all those other far left political parties and groups in Europe that would deny Israel, alone among the nations of the world, the very right to exist, much less to defend itself against those who seek its destruction? Therefore, any serious analysis of the menace faced by Jews in contemporary Europe must take into account each of these three sources: the extreme right, the extreme left, and jihadists. Otherwise, people are either living in denial or seeking to weaponize antisemitism for a larger political purpose, but surely not for the safety and security of Jewish communities.

In the U.S. in the last 18 months alone, we have had violent attacks from the extreme right, but also from other sources having nothing to do with populism or white supremacy, again underscoring the point that anti-antisemites must be open-eyed and swivel-headed in the fight against this age-old pathology.

Governments must acknowledge the serious and growing nature of resurgent antisemitsm.

In terms of the response, first, governments must acknowledge the serious and growing nature of resurgent antisemitsm. In some cases, this has proved harder than I would have thought. Second, they also need to recognize the multiple sources from which antisemitsm emanates today. Third, governments should work to adopt and implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism, as this provides a common understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. Otherwise, there is no standard baseline for even defining the issue. Fourth, no one speech or statement by political leaders will solve the problem. Instead, what’s needed is a sustained, multipronged focus on combating a hatred for which no vaccine has yet been discovered. Fifth, prosecutors and judges need to get more serious in sending a message that a crime motivated by hate will result in severe consequences, and not just a slap on the wrist. Sixth, longer term, children, in our increasingly diverse and multicultural societies, must be taught respect for the other and mutual understanding. Again, this is not one lesson one time, but needs to be a consistent theme throughout their education. And seventh, governments cannot do all the heavy lifting alone. There is a clear and compelling need for civil society to stand up for pluralism and intergroup respect, and against hatred and antisemitism.

You have expressed your concern in the past that the Iranian regime will take advantage of diplomatic ties and agreements with the West, in particular the JCPOA, and intensify its threats against Israel. Now that US-Iranian relations have escalated, what could be a path forward?

I have long believed that every effort must be made to find common ground between the United States and Europe. Obviously, there remains a great deal of work to be done to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, Iran takes advantage of our own differences in the West, playing off one against the other to maximum advantage. By now, it should be abundantly clear that the notion prevalent in 2015, in the U.S. and Europe, that Iranian “moderates” would be strengthened by the JCPOA at the expense of the “hardliners” was a self-delusion. Rather, the JCPOA did not soften the regime, nor did it encourage the regime to turn inward and pursue reform and social development. Not at all. To the contrary, it only emboldened Iran, enriched its state coffers, and fueled Iranian expansionism from Lebanon to Syria, from Iraq to Yemen, and beyond. I believe that the U.S. and Europe, as a matter of priority, must redouble the search for common ground in encouraging Iranian protesters risking their lives today across the country, in sending a clear message that uranium enrichment and missile development will not be tolerated, and in challenging, not appeasing, Iranian interference in one nation after another. The threat posed by Iran centrally includes Israel, of course, but it doesn’t end there. Iran poses a threat to nations across the Middle East and North Africa, and its terrorist tentacles have reached into Europe, directly or through its Hezbollah proxy, on more than one occasion. And speaking of Hezbollah, how much longer will the EU continue the illusion of bifurcating the terror group into “political” and military” wings?

The hope is that Europe will become more clear-eyed when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, and the importance to European interests of a closer relationship with Israel.

 What is your hope for America’s European allies’ role in the unstable situation in the Middle East?

I have a short-term hope and I have a longer-term hope. The short-term hope is that Europe will become more clear-eyed when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, and, separately, when it comes to understanding the importance to European interests of a closer relationship with Israel. It is clear that there is no single view of Israel within European Union member states. That said, deepening ties with Israel should not be seen as a “gift” to Jerusalem. Rather, it serves the highest strategic interests of the EU.

I firmly believe that Europe can serve as a model for creating a new interstate paradigm in the Middle East.

Longer term, as far-fetched as it may seem today, I firmly believe that Europe can serve as a model for creating a new interstate paradigm in the Middle East. What’s needed are people today with the vision that Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet brought to post-WWII Europe 70 years ago. We are beginning to see the first elements of this in the Eastern Mediterranean around energy. Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and Egypt are forging closer links regarding natural gas, and at times they are joined by Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Whereas for Schuman and Monnet it began as coal and steel, tomorrow’s coal and steel could be energy, joined by electricity and environmentalism as the driving forces of a new era of interstate cooperation, replacing interstate conflict. Europe could and should be the North Star, the guiding light, for that alluring vision. Will it?

David Harris is the Chief Executive Officer of American Jewish Committee (AJC). Follow him on Twitter @DavidHarrisAJC.

Der Beitrag “To this day, many of us still wrestle with excruciating pain“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Listen to the conversation:

Interview: Michael Werz

Congresswoman Escobar, you are one of two Latinas from Texas who for the first time in American history have been elected to serve in the U.S. Congress. Tell us a little bit about how the reactions were in El Paso and also in Washington, D.C.

[related]About 85 percent of the El Paso community is Hispanic, specifically of Mexican descent. It did take a long time for us to get as many Hispanics elected in El Paso. It’s a recent phenomenon. I have the tremendous privilege of having served in local government for over a decade, and I have been very privileged to have such strong support from the community throughout my political carrier.

What is especially important to me is that young Latinas get to see women that look and sound like them and have the same roots and heritage in positions of authority. It allows them to understand that they too can be at the leadership table and that they can also accomplish whatever they set their minds out to do.

The 116th Congress is historically the most diverse Congress ever. It is long overdue. Washington and Congress badly need the diversity of voices, thoughts, and backgrounds. This diversity makes a democracy strong and healthy. We need more women and women of color until we adequately reflect the percentages in the country.

Washington and Congress badly need the diversity of voices, thoughts, and backgrounds. This diversity makes a democracy strong and healthy.

This is your first term in Congress. However, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has recently elevated you to a democratic leadership position. How did you manage to become a senior politician in your first two years in Congress?

I was elected by my freshman colleagues to the freshman leadership position. I have been so incredibly fortunate to have received tremendous support from the speaker and my colleagues from the moment that I walked in. One of my goals early on was to build relationships. I have been long enough in politics and government to understand the obvious: You don’t get anything done without bringing people along with you. You can’t pass bills, and you can’t create change unless you have strong relationships with your colleagues.

The other component that created a path for me was what was happening in El Paso in 2019. El Paso was at the epicenter of really horrific and abhorrent anti-immigrant policies coming from the Trump administration. It was important to me that my colleagues could see what was happening, that they bore witness to it, that they talked to people on the ground affected by it. We brought over a dozen of congressional delegations, almost 70 percent of Congress, to El Paso in 2019. Almost every other weekend we had a group of members of Congress coming to El Paso. We took some of them over the border to Mexico so that they could meet with the refugees being denied entry into the United States. We took them to hospitality centers in our community where we were caring for the refugees. We also took them to the sites where the children who died in American custody were apprehended. My colleagues saw how hard I work for my community, for the caucuses, and for the values that America was founded on.

El Paso was at the epicenter of really horrific and abhorrent anti-immigrant policies coming from the Trump administration.

A horrible mass shooting occurred at a Walmart Supercenter in the city of El Paso on August 3rd of 2019. The attacker killed 22 people and injured 26 others; this was the deadliest anti-Latino attack in recent U.S. history. You had a town hall meeting during the shooting. Can you share with us what your immediate thoughts were when you heard the news?

The massacre happened after months of trauma where we had to face up against the anti-immigrant policies that were being executed in our community. As the year progressed, all our leaders were working day and night trying to help the very vulnerable migrants coming to our community. In many ways we were showing the country exactly how we should be treating vulnerable refugees.

In the midst of all of this, on a day when I was having my town hall meeting and speaking to my constituents in a wonderful discussion, my staff approached me and told me that there had been a shooting. It was shocking. At first, there was a moment of disbelief. I didn’t know how bad it could be. I urged my constituents to go home, to stay at home and to be safe. Then I rushed backed to my district office. Almost within the hour we found out that a number of people had been killed. I intuitively felt in my gut and in my heart that the shooting was driven by hatred and racism.

I intuitively felt in my gut and in my heart that the shooting was driven by hatred and racism.

When the gunman’s pamphlet was made public and he confessed to the police that he drove to El Paso in order to slaughter Mexican immigrants, the shock didn’t wear off for a long time. We had a press conference that afternoon with the governor of the state of Texas. He pointed to mental illness regarding what was fueling the gunman. We know statistically that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime and not perpetrators of crime. To be honest with you, I felt tremendous anger and frustration. The weight of the president’s words and of his horrific immigration policies had come to bear down on the community in the most violent and most nightmarish way through the slaughter of innocent people.

As I learned the stories of the victims’ families and just struggled to come to grips with the injustice, it made me realize that El Paso was a very important community in this country because of what we had to bear. But even in that really awful and painful period one thing absolutely stands out more than anything and makes me proud of my community: Our generosity, kindness, good will, love, and the way how we treat one another remind me that in our most challenging moments we make a choice about how we treat people. El Paso has emerged as a shining example of the goodness that comes with choosing to care for people.

Taking a step back, did we underestimate the potential of white nationalism in Texas and in the United States at large? How did we get to this point that a place like El Paso becomes ground zero for such a horrific and complicated policy conversation?

I am still struggling with understanding how our country has allowed this and for this point to emerge in our history. We are at the very low point and at a very dark place in American history right now. What we’ve seen in America unfortunately over the last few years is not just some of our most significant leaders, including the president and led by the president of the United States, be derelict in their responsibility to lead us out of this darkness, but we have actually seen them pull us deeper into that darkness. And we are going to have to take a long look at ourselves in the mirror as a country and ask ourselves if this is acceptable and if this is who we want to be. Everyone in America has a very important role to play in ensuring that we move out of this darkness.

We are at the very low point and at a very dark place in American history right now.

There is obviously the urgent matter of coming up with policy solutions and legislation to make sure that future mass shootings are hopefully prevented. What is your thinking with regard to the legislative deadlock related to gun control?

The House of Representatives has bipartisan commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. We even came back from our August recess early in order to pass more legislation. We have been having these debates on the House floor. We have been passing bills through committees and they have all landed on the Senate’s side. One person, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, prevents those pieces of legislation from being debated and being sent to the president to be signed into law. It is deeply frustrating that one person is able to hold up all of that legislation. To see our legislation essentially just pile up on the desk of one person is disheartening. But we have to keep pushing, we have to keep educating the American public, we cannot allow the public to be complacent or to lose heart.

You have a Republican mayor in El Paso, and you have a Republican colleague in Congress from the district next door, Will Hurd, in Texas-23. How are your Republican colleagues reacting and what are they saying about the stalemate that they are seeing, which is mainly, as you described, due to the leadership of their own party?

That has been additionally frustrating to me. My neighbor to the east, Will Hurd, who has recently announced that he is retiring from Congress, used to be someone that Democrats could count on to be a moderate voice and someone who was willing to cross the aisle and work together. But now he has set his sights on what is going to happen to him after retirement, and he has been pretty much in lockstep with the president. So, we can’t count on him to be bipartisan on many of these issues anymore because he has a different career path ahead of him.

And the mayor of my community, who is Republican, has signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ call to Congress to pass commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. Now, he also has a very good relationship with our Republican governor, who has yet to do anything legislatively on gun violence prevention.

You are a member of the Armed Services Committee which is allocating the use of military funds and personnel. It was highly controversial that the president decided to mobilize U.S. troops to the U.S.-Mexican border because it was not clear to many that this was a national emergency that warranted such action. What was your take on this situation and what is the status quo right now along the border?

One of the biggest challenges that I have with my Republican colleagues and their constituents who believe that sending troops or building a wall is good public policy is that they have bought into the myth that asylum seekers or undocumented immigrants are a national security threat. As leaders in Congress, we need to recognize that a mother with a baby who is fleeing violence in Central America and coming to our doorstep, knocking on our door and seeking asylum, is not a national security threat. We have to think about the movement of people and the laws that govern that movement in a different way. We need to have secure borders. But there is a smart way to do it. A wall is not going to fundamentally change the fact that Central American refugees and Mexican refugees and Cuban refugees are arriving at out front door.

We need to recognize that a mother with a baby who is fleeing violence in Central America and coming to our doorstep, knocking on our door and seeking asylum, is not a national security threat.

Traditionally, the Latino community in the United States and also Latino Representatives have not been overly engaged in national security policy, international affairs, and even less in the transatlantic arena. But you are scheduled to visit Germany in over a month to visit the Munich Security Conference. And, very interestingly, you have invited the co-chair of the German Green Party, Robert Habeck, to visit you in El Paso. What are you hoping will be his main takeaways when he visits El Paso for a day and a half and then flies back to Berlin and relays his experiences at the U.S.-Mexican border?

I am very excited about the Munich Security Conference and also very excited about the visit next week. These are shared experiences. I have a lot to learn from my German counterpart, and you all have a lot to learn from us as well. We grow as leaders, as policymakers, as people on this planet, when we share those experiences and we look to one another for support and for solutions. What is important to me about the visit for next week is that I believe we are going to continue to see migration occurring across the globe at unprecedented levels and we have to come together to address the root causes, obviously climate change and poverty. At the same time, we have to educate our communities because cynical politicians will use migration as a tool for fear. We have to combat that cynicism and that division and build a bridge of greater understanding, a bridge of solutions and ideas. I hope that this is the beginning of a more meaningful conversation.

Michael Werz is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

The television network PBS has produced a documentation about El Paso worth watching which you can find here.

Der Beitrag “El Paso is a shining example of the goodness that comes with choosing to care” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Jamie, do you think that the shift of public discourse into cyberspace and the rise of tech platforms and social media requires a new legal framework?

A legal framework needs to deal with the potentially monopolistic effects of these platforms. There are strong arguments to be made that Facebook and Google are monopolies. In that sense they should be regulated. But as far as regulating what they can and cannot publish, declaring certain content to be hate speech, that is something I would oppose.

Looking at the new German law that we have, the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz” or Network Enforcement Act, do you think that the institutions which are responsible for determining what is hate speech or not are the problem?

[related]Donald Trump is insulted by millions of people a day on the internet – including comedians. How would we ever police that in a free society? Why would you want the government telling people that they cannot insult others? I do not see how you can legally distinguish the notion of insult from satire, humor, and political critique. These are all forms of speech. Harassment could be something different. If you are a private citizen and someone is standing outside your door shouting at you, I am not sure that falls into the realm of free speech.

But an insult could potentially also be the beginning of actual violence. There are German politicians, who have fiercely criticized the AfD party and have then been insulted in cyberspace in a way that it was threatening.

In the United States we have the most permissive free speech laws. By the way, we are founded on the idea of freedom and are really the only country that was founded on an idea. We are not a nation based on a particular race, a particular language. Direct threats of violence are not protected by our law. We need to be very specific. If you are clearly calling for violence against an individual, that should be punished. But that happens very rarely.

If we look at German history, the Weimar Republic had very stringent hate speech laws. “Der Stürmer” was one of the most luridly antisemitic newspapers at the time. It was prohibited from publishing or actually had its copies confiscated by the government about three dozen times in the years between 1922 and 1932, the ten years leading up to the Nazi seizure of power. This did not do anything to stop the Nazis. There were much larger forces at play. To attribute political violence or the breakdown of democracy to speech is not historically accurate. We cannot protect democracy by limiting the rights of individuals.

We cannot protect democracy by limiting the rights of individuals.

One of the main arguments of people who advocate for hate speech laws is that this legislation leads to a more civic public discourse which has to be protected.

But Germany has had these sorts of regulations for many years. And now you have an AfD party which you hadn’t had in decades. Maybe that has something to do with a culture where the lines of what was considered a permissible debate were drawn too narrowly.

The usage of Nazi symbols and the denial of the holocaust is prohibited in Germany for good reasons. This is a formative aspect of what we think is in accordance with the constitution and our idea of democracy. Where would you draw the line?

I can only explain the American perspective on this. Has banning holocaust denial resulted in less people believing in it? We can see that antisemitic beliefs are quite high in Germany and they have probably been rising over the past couple of years. I understand that there is no political will, no political benefit to be gained in calling for repealing these laws. Obviously, the circumstances of this country are unique. You had a new constitution written after the devastating war. It was also heavily influenced by the United States. You were basically starting over. Today, and I say this as a Jew, banning holocaust denial is not going to stop people from believing in it. Banning speech or certain ideas does not do anything to limit their appeal, unfortunately. If it did, I would not change my mind because I believe in the principle.

Banning speech or certain ideas does not do anything to limit their appeal, unfortunately.

In one of your recent articles in the Washington Post you wrote that it is a hopeless task to define fake news, differentiate it from different pieces of news and then ban it. However, there are tools to identify fake news that have been artificially generated by a social bot. We know that fake news can seriously harm the processes and formation of the political will before a democratic election. Shouldn’t we do something about it?

The effects of fake news on society have been vastly exaggerated. Studies have shown that most voters had made up their minds. Understandably, people were looking for explanations why Donald Trump became President of the United States. No one could grapple with the real reasons for his victory. Fake news was something that people settled on as an easy explanation.

Do you really think so?

What if Donald Trump says climate change is a Chinese hoax? Do we ban the reporting of those statements? The mere fact that we are having this conversation shows how difficult this is. Aside from outright defamation or slander, which are things that are legally defined and described.

But it is possible to identify the origin of fake news, people who artificially generate these pieces of misinformation.

The platforms have moved into the direction of trying to limit the effects of foreign government sponsored disinformation websites or, at least, to identify them as such.

Which is a good thing.

Right. It is something that the platforms are doing mostly voluntarily. They should be encouraged to do that. But at the end of the day that is like sticking your finger in a flood and trying to stop it. Ultimately, you need an educated citizenry that knows how to distinguish legitimate news sources from those that are not.

Ultimately, you need an educated citizenry that knows how to distinguish legitimate news sources from those that are not.

Consequently, freedom of speech can only be limited in case of expressions that clearly trigger violence.

Yes, in case of direct threats of imminent violence.

What do you find most irritating about the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz”?

I am worried that authoritarian countries are learning from this and will use the same tools that are provided by this law in a democratic country and use the same justifications to go after their own citizens in dictatorships. We already see evidence of that. And it frankly makes it harder for us in the West, in the free world to criticize those sorts of policies and actions by dictatorial governments when we adopt similar policies.

James Kirchick is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and an Atlantik-Bruecke Young Leader Alumnus. A widely published journalist and a leading voice on American gay politics, he is familiar with the tension between hate speech and free speech and a staunch defender of the latter. His expertise includes both American and European politics. He is the author of ‘The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Age’ (Yale, 2017). You can find his profile at the Brookings Institution here.

Der Beitrag “The government should not declare what is hate speech” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What are Western vlaues, and do they still connect Germany and the United States today? German Ambassador to the United States Emily Haber says: “We want the same things, we want to defend our way of life.” We spoke to a diverse group of Germans and Americans to hear their views. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Omid Nouripour, Foreign Policy Spokesperson for the Green Party, former Congressmen Jeff Miller and Jim Moran, State Secretary Sawsan Chebli and R.R. Reno, editor of the religious magazine “First Things”and serial entrepreneur Sebastian Funke talk about their take on the subject. The film is part of Deutschlandjahr USA/Wunderbar together.

Der Beitrag “We want to defend our way of life” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Nik Nanos

In a world marked by political volatility and uncertainty, many wondered whether Canada was an outlier. In 2015, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau swept to power on his proverbial “sunny ways” campaign, advancing a moderate, progressive, inclusive vision for Canada firmly fixed on helping Canada’s middle class. In the period between the 2015 and the 2019 federal elections, Canadians were unsettled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s drive to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement and to remake the North American relationship. Indeed, for Trump, it was not just about remaking America’s role in the world, it was about shaking up the world order ranking from NAFTA, to NATO to America’s relationship with China.

[related]This brief will examine the political context in Canada ranging from the domestic political situation as manifested in the 2019 General Election through to the perceptions of Canada’s major allies. Together they paint a picture of domestic uncertainty coupled with a reaching out to economic and security partners that have a potential to provide stable positive relations.

Leading up to the 2019 General Election, the Liberals enjoyed a comfortable 10 to 15 point advantage over the Conservative Party. This consistent and prolonged honeymoon in the first three years of the mandate was more of a political Potemkin Village than a continuation of the warm embrace of Trudeau’s sunny ways. The two major opposition parties, the right wing Conservatives and the New Democrats which are a left-wing social democratic alternative to the Liberals were both leaderless for a significant portion of the mandate of the Liberals. In the absence of a clear counterpoint or alternative, the Liberals, on paper, looked strong. Fast forward to 2019, and the resignation of two senior women cabinet ministers over perceived interference in the SNC Lavalin legal proceedings which deal with corruption charges and the ‘sunny ways’ of the Trudeau Liberals turned into dark days. Indeed on the very first day the election writs were issued and the campaign began the Liberals were on the defensive responding to new revelations in the SNC Lavalin Affair.

With the Bloc surge in Quebec and blockbuster revelations about Trudeau wearing a brown-face 19 years ago, the Liberals scrambled to hold on to government.

The structural game changer for the Liberals was the rise of the separatist Bloc Quebecois in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Ahead of the campaign, the popular wisdom was that the Liberals would lose seats in many of Canada’s regions but gain in the province of Quebec at the expense of the sagging New Democratic Party. However, Bill 21, Quebec Provincial Legislation banning the wearing of religious symbols for public employees like civil servants, teachers and police officers, reignited Quebec nationalist sentiment which rallied around the Bloc Quebecois. With the Bloc surge in Quebec and blockbuster revelations about Trudeau wearing a brown-face 19 years ago, the Liberals scrambled to hold on to government.

Over the course of 37 campaign days of nightly tracking done by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV News, the Conservatives led on 22 evenings and the Liberals led on 15 nights. The seesaw battle continued – with Trudeau being on the defensive and the Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, also, on the defensive over his personal position on abortion, same sex marriage, holding dual citizenship and fuzziness about his professional accreditation as an insurance broker.

The Conservatives won the popular vote but the Liberals won the greatest number of seats and held on to power largely on the inefficient distribution of Conservative support which was highly concentrated in the energy rich Prairie provinces in the West. With that the Liberal majority was lost and the Liberals now have to work with other parties to stay in power.

The other major shift over the course of the last four years has been in the views of Canadians of their major allies. For the first time in memory.

Setting aside the election and the Liberal set back from majority to minority, the other major shift over the course of the last four years has been in the views of Canadians of their major allies. For the first time in memory. Among the key shifts is a lack of confidence in the ability of Canada to have a positive relationship with the United States. Views of Mexico are currently more positive than views of the United States with is in contrast to the historical public opinion trend. Canadians are more likely to self declare a greater affinity for Europe as a place of shared values, commitment to the rule of law and outright stability. The views that Canadians have of Germany, over the course of the past 15 years are steadily becoming more positive when it comes to perceptions related to shared business values and shared values on human rights.

The message for the Trudeau minority government is that with an uncertain domestic political situation and an unsettled relationship with the United States, greater and closer engagement with Europe represents a potential anti-dote to the anxiety that Canadians have about the future, who our partners will be and where Canada should look. Driven by geography and history, the relationship with the US will continue to be the foundational bilateral focus of Canada. However, given the current situation, Canada is at a moment in time where an increasing number of Canadians would welcome a diversification of Canada’s outward view of it’s economic and security partners. On that front, Europe now more than ever is positively on the radar of Canadians.

Professor Nik Nanos is the Chief Data Scientist at Nanos Research.

Hier sehen Sie die Präsentation der Studie von Professor Nik Nanos, auf der dieser exklusive Text für die Atlantik-Brücke basiert.

Der Beitrag Domestic instability and uncertainty with the U.S. may propel Canada closer to Europe erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

A potential impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump keeps Washington in suspense. Has it become more likely due to this week’s developments?

Michael Werz: Yes, public support for an impeachment inquiry has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few weeks and is now at 58%. More interestingly, 49% of all Americans now want President Trump to be convicted in the Senate and removed from office. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will insure the initiation of the process. However, two thirds of the Senate have to support the motion to impeach a President. That means, in addition to the Democratic votes, 20 Republican Senators would have to vote against President Trump.

[related]So, it’s unclear, as always. What is clear is that vulnerable Republican Senators who face reelection next November will have a near impossible choice: vote for Trump and alienate independent voters and some moderate Republicans or vote against him and potentially lose his hardcore supporters. This is important, since the Democrats need only four seats to win the majority in the U.S. Senate and vulnerable Republicans include Cory Gardner in Colorado, Martha McSally in Arizona, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and Susan Collins in Maine.

Peter Rough: The political fundamentals surrounding impeachment have not shifted over the past week. The Democratic party leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi in the House of Representatives, is overwhelmingly in support of impeachment. The Republican party, led by Senator McConnell in the Senate, vociferously disagrees. As things stand, this sets up a collision that will play out over the next year.

Prominent voices from the Republican Party have fiercely criticized the President‘s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. What does this tell us about the overall situation of the GOP?

MW: Several things: that there may still be some life left in the Republican Party; and that military retrenchment in the Middle East stirs more unease than putting Latino children into cages at the U.S.-Mexico Border, the reversal of important environmental protections, or the corrupt enrichment of the President and his family. It remains to be seen if this is a watershed moment for the Grand Old Party, if the past two and a half years and the massive support of registered Republican voters for Donald Trump are any indication, the latest crisis will pass and the party will only re-discover its traditional moral and political bearings when facing electoral defeat.

PR: So much for the criticism that Republicans in Congress are poodles of the president! In all seriousness, though, these objections show just how much esteem Turkey has lost over the past decade amongst both parties. The distrust of President Erdogan is visceral in Washington; by contrast, the Trump administration believes it has no choice but to lean on Turkey if it is to build a stable Middle Eastern order without large-scale American troops.

Many argue that from a strategic point of view it is highly risky for the Democrats to push forward with an impeachment. Does the Democratic Party fall victim to its internal dynamics with regard to the Presidential Election in 2020?

MW: It might or it might not—but that’s not the point. Congress has the obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States and sanction behavior by the President that defies the law of the land. Donald Trump openly asked for—and in the case of Ukraine, extorted—the help of foreign countries in investigating his domestic political rivals. He even asked China, perhaps the United States’ primary geopolitical rival, to meddle in American politics. By taking these steps, Trump crossed a line that made it impossible for Congress to stay silent.

Just as a reminder: Impeachable conduct is not limited to criminal behavior. There are several kinds of conduct that warrant impeachment, including 1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; 2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and 3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. The Congressional Research Service notes that Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Simply put: In a democracy, the sovereign may not act arbitrarily, nor abuse his office for his own personal gain.

PR: The Democrats are convinced that President Trump is a highly vulnerable incumbent on a glide path to defeat. If that assumption is correct, introducing a highly combustible external variable like impeachment is a risky proposition. In my view, the odds that the Democratic party overreaches is 100 percent. The extent to which that shapes the presidential election – and does so decisively – is anyone’s guess.

Der Beitrag Two perspectives on impeachment and northern Syria erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What do people from both sides of the Atlantic associate with the term freedom? How important is freedom for each and every individual, what does it mean for our societies? Are we ready to stand up for our own freedom and that of others? We have asked politicians, artists and entrepreneurs from both sides of the Atlantic to talk to us about this important social achievement. We also want to take a closer look at the often cited Western values. In these often challenging times for transatlantic relations, we want to know: how strong is the common foundation of values on which our partnership was built?

The conversations showed that freedom is not just a philosophical and political issue, but a very personal one for many of our interviewees.

Photographer Herlinde Koelbl, Ambassador Emily Haber, Richard Haass, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, former Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Friedrich Merz, Omid Nouripour, Foreign Policy Spokesperson for the Green Party, former Congressmen Jeff Miller and Jim Moran, Lantinx activist Paola Ramos, State Secretary Sawsan Chebli and R.R. Reno, editor of the religious magazine “First Things” talk about their personal experiences and views on the subject.

The film is the first part of a four-part series in which we want to get to the bottom of Western values and inspire discussion. The films are part of the “Deutschlandjahr”-campaign “Wunderbar Together”.

Der Beitrag “Our freedoms have not come out of nowhere” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Listen to the conversation:

Interview: Robin Fehrenbach

Mr. Nuñez-Neto, the U.S.-Mexican border is roughly 2000 miles long. Can you give us an update: What distance has been newly covered with steel fences, walls or border installations since President Donald Trump took office?

The government has not constructed any kind of significant new stretches of fencing. There are some demonstration projects that it has constructed on the border to test different kinds of technology. Some of this relates to some disputes and some funding issues between the Congress and the administration and even within the administration.

Near San Diego is a site where a lot of prototypes are being shown. Is the president creating a showcase regarding the wall?

[related]Yes. In San Diego and in a couple of other parts of the border the government has constructed some demonstration projects to test different designs. That is important because the border is 2000 miles long, and it’s not all the same. There are parts where there are floods regularly and where it’s mountainous and rugged. One design isn’t going to work everywhere.

Can you estimate how much of the distance will be covered by the time the next presidential election takes place?

That’s a pressing question for the administration. The president would like to construct up to 500 miles of walls or fencing before the election. According to news media reports that just came out there has been a little bit of a dispute internally of what the cost of that might be. The U.S. Department of Defense apparently concluded that the cost was substantially higher than what it had thought. At least to date, the Pentagon has moved very slowly in transferring the funds that the president would like shifted for construction.

The president would like to construct up to 500 miles of walls or fencing before the election.

How did President Trump succeed in materializing at least a partial financing of his plans to build a wall, although the positions in Congress between Republicans and Democrats are totally divided?

The administration was unable to get Congress to approve funding for new barriers on the border. It’s probably worth pointing out that we already have roughly 700 miles of physical barriers which include both pedestrian fencing – that is fencing that is intended to keep people from crossing – and what they call vehicle barriers. These are intended to stop vehicles from crossing illegally. There was a dispute between the administration and Congress over how much additional barriers were needed and how much they were going to cost. Congress declined to appropriate funding for that purpose. In response, the president declared a national emergency on the border.

Under U.S. law, in times of national emergencies the president has fairly broad latitude to take emergency actions, including to move funds from accounts to pay for measures that address the emergency. There have been some law suits surrounding this issue. So far Congress has not succeeded in stopping the transfer of funding, despite that it appears that the process is moving pretty slowly, probably more slowly than the administration would like.

It appears that the process is moving pretty slowly, probably more slowly than the administration would like.

The president’s plans have also resulted in the longest shutdown in U.S. history with a duration of 35 days. Regarding the understanding of such measures by the public: How much is this kind of extreme policy accepted by American citizens?

The public has unfortunately grown a little bit used to government shutdowns. They used to be extremely rare and over the last seven to eight years they have become fairly regular. It’s a symptom of a broader issue with our politics in the United States today which is characterized by polarization – an unfortunate and shortsighted one when it ends up shutting the government down in order to achieve tactical results by wielding a very blunt object.

In this last shutdown substantial parts of the government stopped running. The public gets upset when it starts to feel the effects. For example, air traffic controllers started being unable to keep up the operational speed that they normally have. Some airports had substantial delays. That’s what broke the camel’s back with regard to the shutdown.

As you already mentioned, Donald Trump also imposed a national state of emergency while speaking of a national crisis on the Southern border. How severe is the problem of drug trafficking and crimes committed by illegal immigrants?

Drug trafficking has obviously been a large historical issue across the physical land border. I am most concerned about hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. More than 90 percent of those drugs generally come through our ports of entry because they are easy to conceal. You can smuggle them in small quantities and still make a lot of money. This issue has been fueled by the opioid epidemic in the United States which is a real problem and policy challenge. But the policy solutions should focus more on what we can do to better detect and interdict these drugs at our actual ports of entry.

As far as the violence committed by migrants is concerned, there is no evidence that illegal or legal immigrants in the United States commit crimes at a higher rate than the average U.S. citizen. That is not a huge concern. There has been a dramatic surge in migration over the last year and a half from Central America to the United States and it has predominantly been fueled by families and children. There is no doubt that there is a crisis on the border but it’s more of a humanitarian crisis than any other crisis.

There is no evidence that illegal or legal immigrants in the United States commit crimes at a higher rate than the average U.S. citizen.

Is president Trump trying to build a narrative working with fear?

The president has taken some incidents committed by bad actors and has often portrayed them as if that happens all the time. I am not convinced that’s exactly the case. Our border security agencies have been stretched to their breaking point. The issue is that we have frontline law enforcement officers and border patrol agents trying to handle a humanitarian crisis: They are being overwhelmed with young children and families.

The way the system works in the United States is that our frontline border agencies before the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are the border patrols between the ports of entry and the Office of Field Operations (OFO) at the ports of entry. Their facilities are only intended to hold people for a very short amount of time. We are talking of twelve to twenty-four hours. Other parts of the government are supposed to take those populations that need to be detained and put them in detention facilities that are geared to hold people for an extended period of time. Because the rest of the system has been completely overwhelmed by this surge in migration, we’re seeing people kind of stack up at our border facilities for many days at a time. This is unsanitary, and it’s unfair to our frontline law enforcement on the border.

Our border security agencies have been stretched to their breaking point. We have frontline law enforcement officers and border patrol agents trying to handle a humanitarian crisis: They are being overwhelmed with young children and families.

Will the deals with Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras that have been negotiated under high pressure by the U.S. government in 2019 really limit illegal immigration into the USA on a permanent basis?

They might. We are already seeing the numbers decrease a little bit over the last couple of months. Some of that could be seasonal. This is traditionally the time of a year when migration starts to slow down a little bit. It could also be happening due to the policies taking effect.

The bigger question is whether these policies will stand up in court. We have already seen competing rulings by different courts around this question. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, the law that governs the migration to the United States, there are provisions that would allow asylum seekers to remain in a safe third country. In some respect the administration has implemented something that looks a lot like a safe third country process without going through the actual loops you need to go through to designate a country like Mexico as safe third country. That will probably be litigated over the next year.

The administration has implemented something that looks a lot like a safe third country process without going through the actual loops you need to go through to designate a country like Mexico as safe third country.

Why are children still being separated from their parents on American soil?

There are legitimate reasons why children can sometimes be separated from their parents if their parents have committed a crime and if the government believes that the children will be endangered if they were to remain with their parents. Even in the Obama administration, when I was at CBP, we would have some incidents in which children were removed from their parents when it was deemed that their parents were criminals. The family separation policy that was put in place last year was substantially broader than that. It’s unclear to me why this is still happening.

It seems as if no long-term solution for this problem on the horizon.

I have been frustrated for years that the debate has been focused on what happens on the border, which is a symptom of the problem and not the actual challenge. The problem is that our system and our laws in the United States are antiquated and haven’t been updated in almost 40 years. We need to reform our system. We also need to recognize that these countries in Central America are essentially functioning as failed states where you have lawlessness and criminal elements including gangs like MS-13 taking over wide swaths of the country and making life basically unlivable for large parts of the population. As an American I think we need to take some responsibility for the fact that these gangs actually originated in the United States and were exported to Central America in the 1980s.

It’s sometimes very dangerous for immigrants to be sent back to the Mexican side of the border because they are exposed to robbery or violence. Could you elaborate on that?

One of the issues that doesn’t get talked about enough is that families and children are making the trip from Central America to the United States. This journey is incredibly dangerous for them and involves putting themselves in the hands of smugglers and criminals. There are horrible stories about the numbers of women who make this kind of journey that end up being violated in some way or other.

This is a deep concern, and this is probably one of the reasons why it’ll be difficult to designate Mexico as a safe third country. Mexico has taken enormous strides over the last twenty to thirty years and has become a middle-income country and has improved its security situation notwithstanding the wars with the cartels. But it’s still a pretty dangerous place, and migrants get routinely taken advantage of and have crimes committed against them.

You have extensively analyzed U.S. migration policy and worked on legislation in the Senate. What policy would you recommend to guarantee an effective immigration system with secure borders while simultaneously allowing for humane procedures in the process of seeking asylum?

Frankly speaking, it’s not rocket science. When I was working in Congress, there were multiple efforts both under the Republican president George Bush and the Democratic president Barack Obama to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It’s interesting that in both cases the broad contours of a possible reform were fairly similar. They generally involved accepting that we have between ten and thirteen million people living without legal status in the United States. We’ll never be able to find and remove them all. In many cases these people have been here for decades and have built lives in the United States and have U.S. citizen offspring. We need to provide these people with some avenue for having a kind of legal status whether it’s citizenship or something on a path towards citizenship.

It also involves making smart investments in our border that are targeting the problems we see on the border and not just building a wall or fences to make us feel better. It involves acknowledging that we need immigration and guest workers as Europe does as well. Our population is aging and has become accustomed to benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Without robust immigration numbers it’s going to be very difficult to continue that in the future.

We have between ten and thirteen million people living without legal status in the United States. We’ll never be able to find and remove them all.

How important will this issue be in the 2020 presidential election?

It’s clear that the administration wants to make it a primary issue during the election. What you hear from Democrats is more of a focus on economic topics and health care than immigration. That will probably be some sign of where the election is headed depending on what you hear more in the debates.

What is the Democrats’ strategy to counter the narrative and policy of the president?

Unfortunately, the Democrats are fairly divided on this issue. You have politicians on the far left who want to abolish immigration and customs enforcement. I personally think – and this is not a RAND position right now – that this is shortsighted. There are points that Democrats ought to be speaking about. One of them is that this administration has used a lot of a tough rhetoric on immigration but that it has overseen the most rapid increase in illegal immigration in quite some time. We are on track for a million apprehensions at the border this fiscal year. This would be the largest number since the early 2000s and almost three times more than what we saw in the last years of the Obama administration.

The USA has always been a country of immigration. Will it lose its status of an almost mythical land where you can fulfill your personal dreams if you just try hard enough?

I truly hope not. I myself am an immigrant from Argentina and a naturalized citizen. Yet, having not been born in the United States, I had the privilege to work as a senior advisor to multiple senators on an important committee in Congress. I have been a presidential appointee. Those are the kinds of opportunities that still exist in the United States for immigrants. Immigrants can make a difference. But immigration has also always been a polarizing debate in the United States going back hundreds of years. Both holds true.

Here you can find Blas Nuñez-Neto’s profile at the RAND Corporation.

Der Beitrag “The government hasn’t constructed new stretches of fencing” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What has been the biggest surprise to you so far in the presidential race?

Michael Werz: The fact that President Trump still has an approval rating among registered Republicans that ranges between 79% and 88%, as well as the fact that GOP leaders have fallen in line behind the President, even when he has flouted both Republican orthodoxy and constitutional norms.

Peter Rough: The biggest surprise for me is the utter failure of any Democrats who hadn’t previously run for president (or flirted with the prospect) to catch fire. Biden, Warren, and Sanders are clearly the big three and from them there is a steep drop-off to the rest of the field (Harris, O’Rourke, Gillibrand, etc.). Given the current flux in American politics, I expected a relatively unknown Barack Obama-like figure to emerge to run a new campaign with new ideas. Instead, the Democratic field feels a bit stale.

Which issues will ultimately decide the elections 2020?

MW: Health care, economic issues and environmental policy consistently rank among Americans’ top concerns, but in a broader sense the election will be answering the question of where Americans want to see their society a generation from now. For many, this will be the most consequential election since the Second World War—there will likely be record turnout. For many Trump supporters, they will vote because they feel their white privilege and economic advantages are being threatened. Those who oppose Trump will vote because they abhor his targeting of minority groups and fear what another four years of what Steve Bannon called the “deconstruction of the administrative state” might bring.

[related]

PR: There will be a mix of traditional issues which always decide elections, most importantly the economy. And then issues which Trump has made his own, like immigration and trade. There are some issues which have been heavily discussed in the Democratic primary – race relations and climate change come to mind – that are unlikely to be big topics in the general election. The majority of Americans are white and almost half are male; I can’t imagine villainizing them to be an effective general election strategy. Moreover, the economic costs of largescale climate intervention will probably deter the Democratic nominee from making that a premier issue in the general election. I also think neither side will wish to emphasize health care. For Trump, the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is the biggest setback of his administration; for the Democrats, Obamacare is still something of a liability. So both sides are incentivized to mute this issue, despite all of the primary talk of “Medicare for All.” One thing I can guarantee, however: there are bound to be unforeseen issues we aren’t talking about now that will matter a great deal come next fall.

The increasing popularity of socialism – at least the American definition of it – is discussed a lot in the media. How do you assess the role of the far left in current politics? How important will it be in the elections?

MW: From a European perspective, this discussion must be quite entertaining. The self-declared democratic socialists in the Democratic Party argue for the right to study at a state university and not end up with massive student debt, for a health care system that leaves no American behind, for the reinstatement of previous regulation of the financial sector, and for meaningful action to address climate change. Angela Merkel and most of her CDU supporters would wholeheartedly embrace these policy positions and still reject the label of being a “socialist”. Ultimately, the current discussion here in the U.S. proves just how far the entire political spectrum—including the Democrats—has shifted since the Reagan era.

PR: The left is more powerful than at any time in recent memory in the Democratic party. This is where the energy lies and explains why presidential candidates have positioned themselves on the fringes. It is also something of a liability for Democrats in the general election. There is a reason why Trump targeted the so-called “squad” of left-wing congresswomen: his goal is to make them rather than Joe Biden the face of the Democratic Party. A hugely consequential dynamic will be the eventual Democratic nominee’s pivot from primary to general election candidate.

What effect has Donald Trump’s presidency had on the political debate leading up to the primaries?

MW: A mixed effect: He defines some of the policy responses because of his extreme positions on immigration, his denial of climate change, his continuing redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top of U.S. society. At the same time, many Americans realize that forty years of deregulation and the illegitimate war in Iraq have undermined America’s reputation with the rest of the world and created massive economic inequality at home. The President has attempted to answer these challenges by rewinding the clock to the 19^thcentury – complete with tariffs, robber barons, and modern-day Jim Crow legislation. But because he has so destroyed the old norms, many Americans are increasingly open to new ideas that might have previously been dismissed as outside the mainstream. This desire for outside-the-box solutions to 21^st century questions is one of the reasons why Elizabeth Warren’s campaign based on detailed, bold policy proposals has proved so popular.

PR: Trump’s presidency is everything. He commands the ship, so to speak. It’s antiquated to talk of a news cycle, but perhaps it’s best to say that he’s driving the media narrative in directions of his choosing. It isn’t always smooth sailing, but there’s no doubt that he’s the object of attention.

What are the president’s chances of being reelected?

MW: It’s unlikely that President Trump will be re-elected. Over the past two and a half years he has been unable (or unwilling) to expand his base beyond his core supporters. In addition, his confrontational behavior, open racism, and cozy relations with authoritarian leaders have alienated some moderate Republican voters in suburban and rural areas – the midterm elections last November showed that trend clearly. The cruel border and immigration policies implemented by his administration – as well as the racist diatribes – will also motivate minority voters (one-third of the U.S. population) and millennial voters (now the largest demographic group of voting age) to get more involved in the electoral process than ever before.

PR: The last time a president lost reelection was 1992, so I think his odds are slightly better than 50/50. In my view, the Democrats have not really absorbed the lessons of 2016. Their hope is that the American public is so exhausted by Trump that it decides to dump him. And if this election is purely a referendum on Trump, they may very well win; however, if Trump succeeds in making this a choice between blunt Trumpism and American socialism, then he probably wins.

After the Russian hacks in the 2016 presidential election: How big is the danger of interference with the 2020 elections?

MW: It’s a substantial risk that has been almost entirely ignored by the Trump administration. President Trump’s denial of any Russian involvement will surely be read by Moscow as an invitation to interfere once more – which is also true for upcoming national elections in Europe. However, it seems that the intelligence community is better prepared and more sensitized than in 2016. Ultimately, American society and policymakers have no option but to assume that the voting process is being executed with integrity. Any doubt about the legitimacy of the voting systems and count would only add fuel to already simmering discontent about the unfair advantages provided to the Republican party by the electoral college, gerrymandered districts, and legalized voter suppression of minorities. This growing sense of illegitimacy poses a serious long-term threat to one of the oldest democratic system on earth – a system currently led by a man who openly said he might contest the last presidential election if defeated.

PR: Given the changing nature of media, I suspect foreign meddling in elections will be a permanent feature of Western politics. I doubt it will play a decisive role and tip the vote one way or another. But it is important to deter such pernicious behavior to the extent possible. Such interference should not be cost-free.

Der Beitrag Two Takes on the Presidential Race erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

It really is an era coming to an end. After ten years, Friedrich Merz as the chairman is leaving and John Emerson has already left – but not really. Let me start with you, dear Friedrich Merz. You are looking back on ten important and successful years. What was your biggest success, the most positive transatlantic event?

[related]FM: First of all, I am really happy to co-host the biggest German-American Conference we ever had at Atlantik-Brücke together with the American Council on Germany (ACG) tonight and tomorrow. It is a great honor that we are attracting so many people to our conference. Sitting here and looking over to the Adlon Hotel, I am reminded of one of the best meetings I had in my capacity as chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke with John’s predecessor Bob Kimmitt. At the very beginning of my tenure, I invited him for dinner there. It was not an easy conversation because cooperation between the ACG and the Atlantik-Brücke had been a little fraught before. I said: Bob, let’s talk about what has happened and let’s look forward to what we can do jointly in the future. We came to the conclusion that we should leave the past behind and restore our cooperation. This was the continuation of a very fruitful collaboration between our two organizations, which we should make sure we continue in the future.

Which moment worried you the most?

FM: The biggest disappointment was the failure of TTIP. When I see what is happening in the US these days, I wish that we at least had TTIP. But to be honest, I am not so sure if this would really help as long as the American President is not willing to stick to the agreements the US government entered into. Nevertheless, we should come back to a rules-based cooperation between Europe and the United States. A transatlantic free trade agreement is one of the most important things we could and should achieve in the future. We all worked very hard on TTIP and we met in several places in Germany to fight for TTIP.

The biggest disappointment was the failure of TTIP.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

John Emerson, you said the two of you were working together for six years. You were trying to achieve TTIP, and you are still true friends. Can you describe your cooperation and what is the key to this special friendship?

JE: I have to say what a great pleasure it is to sit up here and look into this room and see so many friends. Old friends, new friends, but particularly friends from our time in Germany. Secondly, I have to say, that there was probably no one I enjoyed working with in Germany more than Friedrich Merz. Friedrich hosted the opening dinner at which I spoke when I got introduced to some in this room and many in the German public the day I presented my credentials to President Gauck. And then literally the last speech that I gave and the last event that Kimberly and I and our girls attended, Friedrich hosted with Atlantik-Brücke again. He threw an incredible party for us. On behalf of all of us, we are really sad to see you go.

I have to say, that there was probably no one I enjoyed working with in Germany more than Friedrich Merz.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

There are three levels to the German-American friendship and relationship. There is a government to government level – and sometimes there are things that we agree on and sometimes there are things that we don’t agree on. There is also the business to business level. There is no reason in the world that we cannot continue negotiating a great trade agreement. And then there is the people to people level, which is very much reflected by what we see tonight in this room.

Friedrich Merz, you recently said, and I quote you directly: We are eyewitnesses of a fundamental political and economic shift. You underlined that change while mentioning the election of the 45^thU.S. President and the party convention of the Communist Party of China in October 2017. What exactly are these tectonic changes that we are facing?

FM: I mentioned a third date, which was the 23^rdof June 2016, when the majority of the British decided Britain should leave the EU. These three events, the Brexit vote, the American election and the party convention of the Communist Party in China mark a fundamental change in our history. When we look back at these events some time from now, we will realize what really happened. Let me quote Professor Heinrich August Winkler, who said: We are in the midst of a cultural fight about the future of our liberal order. He concludes that it is really uncertain whether we will win. But there is something that makes me optimistic: when I travel to the United States, my experience is that in these complicated times, more Americans than ever before are willing to defend what we achieved over the last seven decades. Let’s preserve our freedom and our liberty.

These three events, the Brexit vote, the American election and the party convention of the Communist Party in China mark a fundamental change in our history.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

John, what do you think about this?

JE: If you talk to most Americans and tell them that there is a real crisis in the German-American relationship, they say: What are you talking about? We love Germany. Angela Merkel still is probably, if not the most, one of the two most respected foreign leaders in the United States of America. The multilateral institutions that were created over the last 70 years, as creaky and in need of reform as some of them are, have been largely responsible for helping to create 70 years of peace and prosperity, growth and national security throughout the West. As we move away from working in and through those institutions towards a more transactional nation to nation approach, we risk moving away from the values that hold us together.

As we move away from working in and through multilateral institutions towards a more transactional nation to nation approach, we risk moving away from the values that hold us together.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

John, Sigmar Gabriel, the possible next chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, said Europeans only care about themselves, for world issues they rely on the United States.Is this description true?

JE: Absolutely. President Obama got a lot of heat for an interview with The Atlantic, in which he talked about free riders in terms of the whole burden sharing concept. In fairness to Sigmar Gabriel’s commentary on Europeans, Americans didn’t necessarily mind that we were running things. That wasn’t a role that the United States of America shrunk from, particularly during the Cold War. However, those issues that Friedrich talked about are significantly growing. Particularly in relation to China and to the rise of nationalist populism around the world that has much more of a cultural genesis than an economic genesis, particularly here in Europe where immigration is the jet fuel for that movement. Those are issues that we can confront best when we are working together.

Friedrich Merz, you are one of the voices who constantly mentions that, let me put it in my words, Germany is punching below its weight. Where exactly should Germany step up?

FM: It is not only the Trump administration which is complaining about our defense budget. When former defense secretary Robert Gates left office, he gave a public speech on the deficit of funding and the NATO budget. Still, the majority of Germans is not aware of the fact that the U.S. is paying 70 percent and that Europe is only contributing 30 percent to the NATO budget. On the other hand, the question is: What is the right answer from the European side of the Atlantic to these challenges we are facing? The bigger problem within the transatlantic relationship is on our side of the Atlantic. The member states of the European Union have to start speaking with one voice.

The bigger problem within the transatlantic relationship is on our side of the Atlantic.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

Can you give us an example?

FM: When Jean-Claude Juncker travelled to Washington, D.C. in July of 2018 and had a debate with President Trump in the Oval Office, he gave a very clear statement about trade. He could only convince the President not to implement more tariffs on European goods because he had a letter signed by 28 European heads of state backing his point. Europe has to be clearer and we have to be united. That brings me to another point: The Germans have to take on more leadership within the European Union. Germany has a big responsibility to bring all Europeans to the table to agree on a common European position.

Germany has a big responsibility to bring all Europeans to the table to agree on a common European position.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

Do you agree with that, John?

JE: That’s a very fair statement. Thinking about the effort to get the EU member states agree on sanctions against Russia as consequence of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine, I do recall Angela Merkel being very insistent on making sure everybody is lined up. But we were constantly talking to Germans about investing more in the southern part of Europe where we have all this youth unemployment, and not worrying so much about the Schwarze Nullin our budget. If Germany does not take a lead in investing in national security and in other areas, no other country is going to do it.

If Germany does not take a lead in investing in national security and in other areas, no other country is going to do it.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

In 2015, Atlantik-Brücke presented President Bush Senior with an award. You, Friedrich Merz, were invited to Bush’s house in Kennebunkport, Maine. Please share those moments and describe why exactly you awarded President George H. W. Bush.

FM: That was one of the most moving events in my tenure at Atlantik-Brücke. We had a very long Saturday in their private home in Kennebunkport. It was very encouraging to see that the President was still very interested in Germany. We had a deep conversation on German reunification and the events that led up to it. He was very interested in hearing how the country is governed from Berlin now, a city which was very close to his heart because of its  history.

JE: At least Germans of a certain age never ever forget that the man is absolutely revered here. Angela Merkel did not go to his funeral because of protocol. She went to his funeral because she wanted to be there.

Talking about the future, we have to jumpstart a dialogue with the America of tomorrow. The majority of the Americans soon won’t have European roots. What would you recommend, how can we start this dialogue?

JE: We underestimate the impact and the importance of youth. When you see the impact of the kids in Florida, who were the survivors of that school shooting or when you see the girl from Sweden who’s led the grassroot effort on climate change, it actually gives me great hope. For organizations like us both having Young Leaders programs, we have to keep building on this asset and maintaining it. We ought to empower our young people more and to listen to them more.

We underestimate the impact and the importance of youth.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

We will come to an end. Chancellor Merkel said in her commencement speech recently at Harvard University, I quote: Nothing can be taken for granted, democracy is not something we can take for granted, neither is peace, neither is prosperity. What should we do to fight for these shared values?

FM: The most important point is to show people in our respective countries that we are still sharing these values. I would like to give you one clear indication that this is really working. We are going to the US with our annual delegation in October every year. Last year we went to Oklahoma, a state where we had never been to before. The people there were so enthusiastic about the German-American cooperation and their hospitality was outstanding. It’s quite simple: People have to meet people.

What can you add, John?

JE: Living in Los Angeles, which is Berlin’s sister city, I couldn’t agree more with that. Look at the Paris climate change agreement for example. The reality is: We are actually doing quite well. Because the state level, the local level, the business level and the people to people level are realizing this plan. The federal government isn’t that important. And that can happen on issue after issue. Additionally, democracy and the values that we hold dear are like a marriage – you’ve got to work on it. You have to always be thinking about it, you have to be flexible and willing to grow and change. I want to give a shout-out to the members of the press, because you are having a tough experience in today’s world. The fact is, it is your responsibility to hold the rest of us accountable to live up to the values that we claim we are living up to.

I want to give a shout-out to the members of the press, because you are having a tough experience in today’s world. The fact is, it is your responsibility to hold the rest of us accountable to live up to the values that we claim we are living up to.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

This conversation was moderated by Tina Hasselwho is the Berlin Bureau Chief of ARD German Television.

Der Beitrag In conversation with true Atlanticists Friedrich Merz and Ambassador John Emerson erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interview: Tyson Barker

Dr. Polyakova, when we talk about disinformation campaigns and political warfare the year 2016 stands out. The presidential election in the United States and the Brexit referendum were the wake-up call for the West. What has happened since and what is the next iteration of this threat?

[related]What happened in 2016 was not new in terms of Russia’s global desire to undermine influence politics in other countries like Ukraine, Georgia and countries closer to Russia that it considers to be the legitimate testing grounds for these kinds of operations. This tool kit has become so diffuse. We are seeing other state actors using these kinds of techniques. Iran, North Korea and China will eventually enter this space in a significant way as well. If you look at what the Russian intentions and activities have been in places like Ukraine, we can make some assertions about what we might expect.

First of all disinformation campaigns especially in social media have not stopped. Secondly they have certainly evolved in the sense that we now see a lot of content that we can identify as disinformation from the Russian side jumping across platforms and being amplified by Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Google results are being manipulated when it comes to certain search terms. The social media companies have responded to a certain extent. In my view, their response is relatively superficial and minimal. They have started taking down disinformation networks and reducing automated accounts in rank. However, we are quite far behind in truly addressing this threat.

The social media companies have responded to a certain extent. In my view, their response is relatively superficial and minimal.

Ukraine has been the laboratory for these kinds of tools and techniques. Do we see new mutations of these tools being used in Ukraine?

The positive outcome of the exposure to these influence operations in the information space has been hyperawareness. There has been a general acknowledgement that Ukraine has been the primary victim and target of Russian efforts. There have been attacks on critical infrastructure systems, especially on electrical grids. We are going to see much more of these kinds of aggressive attacks. The presidential elections in Ukraine in March are just around the corner. This is going to be an event to watch.

You wrote an excellent report at Brookings entitled “Weapons of the Weak” in which you highlighted the return on investment of so-called Deep Fakes. What exactly are we talking about here?

‘Deep Fakes’ has become the term of a catch-all-concept for manipulation of audio and video content online. Deep Fakes are A.I. driven and produced, incredibly advanced and original content. Doctored videos and images are nothing new. But this concept is profoundly different because our ability to detect manipulated video and audio has not caught up with the ability of these algorithms to produce this false audio and video material.

Deep Fakes are A.I. driven and produced, incredibly advanced and original content.

Can you give us an example?

Here is a quick and famous one: If you google Obama and Deep Fake, you will see four videos of President Obama speaking. I regularly show these and give talks about them. I always ask the audience: which one is the real Obama? People pick one, but of all them are fake of course! This signals to us that AI is closely linked to Big Data. If you can feed a huge amount of data into this algorithm, it can produce a new video. It looks so real and so convincing that we can’t detect it is false content.

If you can feed a huge amount of data into this algorithm, it can produce a new video. It looks so real and so convincing that we can’t detect it is false content.

Frankly, some implications of this phenomenon are frightening. An audio voicemail being left for troops serving in the Baltic states or an e-mail coming in with a video of the commanding officer sharing what is actually false and misleading information take some time to verify. Meanwhile, that will subserve the role of disorientating potential military operations. Fake videos are often much more fun to look at because they are more sensationalist than accurate content. They are spread much faster than accurate content, and it takes longer to debunk their false narratives. It is open source based, so it is out there. We have to prepare ourselves for this.

Russia will probably not be the developer of this technology but more of an early adopter and weaponizer of it. Who is developing this technology?

Russia has great military capacities and of course a nuclear arsenal. But if you look at its financial capabilities, its struggling economy and its declining demographics, Russia doesn’t look like a great power. From the Russian perspective, investing in these kinds of technologies and asymmetric threats is a great way to balance out the other inequities that the country experiences vis-à-vis Western Europe and the United States.

From the Russian perspective, investing in these kinds of technologies and asymmetric threats is a great way to balance out the other inequities that the country experiences vis-à-vis Western Europe and the United States.

Well, who are the innovators? Certainly, it is a global market. If we look at a few different indicators, it becomes very clear who is going to be an innovator. Obviously, you need well trained, sophisticated, highly skilled individuals in machine learning. You also need access to massive amounts of data. A.I. has been around for decades, some of the first A.I. algorithms were written in the 1950s. In fact, the new algorithms are not that different. However, the critical change has been that we now have the ability to process data and that we have a mass availability of data. China will consequently lead in this sphere. Whoever controls the data, will control the world.

Another leader in this space is the United States. How should governments regulate A.I. to protect our democracy from these kinds of technologies being weaponized in the civil society?

I haven’t seen any serious regulatory and legislative efforts in the United States so far to grapple with this problem. Mainly because we don’t see a clear technological solution. On the regulatory side it is very difficult to see where this will go. There is a general reluctance among policy makers in the Republican and Democratic parties around regulatory efforts for the big tech firms who are driving so much of the economic growth in the United States and are also funding many congressional campaigns.

There is a general reluctance among policy makers in the Republican and Democratic parties around regulatory efforts for the big tech firms who are driving so much of the economic growth in the United States and are also funding many congressional campaigns.

We have to start from the very beginning. This means policy makers need to know what they are talking about before they start legislating. Right now, there is a serious gap between tech and policy regarding the understanding of technology. There is some precedence showing how to deal with big new industries and big revolutionary changes, like forcing these companies to have common terms of use. This is something that the U.S. Congress has forced on credit card companies, it has also forced regulatory efforts on big tobacco back in the 1960s.

Is there an increasing pressure on the companies to take more responsibility?

The pressure is certainly there. Facebook and Twitter have made some efforts to deal with this. If I had to rank them in terms of how cooperative they have been with researchers and government, Twitter is most transparent in sharing data on some of the networks that are identified as being malicious. The companies now call this kind of manipulative behavior an offensive coordinated activity. We have heard a lot of very highly publicized takedowns of networks on Facebook and pages associated with Sputnik for example. But we don’t have a good sense whether this really makes a difference. We are very much at the tip of the iceberg. The platforms are perfectly designed to be the vectors of the diffusion of disinformation.

The platforms are perfectly designed to be the vectors of the diffusion of disinformation.

How do you deter an authoritarian state where a civil society doesn’t really exist?

That is where governments can be most effective. They should send very clear messages via intelligence as to the consequences to specific actions on our critical infrastructure. You have to convey that there is a price to pay if you attack our societies. There has to be an economically punitive component. Others have suggested not so much a defensive strategy but an offensive strategy. But this is very dangerous.

You have to convey that there is a price to pay if you attack our societies. There has to be an economically punitive component.

Tyson Barker is Deputy Director and Fellow at the Aspen Institute Germany. He is a foreign and economic professional with in-depth experience working at senior levels in government and the think tank community. He is a 2014 Young Leader Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag “At the tip of the iceberg with regard to disinformation” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Robin Fehrenbach

Jamie Fly was used to harsh criticism whenever he landed in Berlin. That’s what happened to him in 2003, when he worked for the George W. Bush administration and was asked tough questions about the war in Iraq. Ten years later – working for President Barack Obama – he experienced the outrage of the German partners over the NSA affair. Today, Fly’s situation is completely different, as the Senior Fellow of the GMF and Atlantik-Brücke Young Leader Alumnus conveyed at a dinner discussion in Berlin. For two years, Germans have been asking him to explain President Trump’s policies. What used to be irritation has turned into helplessness.

[related]Fly, who also acted as a foreign and security policy advisor for Republican Senator Marco Rubio, began his domestic policy analysis with the recent congressional elections. “After the Midterms, it looked as if Trump would emerge relatively unscathed. Although the majority in the House of Representatives was lost, the Republicans were pleased with winning seats in the Senate.” But the government shutdown, which became the longest in US history, shattered trust. The economic impact, Fly predicted, would be enormous. “The shutdown was a tactical misstep by the President. What has he achieved? He didn’t get the money to build a wall at the Mexican border,” Fly noted. He said he expected the new Congress to use more of its oversight authority to keep the executive branch in check, but this would likely aggravate the deadlock in US politics.

Fly was worried about the American people. The continuing domestic political squabbles and the negative experiences with military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were increasingly tiring the population of US foreign policy. Before the Midterms, polls showed that only 6% of US citizens considered foreign policy to be an important issue. Fly regretted that the current administration continued to act erratically in this field. The high turnover of key foreign policy officials was also related to this. There is a long list of common challenges facing the United States and Europe, such as the search for solutions to social problems or the handling of Artificial Intelligence. However, there is no impetus on the part of the United States to push this transatlantic agenda forward. “The will to play a leading role in world politics is disappearing. This break with decades of continuity will bring fundamental changes for Europe, but also for the Middle East,” said Fly. As a consequence, Europe must work out what it wants to achieve internationally and, above all, how it wants to succeed. Germany in particular should become much more involved in Asia, especially Japan.

In the subsequent discussion, Fly addressed “a general crisis of confidence in our societies,” noting that the fear of globalization, immigration and digitization is real. “This is where real transatlantic cooperation should become the driving force for countering populism and nationalism,” Fly noted. At the end of the event, Fly and the members and Young Leaders of Atlantik-Brücke discussed the state crisis in Venezuela and the trade conflict with China.

Der Beitrag “The shutdown was a tactical misstep by the President” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right”, said George H. W. Bush in his inaugural speech as US President in 1989. Shortly after, his words were to be followed by deeds: The perspective of a reunited Germany was controversial among the European Allies, but George H. W. Bush resolutely fought for it.

Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Friedrich Merz said: “George Bush will be remembered forever as a prudent, courageous and far-sighted President. At a time of historic upheaval, he stood by our country. He was a champion of a multilateral and liberal order, who placed his trust in his political partners and treated them with respect. This made him a truly great statesman who wrote history and is still a model for us today.”

The former president valued and trusted Germany as a partner in Europe and was convinced that a reunited free Germany would be even better able to fulfil the role of “partner in leadership” – a concept he had already devised in 1989.

For his services to German reunification and the friendship between Germany, Europe and the United States, Atlantik-Brücke presented the former president with the George H. W. Bush Award, named after him, on August 28, 2015. “With great personal commitment, George Bush made it clear that the USA considered Germany as a friend and partner,” Friedrich Merz said at the award ceremony.

You can read an obituary on George H. W. Bush by our board member Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger here (in German).

Der Beitrag Atlantik-Brücke mourns George H. W. Bush erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Dr. Charles Kupchan regards the Midterm Elections as a referendum on President Trump’s tenure. The Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University also explains in the conversation shortly before the election why there is no political center on Capitol Hill anymore and why the system of checks and balances is in a deep crisis.

Dr. Kupchan, which regions and which groups of voters do you expect to be decisive regarding the House of Representatives?

The most important factor to keep an eye on is the turnout. It appears that the American public is very mobilized, especially after the mail bombs that were sent to leading Democrats and the shooting in the synagogue. President Trump is continuing to use quite heated and provocative language trying to get his base out. But it appears that this is also going to get the Democratic base out.

[related]The demographics to watch are first of all women. Will they turn out in large numbers? Will they tend to vote for the Democrats? Secondly, minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics will be important. One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost in her contest with Donald Trump was that she had a lower turnout among minorities than Barack Obama had. The key states to watch are the swing states, places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These are reasonably large states with high numbers of elected representatives. Going by the poll numbers it looks like the Democrats will take back the House. But I am very gun-shy about making any predictions given how misguided the polls were in the last presidential elections.

Do you think there is one single, dominant topic like health care that might be decisive in the aforementioned swing states?

One distinction between the midterms and the presidential contest is that the Democratic Party has clearly decentralized its messages and lets Members of Congress run on their own. The Democratic Party – depending on what part of the country you are in – is a very ideologically disparate group. In some districts Democrats stand a good chance if they run on the far left, if they call for medical coverage for all and for free tuition to go to college. In other parts of the country a Democrat who runs on those messages would be going nowhere.

The Democrats should now and in view of 2020 focus on bread and butter issues. On the economy, on jobs, on training, on health care. Many Americans are tired of the cultural wars and identity issues. Even though these issues dominate social media as well as cable news networks, most Americans are primarily worried about their pocket book.

Many Americans are tired of the cultural wars and identity issues.

Even if you are gun-shy, it seems pretty likely that there could be a change in the House. Do you agree?

It is more likely than not. One would hope that the pollsters have learned from lessons and figured out what they did wrong in 2016. They should look at the right demographics when they do their surveys today. But given that FiveThirtyEight, the New York Times and others had Hillary Clinton close to a 90 percent likelihood of victory, I am not ready to say that this is a done deal. But this is an extremely important election. It may be the most important election in modern American history, because first of all it is a referendum on Donald Trump. It will give us a sense of what is going to happen in 2020. Secondly, the bottom line is that Trump has largely been able to govern in an unchecked fashion. The founding fathers created a compound republic, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances. But there has been very little to stop him on many issues. If the Democrats do succeed in taking back the House, there will be a political check.

The bottom line is that Trump has largely been able to govern in an unchecked fashion.

Let us turn to the Senate. 35 seats are at stake, the Democrats would need just two more seats than now. Why is it still going to be a lot harder for them than in the House?

Part of it has to do with demographics. In addition to creating a system that is supposed to guarantee checks and balances, the founding fathers also gave a lot of power to the states by giving every state two senators, no matter the population of the state. Many states in the Plains or in the South that do not have nearly as many voters as large states like California, New York or Florida, nonetheless have the same representation in the Senate. In that respect, the vote of a Republican in North Dakota counts much more than the vote of a Democrat in Massachusetts. Even though the country as a whole may vote Democrat overall, that bias will not show up in the Senate because of the voting system. Also, there are simply not as many races where it looks like that the Democratic candidate has a good chance of unseating a Republican incumbent.

What would be the biggest change in Washington, if the Republicans kept the Senate and the Democrats won the House?

The most significant change would be reflected in the checks and balances. Although Trump can still do a lot without the approval of Congress when it comes to issues like the Paris Agreement or the Iran Nuclear Deal or pulling out of the INF Treaty.

You are likely to see a House that makes it very difficult for President Trump to govern on a day-to-day basis because of one inquiry after another into his finances, into the Russia investigation, into just about everything under the sun.

But you are likely to see a House that makes it very difficult for President Trump to govern on a day-to-day basis because of one inquiry after another into his finances, into the Russia investigation, into just about everything under the sun. It is conceivable to me that you could see a move to impeach the president, if the Democrats take the House. It is going to be pretty nasty. You are not likely to see any significant change in the underlying animosity that today typifies American politics. The Democrats won’t come in and say: Ok, let’s go back to bipartisanship, let’s go back to rules that give the minority more power. I cannot overstate the degree to which the United States is in an unrecognizable political mood because of how polarizing this president has been.

I cannot overstate the degree to which the United States is in an unrecognizable political mood because of how polarizing this president has been.

Let us look at a second scenario. Which are the most important legislative projects on the Republicans’ agenda for the next two years, if they keep the Senate and the House?

There would be a high likelihood of further tax reform and tax cuts. We would likely see further efforts to undo Obamacare. And we would likely see a president who becomes more and more convinced that he has the right formula. Over the last couple of years since he has been in office, Trump has believed more and more in himself, he is more comfortable in his own skin. If the Republicans were to hold the House and the Senate, Trump would see that as a sign that he should double down on ‘America First’. There could be new tariffs and a sharper unilateralism. In some ways Trump has proven to be more ideological than we thought at the beginning. This would only deepen if this midterm election is seen as a confirmation of his style of government and his substance.

Do you think the President’s tax issues and past business deals would case him problems if the Democrats won the House?

You would see a mess, a chaos, a Congress that is even more dysfunctional than it is now. The president enjoys legal immunity on most fronts while he is in office. My understanding is that even if he had committed fraud before he came into office, that could not be prosecuted until he leaves office. The only legal recourse that you could see is a move to impeach him, if the Democrats take the House. But that would have very significant consequences for the American political system. Quite honestly, I am not sure whether that would be a positive step from the perspective of the political health of the United States. If the Democrats do take the House, their best strategy is to ride out the next two years and hope to take the presidency back in 2020.

If the Democrats do take the House, their best strategy is to ride out the next two years and hope to take the presidency back in 2020.

How severe is the crisis of the deliberative process regarding the legislative record in 2017 of declining debates carried out in the House and declining amendments considered in the Senate?

It is important to appreciate that Trump is a symptom as well as a cause. He reflects a trend in the political life that began in 1994 when the Republicans took back the House while Bill Clinton was president. That really is the beginning of what I would call the death of America’s political center. It is a process that is taking place in Germany right now. Although your political center is weakening, it is not yet depopulated. The American political center does not exist on Capitol Hill. It exists in the public, there are still many centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. That is why you have seen these big swings in the pendulum from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, and then from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. You don’t know who will come next. It may be a centrist Democrat who looks a lot more like pre-Trump than post-Trump. But it is important to realize that whoever the president is, he or she will be working in a political system in which the political center is effectively gone. I see the Republican Party in particular as being overtaken by an angry insurgency on the far right that is not going to be repaired for a very long time.

The American political center does not exist on Capitol Hill.

Do you see any Democrat in the midterm races who might be that person to beat Trump in 2020 combining the two factors of mobilizing enough on the left and of winning enough in the rest of the political center?

I cannot give you a name. And I find that concerning. It is completely conceivable that the Democrats could take the House and that Trump could win the reelection in 2020. It is much easier for the Democrats to run when they don’t need a national figure or a national message. Once we get into the presidential campaign, and this is going to happen very quickly after the midterm elections, we are looking for a figure that can unify the party and can articulate a clear message that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. I would like to see someone like Joe Biden although he is on the older end of the spectrum. He is someone who can appeal to the white working class but at the same time can reach out to liberals and younger voters. It is important to keep in mind that almost 45 percent of the American electorate is white without a college education.

It is completely conceivable that the Democrats could take the House and that Trump could win the reelection in 2020.

Donald Trump’s approval ratings have increased lately; they are currently at 43 percent. How big are his chances to stay in office for eight years?

I would put the number below fifty percent, but not much under fifty percent. This is a theological statement and not based upon evidence and facts. It is theological in the sense that Trump is outside of the mainstream for many Americans. I hope that the American people will come back to their senses and vote for someone who is more fit to be in the Oval Office.

At the end, I would like you to complete the following sentences. Number one: after a very competitive race, out of the 23 seats the Democrats need to pick up in the House, they will …

… end up picking up more than 30 seats.

Number two: next year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller will eventually …

… set forth the finding of his investigations. More heads will roll, more indictments will be forthcoming. But it is anybody’s guess whether Mr. Mueller will get into the higher reaches of the presidency including Mr. Trump himself.

And number three: the future of the transatlantic relationship will, after all the recent challenges, …

… be up for grabs. I am an Atlanticist. Europe and the US don’t have any option other than to stay together. I hope, that the Europeans in general give the United States time to find its way back to partnership. I don’t know how long it will take, but it will happen. In the meantime, please do your best to prevent Europe from falling apart.

In the meantime, please do your best to prevent Europe from falling apart.

Der Beitrag “The most important election in modern American history” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Peter Rough

By virtually any measure, the American economy is booming. In the second quarter of this year, economic growth eclipsed 4 percent—a number derided as impossible just a few years ago—while consumer confidence recently reached an 18-year high. Moreover, the jobless rate has fallen to 3.7 percent, the lowest since the 1960s, reflecting the millions of jobs that have been created in the past eighteen months. Today, almost two-thirds of American voters view the economy as excellent or good. If James Carville’s adage, “It’s the economy, stupid,” is any guide, Republican incumbents should be coasting to victory in next week’s midterm elections.

[related]And yet, by consensus, the Democratic party is poised to retake the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. How to explain the discrepancy? For one, Republicans face strong historical headwinds. Since the end of the Civil War, the president’s party has lost seats in 35 of 38 midterm elections. Worse, when the president’s approval ratings have dipped below 50 percent, his party has generally lost two dozen seats or more. The proof is in the pudding: with only a 23-seat majority at present, several Republicans have announced over the past year that they will retire at the end of their terms. Better to go out as powerful committee chairmen, so their thinking, than languish in the minority.

Historically, opposition parties have performed well in midterm elections for the simple reason that they enjoy a clearly discernible target: the president. In the case of Donald Trump, loathed by progressives and liberals alike, this is especially true. The Democrats’ agenda remains a loose amalgamation of ideas, at best—sufficiently vague to allow persuadable voters of varying stripes to project their own ideals onto the party. But over the past two years, by defining themselves in opposition to the president, the Democrats have massively outraised Republicans and built a consistent enthusiasm lead on the generic ballot. The Republican effort to tag Democrats as the party of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a deeply unpopular figure across the country, has been only partially successful in reminding conservatives of why they voted for Donald Trump.

The Democrats’ agenda remains a loose amalgamation of ideas, at best—sufficiently vague to allow persuadable voters of varying stripes to project their own ideals onto the party.

In the U.S. Senate, however, the story is different. Across the country, Democratic senators are on the defensive. Of the thirty-five senate seats on the ballot (one-third of the Senate is elected every two years), a whopping twenty-six are held by Democrats. Ten of these Democratic incumbents are running in states won by Donald Trump; only one Republican candidate, Dean Heller of Nevada, represents a state won by Hillary Clinton. This lopsided map is explained by the 2006 and 2012 election cycles; owing to the then-faltering Iraq war and President Obama’s reelection, Democrats were able to make huge inroads in Republican leaning-states those years. Now, they must work to defend these seats.

While Democratic party enthusiasm remains white-hot, the tumultuous hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court animated the Republican party as well. Aghast at the left’s casual disregard for the presumption of innocence, Republican enthusiasm shot upward almost overnight. If current trends hold, and the Democratic enthusiasm edge is blunted, incumbent Senate Democrats mismatched to Republican states will lose. Under such circumstances, the GOP is likely to expand its Senate majority even while losing the House of Representatives.

If current trends hold, and the Democratic enthusiasm edge is blunted, incumbent Senate Democrats mismatched to Republican states will lose.

Irrespective, American politics is undergoing an epochal shift. “I am a nationalist. Nationalist. Use that word,” President Trump said last week at a rally for Senator Ted Cruz in Houston. This brand of popular nationalism is remaking the Republican party. In one primary after another, in a tremendous winning streak, the president’s preferred Republican candidates have beaten out establishment contenders. Meanwhile, the Democrats have turned hard left, mainstreaming older socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders while elevating newer faces, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The era of George H. W. Bush’s genteel conservatism and Bill Clinton’s New Democrats is now past.

If, as expected, the Democrats take the House and Republicans hold the Senate, the next two years will settle into a predictable rhythm: House Democrats, outfitted with the powers of the majority, will launch one investigation after another into the president. As major legislation stalls between the two chambers, the president will govern through executive powers—and continue sending conservative judges to the Republican Senate. Limited at home, the president may reinvigorate his foreign policy abroad. But most of all, the midterms will serve as the starting pistol for another contest: the presidential election of 2020. And in that, Donald Trump may find Democratic control of Congress a useful foil as he campaigns for four more years in the White House.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag Split governance: what to anticipate from the US midterm elections erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In our first episode of “On The Record”, we talk to Julianne (“Julie”) Smith, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, who is currently serving as a Weizsäcker Fellow at the Bosch Academy in Berlin. She served as the Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, from 2012-2013. Shortly before the Midterm elections, she speaks about the discontent of many Americans with the elites in Washington, about President Trump’s foreign policy and the future of NATO.

Interview: David Deißner

Der Beitrag On The Record erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Three years ago, Donald Trump burst onto the political scene offering a mix of Republican orthodoxy and populist fire. While his primary opponents issued aspirational calls for freedom, Trump sounded themes like “fair trade” and “the Wall”—positions that motivated working-class voters as much as they alienated urbane elites. In the general election, Trump doubled-down on this posture, embracing American nationalism as the corrective to globalization’s ills, which he blamed on the governing class. In the end, Trump’s upset victory proved so jarring not because it was surprising but because it rested on a basic rejection of the establishment itself.

[related]Trump’s win posed the governing class with a choice. They could respond with introspection, examining why Americans had chosen an explicitly anti-establishment message. Or they could take the bait and fight a cantankerous president who regularly derided them as the “Swamp.” For the past two years, the establishment has overwhelmingly chosen the latter path—a decision that has mostly boomeranged. Nowhere is this truer than with the mainstream media.

To be sure, Trump has not made it easy for the press to rise above the fray. Republicans have long bemoaned unfair media coverage—who can forget, after all, how glowing profiles of John McCain transformed into nasty denunciations of the Arizona Senator simply because Barack Obama (2008) had replaced George W. Bush (2000) as his opponent. Still, no Republican of stature has openly savaged the media quite like Donald Trump, who has labeled peddlers of “fake news” the “enemy of the American people.”

And so, the press has swung into action. In August, the Boston Globe rallied over 300 newspapers to publish a rebuttal of President Trump’s attacks on the media. Moreover, an entire industry of fact-checkers has proliferated across platforms, posting corrections aimed at the president. For the most part, this approach has backfired. The seeming contradiction of “coordinated journalism” only reinforces the impression of mainstream media bias, just as the fact-checking genre has blurred the line between opinion journalism and hard news. Worst of all, by anointing itself a democratic heroine battling Trumpian recklessness, the press has made itself the story. In the process, it has imperiled its reputation as a neutral arbiter.

The press has made itself the story. In the process, it has imperiled its reputation as a neutral arbiter.

The media’s declining credibility is closely related to its uniformity. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver has written, “political experts aren’t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment.” Even before Trump entered the scene, only 7 percent of journalists self-identified as Republicans. The impact of such ideological uniformity on reporting is subtle but consequential. As NBC’s Chuck Todd put it recently in the Atlantic, “A New York–based reporter may approach reporting on guns, or on evangelical Christianity, differently than a reporter in Pensacola, Florida.” From selection bias to unquestioned assumptions, too much of today’s mainstream press coverage lacks intellectual diversity. As a result, especially Republican trust in the media has declined.

Too much of today’s mainstream press coverage lacks intellectual diversity.

The information revolution has only accelerated this trend. Decades ago, three graying white males sitting atop New York City skyscrapers set the media frame for the entire country through the network’s nightly news broadcasts. That era is long past. The information revolution democratized the American media, breaking up the network monopoly by giving rise to a bevy of alternative outlets and voices. Now, however, a select few tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have established a hold over our means of communication. This is deeply worrying. After all, Silicon Valley may be a marvel of technological progress, but it is also a shallow and ignorant ecosystem. If the establishment media can be clubby, the tech industry is outright cultish. Its disdain for conservatism runs especially deep. The prospect of a small coterie of tech executives and engineers, hostile toward the rich mosaic of American life, controlling key media chokepoints is giving many conservatives pause. From the mainstream media to our tech masters, our major institutions should strive to be more representative of the democracy they serve. The result would be better reporting and increased trust. In the era of Trump, it’s far better to leave the resistance to the politicians.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag The media is its own worst enemy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The three American college students Sophie al Mutawaly, Samuel Rahlke and Krister Lansing are currently doing internships in Germany. During a visit to Berlin, they discussed the state of transatlantic relations with Atlantik-Brücke, giving the perspective of a younger generation. They all expressed hope that the United States and Europe will overcome their current differences and focus more on the long-term strategic objectives of their partnership.

What does the transatlantic relationship mean for your personal life?

[related]Sophie al Mutawaly: For me it is very important and a big piece of my life. Being born in Germany and having grown up in the United States in a German household, my life has been very transatlantic. I am majoring in Government and Legal Studies, so the transatlantic topics that are being discussed and change every day are very relevant to both my personal life and what I am studying.

Samuel Rahlke: I am in a similar role to Sophie. I have been coming to Germany my entire life. I have family here. I was less than one year old the first I was here. Studying German as a foreign language helps me to connect with my family and other Germans. I really want to come here and work here for a few years. Or who knows? Maybe I will even end up living here for the rest of my life.

Krister Lansing: I definitively echo Sam’s sentiment of how much I appreciate this opportunity of coming back to Germany. I have some German heritage – as many Americans do. And there is the option to study German in Germany and also to go deeper into subjects like politics. Germany and the United States share a lot of history. So, it is important to learn from each other. We can act together and solve problems since the United States and Germany have been allies and partners in so many issues for decades.

We can act together and solve problems since the United States and Germany have been allies and partners in so many issues for decades.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

The world order is changing rapidly if you think of China’s rise, Russia’s attempt to expand its spheres of influence and the growing number of populist movements and illiberal, authoritarian states especially in the West. Do you have any suggestion how to maintain the transatlantic values that guided America and Europe for more than seventy years?

Krister Lansing: Germany and the United States should definitively emphasize what they have in common, especially those qualities that are not really dependent on any current administration or ideology. Climate change is a good example. You could also mention the securing of the sovereignty of nation states, world peace and international aid. These things should be held in high regard. Ideology should be pushed aside. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic should rise above these short-term issues. This partnership is indelible.

Sophie al Mutawaly: I agree with that. Keeping in mind that Germany and the US are major world powers, remembering what is important for these larger goals, and keeping the relationship strong, alive, and positive will really help in the long term rather than losing or weakening it over small disagreements.

Samuel Rahlke: We should really be looking to solidify our alliances rather than focusing on policies that primarily put the needs of a single nation first. When you are destroying alliances over small trade issues, you are going to be left behind big time in the international economy. That is not worth it.

We should really be looking to solidify our alliances rather than focusing on policies that primarily put the needs of a single nation first.[quoter]Samuel Rahlke[/quoter]

What is your take on the EU’s reaction to President Trump’s “America first” policy?

Sophie al Mutawaly: It was interesting to look at the local side during the presidential election in 2016. Trump was able to win over people who felt like they had been abandoned by the government. Trump’s idea is to bring jobs back to America and to help those people. Although I don’t entirely agree with his philosophy, he managed to get a lot of votes that way. A lot of people within the United States do recognize that “America first” is not the policy that they want. They want to keep alliances strong and to see a united Europe. “America first” is not what all Americans think and accept.

Krister Lansing: I would like to talk about the punitive tariffs and trade measures that Trump has imposed. They go against every single tenet of the international multilateral system. This is essentially a political tactic to make good on promises made during Trump’s campaign. These promises are impossible to follow through. You can’t simply just impose tariffs and expect people to get better jobs in industries that are now becoming defunct. The European Union can’t just allow tariffs to be imposed. Because otherwise you bring negative effects onto the population of the EU. Like Heiko Maas said it has to be a Europe united. Chancellor Merkel is doing a very good job in being very sober, strong and reliable and not turning over on any questions.

Samuel Rahlke: It is definitively important that Europe doesn’t accept these tariffs. That could encourage Trump in the future to continue to use bully tactics.

“America first” is not what all Americans think and accept.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

Will the United States have structurally changed forever once Donald Trump has left the Oval Office?

Krister Lansing: There is evidence that can support this view. The first secretary of state we had, Rex Tillerson, came into office and fired so many experienced foreign service officers. That was not prudent because these people have years of experience in one of the fundamental policy pillars. We also have the tax bill passed that will increase the income inequality in the United States.

Sophie al Mutawaly: On the flip side you are also seeing a strong reaction to things that Trump is doing. In the past year the travel ban happened, there were protests all over the country. Also, the MeToo movement came up which is very Hollywood-based. But given our current political climate in the US it is very relevant with someone like Trump in the White House. Regarding the midterm elections a lot more women and young people are running like Jon Ossoff in Georgia. There is going to be a lot of responsibility on the younger generation to really turn out for votes and be active. It is important for them to fight back against these policies so that they don’t become permanent and don’t change the structure of the US.

Samuel Rahlke: We are going to see structural changes in political mindsets especially of the younger generation. Trump has definitively brought in his own meaning spin in the way of campaigning and operating his office. Some have called him a demagogue. His speeches very much appeal to people’s emotions rather than logic. People are going to change the way they look at politicians who are campaigning and at what they promise to do in office. I hope we will see a shift more to the middle of the political spectrum. The current parties pursue the policies that they want rather than what is necessary and best for the country.

There is going to be a lot of responsibility on the younger generation to really turn out for votes and be active.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

How excited are you about the midterm elections on November, 6?

Krister Lansing: It will be a milestone moment. We will see how mobilized people will get to show their approval or disapproval of Donald Trump’s policies. We have seen something similar with the rejection of Roy Moore. It will be very hard for the Democrats to take back the House and Senate. Trump is getting 40 percent of people who approve his presidency.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Early on in Trump’s presidency people were really outraged. But now he was able to get this meeting happening with North Korea. For some people this must feel like a setback right before the midterm elections. But I am still optimistic that there will be a strong response from the Democratic Party to get back in the game.

Samuel Rahlke: The meeting with Kim Jong-Un is tremendous! We will have to wait and see if Trump can take this to the next step to achieve bigger goals. If he can do that we may not see too much change in the House and the Senate.

It will be very hard for the Democrats to take back the House and Senate.[quoter]Kriser Lansing[/quoter]

What hopes and fears do you have regarding domestic American policy?

Krister Lansing: Trump has hired Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) knowing that Pruitt has sued EPA for supposedly overbearing environmental regulations. It does not surprise me that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. And the funding of National Parks in the United Stations decreases dramatically now.

Sophie al Mutawaly: What also scares me is that Trump is getting through to people feeling left behind by prior administrations without a factual basis. One example is the travel ban on various countries: Trump claims all of the people from these countries are a danger to US citizens, which is not the case. Bernie Sanders was very passionate about education. He fought for the idea to make education more affordable for younger people. As a university student I really appreciate the work that Sanders did. Whereas Trump hurts the United States in various areas.

Samuel Rahlke: There is one hope, though. Early on in his campaign, Trump was talking about improving our infrastructure. This is an old discussion. But for example, if you drive over the border from North Caroline to South Carolina the roads immediately and noticeably get worse with potholes for instance. If we could invest in that and invest in public transportation at least in metropolitan areas, the boom we would get out of increased logistics would be tremendous.

As a university student I really appreciate the work that Sanders did.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

Do you think NATO is still the appropriate instrument of foreign and security policy to guarantee the stability of its members?

Samuel Rahlke: As long as Trump does not do too much with it, NATO at the current moment still has a bite. It is a great deterrent towards aggressive countries like Russia. It stands and has power.

Krister Lansing: Trump’s America first policy is dangerous for NATO. It seems like the world has gone upside down. You are leaving your alliances with Europe and Canada to rot and on the other side you are making a deal with North Korea. You can’t do that to the expense of your old allies.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Wanting other countries to get closer to the 2-percent-goal is not totally ridiculous of Trump to ask. Europe has to invest more into NATO to keep the alliance alive.

It seems like the world has gone upside down. You are leaving your alliances with Europe and Canada to rot and on the other side you are making a deal with North Korea.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

The USA, the EU, Canada, China and Russia seem to enter a phase of deteriorating trade conflicts. What would a smart answer to President Trump’s punitive tariffs on steel and aluminum and may be on cars look like?

Samuel Rahlke: It is important for the EU to impose a few counter tariffs to even out the deficit that is being created by the new US tariffs. They should leave it with that and make sure that their reaction does not exceed the US tariffs. It really comes down to Trump. If he wants to impose another tariff especially on European cars this would be the most unwise move. It would only escalate from there. It is going to set a precedent. It is going to go back and forth continuously. He would hurt the US consumer in the long run additionally to European companies. There is no added benefit to that kind of step.

Krister Lansing: It is important that the Europeans let Trump have this win. This is political tactic being used. He made promises to his voters to stop outsourcing and bring back industrial jobs to America. If Germany and the EU fight back too hard, this leads nowhere good. People will finally see that these tariffs are unproductive.

Sophie al Mutawaly: The response on the European side will really tell us how this relationship will move forward.

If Trump wants to impose another tariff especially on European cars this would be the most unwise move.[quoter]Samuel Rahlke[/quoter]

Are you afraid of the effects that Artificial Intelligence will have on your working life?

Sophie al Mutawaly: I don’t think that robots will replace lawyers (laughs). We are seeing all around us that jobs are slowly being replaced by robots and machines. Trump is trying to bring jobs back to the United States. In a world that is moving forward with this digitization it is going to be very difficult for him to keep that.

Samuel Rahlke: As we see more jobs move to machinery and automated processes there is definitively going to be a decrease of people actually being employed. But with time, people will focus more on STEM fields which is science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. So, we are going to need more people who develop the machinery and more people who program these systems.

Krister Lansing: I used to be a huge pessimist in terms of how Artificial Intelligence and automation of industries will play out on economies. But I admit that this is a misplaced fear. This process will simply rationalize some tasks like a document search which is quite tedious for a lawyer for example. What cannot be replicated is the abstract thought, argumentation, sympathy, emotion, and creativity of humans. It is more about a supplement and help for a lot of professions.

I don’t think that robots will replace lawyers.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

What can Europe for its own sake learn from the U.S. presidential election of 2016 as to the socio-economic problems within the American society?

Krister Lansing: Two things are really evident: The power of information and misinformation in elections and how professional politicians relate to their constituents. Hillary Clinton for example has often failed to give real answers and has shown a fluid value system. Politicians should talk honestly to the people and explain what needs to be done. It is also important how people inform themselves about what the country needs.

Samuel Rahlke: It is also going to change the way people consume information about politicians. At least in America we will see less people looking at sources like Fox News, MSNBC or CNN. I think that people will use more information coming directly from the politicians rather than opinionated or interpreted coverage.

Krister Lansing: Bernie Sanders really is a big pioneer in this development. He used technology very effectively with Facebook Live conversations and a Snapchat account on which he was sharing and documenting his events.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Again: The youth needs to get more involved in politics and to be genuinely interested in what is going on. It is not enough just to complain about movements like Pegida here in Germany.

Politicians should talk honestly to the people and explain what needs to be done.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

Final Question: Is there still enough momentum in America to save the global climate although the current U.S. administration has announced its withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement COP 21?

Sophie al Mutawaly: Exactly the same day that Trump made his announcement, various states said they wanted to stay a part of this agreement. There was a lot of backlash also on an international level to what Trump was doing. The coal industry is definitively not part of our future.

Samuel Rahlke: In the US, enough force can be generated by the population to encourage the current administration to get back in the Paris Accord. If we can get younger people to mobilize on this idea and to write to our representatives, there is still a chance to get back. This is a global effort which needs the American support.

Krister Lansing: There is a lot of hope for climate protection. The private sector is doing a lot in terms of innovative technology. However, so many fundamental things like transportation industry and agriculture need to be completely restructured by a top-down regulation just as the Paris Climate agreement. Grassroot activists are not enough.

The coal industry is definitively not part of our future.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

The exchange students Sophie al Mutawaly, Samuel Rahlke and Krister Lansing are part of the current group of German-American Exchange e.V.’s internship program. Atlantik-Brücke-member Dr. Christoph Rückel chairs the organization. Their next event is the 9th German-American Business Day on July 16, 2018, at Literaturhaus München. At the event, short video statements by the students about their time in Germany will be shown. You can find additional information here.

Der Beitrag „When you are destroying alliances you are going to be left behind“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

I’m not sure if Americans themselvers are talking about the same thing when they talk about “fake news.” Depending on your political affiliation you may have a very different view on what “fake news” actually is. People are generally concerned that they do not know what and whom to believe. Personally, I think this presents a great opportunity for journalists to dig in and make very clear what is fact, what is opinion, what may be fiction, and maybe to even do a better job than we’ve done so far.

What measures do you think could be useful in making people more aware of trustworthy news sources?

People pretty much decide for themselves whom they trust. If you look at Breitbart for instance, people who consume Breitbart news trust it. So, trust in itself is a difficult metric to use for the shape of media, politics or democratic institutions. As a media outlet, you need to build a relationship with your readership, with your audience, and make sure that you’re addressing what is most important to them. It doesn’t mean that you have to tell them what they want to hear. But you should make sure that you’re not focusing on topics that are utterly unimportant to them. Take food, for example: there is stuff we want to eat and then there is stuff we should eat. I personally like to eat hamburgers. But I know I should eat more broccoli. With news, there is information you want to know and then there is information you should know, and media should find that balance without being patronizing. Especially digital media that try do increase traffic by any means runs the risk that this balance will shift towards what people want to know – and neglect what should be known.

Would you say, though, that digital media outlets caused this change? Wouldn’t people in the past also pick up only the type of newspapers and magazines they wanted to read?

Whenever I hear that people don’t trust the media, I think they are right, they shouldn’t. I wouldn’t know how to trust “the media”. A healthy skepticism towards anybody who tells you “Believe me!” is a good thing. There used to be a “blame-the-media game” and now it’s turned to “blame social media.” Both blame games are missing the point: What is most important is that the concerns people discuss at the dinner table, the things that worry them in their daily lives like education of their children, social welfare, crime rates and migration issues should be taken seriously.

Do you think that some of the general dissatisfaction with institutions, as shown in our survey, has to do with the way elites act and portray themselves? Do you think it is time for those elites to be self-critical?

Yes, and many are. Ever since Brexit, ever since the election of President Trump and the rise of the AfD, there has been a lot of “Jesus! How could this happen?” and self-assertion about the importance of Western values. But look at what happened during the financial crisis: my idea of Western values does not include greed, decadence and a total lack of accountability. And yet all of those occured before our very eyes and the so-called establishment didn’t do anything to stop it. No wonder people have lost confidence in the elites. Business, academia, the financial sector, politics and the media have to live up to their responsibilities. It would help if they moved out of their self-made filter bubbles in Berlin-Mitte or Washington, DC  to talk – and listen! – to people outside. To the non-urban middle-class, which at least in Germany is the backbone of our society.

Do you think “fake news” is a new phenomenon?

There are wonderful examples of “fake news” in the past. In the GDR in the 1950s, newspapers published eyewitness reports by farmers who said that shortly after hearing planes they found potato beetles on their fields. News reports would then claim that the US was breeding the imperialist Colorado potato beetle in military labs to attack the “flourishing” socialist economy. This was, of course, nonsense and propaganda. But there are even older examples, one I was recently told by Michael Butter from Tübingen University. In the presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, team Adams claimed that Jefferson wanted to reinstate monarchy in the United States and marry off his children to British royals. Team Jefferson, however, toured the country saying “No need to vote for Adams. He has died.” So, the phenomenon isn’t new at all.

What is new is the reach and velocity with which “fake news” travel. This is a technical and a regulatory challenge. Mark Zuckerberg currently has one of the hardest jobs in the world. He has given himself another two years to tackle the problem. Facebook and other companies like Google, YouTube, etc. are taking this issue much more seriously than they used to. But given that social media is only about five minutes old in historical terms, there is a lot we don’t know yet. I’m always skeptical about the ease with which people say: “Oh, this factor has led to this outcome.” Donald Trump wasn’t elected because of a bot-campaign. And as much as the Russians interfered, I think Trump’s victory had much less to do with Putin going to Facebook than with Hillary not going to Wisconsin. Yes, people can be manipulated but it doesn’t follow that they make electoral decision based on disinformation. People have this rather annoying tendency to think what they want to think – and not what politicians or journalists want them to think. For journalists, the challenge today is not just to report the facts and hold government responsible. It’s also to know what people perceive as the truth and what they feel. If you don’t know people’s emotions or if you sneer at them for having the wrong feelings, there’s no way you can gain their trust again.

Thank you!

Interview: Katharina Draheim

Tanit Koch ist a journalist and former Editor-in-Chief, BILD. She is a member of the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity (TCEI).

Der Beitrag “Healthy skepticism is a good thing” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

[related]Of course, Facebook, Twitter and other social media are just the newest of many revolutions in the way we communicate. From the first printed book to radio and television, we’ve witnessed some game changers which affected our political discourse. But today we see one major difference: access to publishing in traditional media was always restricted and thereby easier to regulate. The internet, to the contrary, allows everyone to publish at any time because its capacity is limitless. For this reason, it has been a long-cherished dream that the internet would allow us to gain access to an unimaginable range of information, leading to a new age of informed citizens.

Today, we know that autocrats still have the possibility to control political discourse. The Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte hired 400 to 500 people to distort online information and discourse during his electoral campaign. And Russia used social media to not only influence information within its own populace, but launched campaigns in other countries including Germany, Ukraine, France and the United States.

Why this works…

These campaigns have an impact because they target and reach the right people. If you are someone who is already in favor of stricter immigration policy then you are susceptible to anti-migrant content, making you a great target for that kind of messaging.

To reach the right people, one need only rely on algorithms. The amount of information online is simply not manageable for one single person. Instead of having classical gatekeepers like journalists, political discourse on the internet is structured by mechanisms which do not choose based on credibility but on our previous likes and engagements. This can be helpful for finding music or holiday destinations, but it is dangerous as soon as it touches on politics. If you’ve previously liked populist content about migrants, it is then very unlikely that you will be confronted with opposing facts in your timeline.

…and what it means

Social media companies can offer their clients the necessary information to identify the proper audience. According to Brad Parscale, the digital director of the 2016 Trump campaign, they used 50,000 to 60,000 different versions of advertisements per day on Facebook. Some of them aimed at as few as a dozen people in a specific district.

Since it is very unlikely that persons with differing points of view see the same content, data and facts, they lack an empirical foundation which could serve as the basis for discourse and compromise—they are simply working with contradictory information.

When political campaigners began recognizing the possibilities of the web in the mid 1990s, they saw a new way to equip their voters with additional content. Today, voters themselves can spread material as long as it draws attention, because attention is the end goal of sharing content; and as long as it represents the user, because we want attention for what we think and do. Content that fits with existing attitudes, worldviews and feelings has much better chances to go viral.

What to do about it

As the negative sides of the digitalization of the political discourse become more apparent, calls for regulation become louder. But many experts argue that profound regulation is simply not possible since we do not know enough about the mechanisms of social media, and companies refuse to share secrets of their lucrative businesses.

An approach which includes companies could help encourage a real political debate on the web. For example, YouTube experimented with redirecting users who watch pro-jihad videos to contradictory content.

If we are able to take steps like this, we will at least stave off polarization, if not strengthen discourse and compromise.

Andrea Römmele is Professor for Communication in Politics and Civil Society at the Hertie School of Governance. Her research interests are comparative political communications, political parties and public affairs.

Der Beitrag Digitalization of political discourse and its threat to democracy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

That´s a good question. There is a sort of chicken and an egg element to this because the decline of trust accompanies the declining economic security of the middle of the economy, the middle skills portion of the labor force. So one obvious thing would be to have public policy that addresses those insecurities, that updates welfare systems for the gig economy, that makes them more portable, more adaptable to the 21^st century. That, I´m sure, would make people feel more invested in society and in their own as well as their children´s future and help restore some lost trust.

[related]The problem is the decline of trust has disabled the political system to take actions like this. So, it´s quite hard to say practical things that are likely to happen other than to hope and pray that we get some especially talented politicians who are able to thread this needle. Praying for great leaders is not really political science. It is just wishful thinking. But when there is a demand for statesmanship, there must be talented Macron-type figures out there, who understand this is a historical opportunity, who can get these systems to deliver those policies. That would restore a lot of the trust that has gone missing.

In the era of Trump with all his very anti-international rhetoric, do you think that there can be a constructive cooperation between the EU and the US? And if so, what would that look like from the EU-side especially?

If there is a positive impact of Trump on transatlantic relations, it is to force us on the European side to take more responsibility for our fate into our own hands and not to rely on America to do it all for us. That’s not really transatlantic cooperation, that is Europe becoming more coherent as a unit in terms of foreign and defense policy, in terms of its external interaction with the world, particularly in the face of threats from the East from Vladimir Putin and indeed within the European Union itself in the Visegrád countries. That, of course, is a challenge that makes it all the more urgent that we stand up to. I can’t overstate how important it is that Germany showed more leadership on this question.

What would that leadership look like?

Not just higher defense spending as a matter of numbers but as a matter of strategic thinking on one hand. Second, much tougher on the illiberal democrats within the European club, whether it’s Hungarians, the Polish. But in matters of upholding the values that bind the European Union together, Germany has to be tougher. I understand why it is a difficult thing to do and there are always consequences and prices to pay. But that’s what leadership is. It is paying prices. It costs to be a leader.

So, would you say that vis-à-vis the US, Europe would be well advised to shore up Western values on its own for now?

Yes! Trump doesn’t believe in these values. There has been a lot of focus recently on how far you get if you flatter Trump. Merkel, to her great credit, doesn’t flatter Trump. She just can´t do it and I don’t blame her. Macron has been trying to flatter Trump. They have the same results, whether you flatter Trump or you don´t. On the other hand, strongmen, authoritarian leaders, don’t really flatter Trump. Trump flatters them. He wants to be like the authoritarians. That’s who he really envies. So, he doesn’t believe in these values. But of course, America does – Trump isn’t all of America and Trump isn´t forever. But while he’s president, the initiative has to be taken elsewhere. Canada is doing ok. Actually, they have a good government. The Australians in a different way, the Japanese in a different way. But really the core of the Western alliance is between the United States and Europe. And if the United States is AWOL, it has to come from Europe. And without Germany we do not get European leadership. It must be boring for Germans to hear that but it is just true.

One last question: You mentioned that you might or might not write another book in a few years on the return of Western liberalism. If you think of the future, are you optimistic or pessimistic?

I’m actually agnostic. If you had asked two or three years ago, I would have said pessimistic. I wrote another book about six years ago about the relative decline of America and I think on that I was a little bit ahead of the curve. Retreat of Western liberalism is right on time as everyone else begins to write about it. In both cases I felt sure of the direction we were going. But if you asked which is more likely: the return of resilience of democracy in the West or a gradual democratic depression I honestly don’t know. It is up to us. It’s up to our actions in the face of these challenges.

Thank you so much.

Interview: Katharina Draheim

Edward Luce is the chief US commentator and columnist for the Financial Times. He writes a weekly column on US politics, economy, and foreign policy. Previously, he served as the FT’s Washington bureau chief. He has also worked as the FT’s South Asia bureau chief in New Delhi, capital markets editor in London, and as the Philippines correspondent. Luce was previously the speechwriter for Lawrence H. Summers. His most recent book is The Retreat of Western Liberalism, and he is also the author of In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India, and Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent.

A Graduate of Oxford University in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, he received his post-graduate in journalism from City University, London. He is a frequent guest on Fareed Zakaria GPS, PBS NewsHour, NPR, and C-SPAN.

Der Beitrag “Germany has to be tougher” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Looking back across the Atlantic, Europeans may understandably assume that America has lost its mind. Not only did America elect a President that is unfit for office, but now the country is obsessed with an utterly bewildering Russia scandal, seemingly pulled from a conspiratorial spy thriller.

[related]This scandal, however, is actually quite real and quite straightforward. On January 6, 2017, the US Intelligence Community issued a report that said that Russia in effect ran a campaign to help elect Donald Trump in the 2016 election. There were therefore two campaigns to elect Donald Trump in 2016 – the Trump campaign and a Russian campaign. The current investigation is focused on whether these two campaigns worked together. It looks increasingly certain that they did.

To date, 22 people have been indicted, including Trump’s campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), his deputy (Rick Gates), his first National Security Advisor (Michael Flynn), and a campaign foreign policy advisor (George Papadopolus). Flynn, Gates, and Papadopolus have all pled guilty and are cooperating with Mueller.

But there’s more, Trump’s own personal lawyer just had his office, his apartment, and the hotel where he was staying raided by FBI agents. We also now know that the FBI suspected another one of Trump’s main campaign foreign policy advisors, Carter Page, of being a Russian agent and even got a warrant to monitor him. And the warrant produced results good enough to renew that warrant three times.

While Trump rails against this being a partisan “WITCH HUNT,” this is an investigation started by a Repulican, overseen by a Republican, and run by a Republican.

President Trump has insisted that this investigation is some Democratic plot. Others have suggested that this is really about the Democratic Party trying to get rid of Trump or make excuses for their electoral defeat. But Democrats have no power in Washington. After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last May, the Deputy Attorney General – a Republican who Trump himself appointed – decided to establish a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether there was collusion with Russia and appointed not a low level figure, but another former FBI Director – Robert Mueller, a Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush. While Trump rails against this being a partisan “WITCH HUNT,” this is in fact an investigation started by a Repulican, overseen by a Republican, and run by a Republican.

What has made this scandal so confusing is that we are watching an investigation unfold in real time. There is therefore a lot we do not know. The Mueller investigation has shocked Washington for the lack of leaks to the press. The press are uncovering information piece by piece by talking to defense lawyers and witnesses, and through great investigative reporting. So there is a lot of information coming out about different investigative threads that Mueller is looking into: Trump’s data digital firm, Cambridge Analytica; the Trump campaign’s coordination with WikiLeaks; Russians providing funding through to the National Rifle Agency; deals with sketchy UAE figures; and meetings with Russian officials in Trump Tower and places like the Seychelles. Therefore, figuring out where this scandal is headed requires reading some of the tea leaves and speculating. What has become clear, though, is that there is a tremendous amount to investigate. Trump was a shady businessman, operated a shady campaign, and looks like he’s operating an incredibly corrupt administration. The hard part for this investigation seems to be deciding what sketchy behavior not to investigate.

The Russia scandal has all the bearings of the greatest political scandal in American history.

The Russia scandal has all the bearings of the greatest political scandal in American history. It is unfolding in similar ways to the Nixon Watergate scandal, which enveloped the country for two years from 1972-74. There, a White House-directed effort to break into and bug the Democratic Party headquarters was exposed in 1972. But the question of what the White House knew and when it knew took two years to unfold.

Following Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, America turned to Europe for guidance. Many in Europe wisely explained to Americans the nature of Russian interference – something that Europe has lived with for decades. Yet over the past year, America has done something that European countries haven’t done – it established a robust criminal investigation into the depth and breadth of Russian influence efforts and whether their efforts were abetted by Americans. The Russia investigation is exposing the depths of Russia’s efforts and the depravity of Donald Trump. Far from America losing its mind, this investigation attests the strength of America’s democratic institutions – where no one is above the law, even the President of the United States.

Max Bergman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Founder and Director of The Moscow Project.

Der Beitrag Understanding the Russia Investigation erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The German press today is saturated with news from America. What was a regular stream of reporting has transformed over the past fifteen months into a tsunami of information crossing the Atlantic every single day. Little of it is substantive, however. America’s new insurgent president, Donald Trump, has dazed the media with one twitter barb after another. For much of the German press, the reaction has been to focus on Trump as the ugly American – the living embodiment of what must be stopped.

[related]Of course, the president of the United States is always news; after all, he is the most powerful person on earth. But to understand the rich mosaic of American life one must go beyond the latest presidential tweet. It is simply too easy to categorize Republicans as cowboys (Bush) or charlatans (Trump) and Democrats as magnetic (Clinton) or worldly (Obama). In truth, the powerful historical forces that shape the American psyche defy such caricatures. If one is truly interested in understanding the U.S., it is far better to grapple with what makes the U.S. an exceptional nation to begin with.

America has no state religion. Instead, its holy texts are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. Every year, millions of Americans make the pilgrimage to the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom at the National Archives to pay homage to the documents that draped the newly formed United States in liberty and established the checks and balances that protect it.

America has no state religion. Instead, its holy texts are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

That first American generation is held in such high esteem because the country attributes its incredible success to its founding creed. To be sure, the sin of slavery was an abomination. But in sharp contrast to the Europe of the time, the newly independent American colonies exemplified a rugged self-reliance free of government oppression linked to an optimistic frontier spirit. As a result, socialism never found fertile soil in a country brimming with opportunity. As the American author John Steinbeck described in America and Americans, in the 1930s “we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist.” In a mostly unbroken chain dating to our founding, Americans have chosen equality of opportunity over outcome so long as social mobility could be guaranteed.

In America, neither the executive nor judges should supplant the will of the people no matter what elites deem appropriate for a rapidly changing world.

Moreover, from its earliest days, the United States has embraced democratic governance. It has generally expressed skepticism of the type of technocratic safeguards found in modern Europe, judging them antithetical to America’s democratic spirit. Therefore, when the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex partners and President Obama extended protections to certain illegal immigrants, many Americans disapproved on procedural grounds. For them, those issues should be settled by lawmakers in the states and Congress, respectively. In America, neither the executive nor judges should supplant the will of the people no matter what elites deem appropriate for a rapidly changing world.

Alas, such disagreements have led to a visceral clash in American politics that has many Germans worried about the future of the Republic – and understandably so. But America is far more resilient and cohesive than understood abroad. We share habits, mores, and sensibilities that, in the past, spread among immigrants as they assimilated into our founding ideals. Even today, those centripetal forces remain stronger than the centrifugal pressures of American politics and globalization.

America is far more resilient and cohesive than understood abroad.

As losers and victors of two world wars, Germany and the United States have also drawn different lessons from the twentieth century. While Germans recoiled from patriotic nationalism, Americans felt strengthened in their exceptionalism; similarly, while Germany shunned strategic culture, the United States was thrust into the global spotlight. America learned from the disaster of interwar isolationism that it must take up the burden of leadership. But it has always been a reluctant superpower because our patriotic nationalism and strategic culture are firmly embedded in a worldview that abhors imperialism.

Trump made the decline in social mobility and skepticism toward elites key themes of his presidential campaign. Relatedly, he pushed America’s unique form of nationalism as a solution to globalization’s negative externalities. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the United States is likely to embrace neither isolationism nor internationalism, but to stake out more competitive positions abroad. For example, over the decades, American leaders have highlighted with increasing frequency imbalances in defense spending and trade in goods with Europe. Rather than react with scorn, the transatlantic community should formulate solutions that address America’s concerns while channeling its competitiveness against truly revisionist actors. This may not be as satisfying as deriding the latest tweet, but the future of transatlantic cooperation depends on it.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag Lost in Translation erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

U.S. President Donald Trump’s improbable rise to the White House caught many by surprise. Outspent and out-staffed, his unexpected victory over former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had Washington reeling. Still, since taking the oath of office, his Administration has been anything but smooth. Stunning setbacks, crippling defeats, and perennial controversies have marked his one-year in office. Yet through it all, the former real-estate tycoon and reality television star continues to reshape Washington and the geo-political landscape issue-by-issue; challenge-by-challenge; crisis-by-crisis.

[related]Despite a less-than-stellar record of legislative accomplishments, undoubtedly the Trump Administration will point to a plethora of achievements since winning the highest office in the land. A record-setting and record-breaking stock market; more judicial appointments, including the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, than any American president in recent history; the roll-back of several Barack Obama-era regulations ranging from environmental protections to criminal justice reform. President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is becoming the new reality and Americans are not the only ones being impacted by these seismic shifts.

On his first visit to Brussels for the NATO Summit, the mercurial White House occupant unnerved some with his heated calls for more members to meet their financial obligations to the historic multilateral organization. Moreover, stalwart U.S. alliances are now frayed and hanging in the balance amid the president’s continued support of incendiary and racist propaganda. Already U.K. and German leadership have voiced strong denunciations of actions taken by President Trump. A stark contrast to the reception granted to Obama during his tenure. Yet, while some relationships have become strained, others have been strengthened. Once icy relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia under the Obama Administration have thawed and these Middle Eastern nations are enjoying a robust revival in the Trump era.

While some relationships have become strained, others have been strengthened.

The toughest and most demanding job in the land is challenging for even the most seasoned of politicians. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a master of the Senate, grew weary and broken from a failed Vietnam policy and decided not to run for re-election. His successor, Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment after the Watergate break-in. Debilitating foreign and domestic setbacks led to a surprise challenge from within his own party for Democratic President Jimmy Carter.

Now, Trump, the political neophyte has been beset by a cavalcade of crises as he grapples with the limits to his presidential powers. As the Chairman and CEO of the Trump Organization, a private company, his decision is final. But, the U.S. government does not work that way. Even the president has to answer to the U.S. Constitution and the norms and customs governing bureaucratic institutions. No doubt the enormous breadth and depth of the presidency is humbling and overwhelming, especially when compared with the operation he’s led for decades.

The verdict is still out on the Trump presidency.

The verdict is still out on the Trump presidency. Even by the most diplomatic standards, his first year in office has been an unmitigated disaster—much of his own making. Indictments; guilty pleas; unheard of turn-over in the Executive Branch; and mounting losses have left the Trump Administration demoralized and deflated. Many political observers and historians are doubtful of his ability to orchestrate a vast turnaround, lift his presidency, and personally rise to the ideals of the Oval Office as immortalized by the framers of the constitution. Russian collusion, claims of racism, and nuclear war are just a few of the very real threats plaguing this Administration. As President Trump moves into his second year, the world is watching and waiting for American leadership’s re-emergence.

The world cheered when America (under Obama) restored its stature on the world stage: from ending the Iraq War to saving the U.S. economy from the greatest collapse since the Great Depression, to re-establishing relations with foreign states such as Iran and Cuba. But now, it appears America is absent.

Under Trump, the U.S. positions on climate change; global trade; Jerusalem, Iran and more have the U.S. standing alone. In the past where America moved, the world followed. Now, not so much.

“Making America Great Again” was a great campaign slogan, but as president that greatness can only be achieved when reaching upward not stooping low.

Eric Ham (Atlantik-Brücke Young Leader 2011), is co-author of the bestseller THE GOP CIVIL WAR: Inside the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party.

Der Beitrag President Trump: One Year Later erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“What is Populism?” by Francis Fukuyama

„What is Populism?“
Atlantik-Brücke Publication Series
Volume 08: An Analysis by Professor Dr. Francis Fukuyama
Berlin, 2017. 32 p.
ISSN 21979138

Der Beitrag “What is Populism?” An Analysis by Francis Fukuyama erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Roger Cohen, Op-Ed-Columnist of the New York Times, speaks about fundamental disagreements in American society, mistrust in the media, leaks from the White House and President Trump’s autocratic tendencies in an interview with Dr. David Deissner, Executive Director of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag “The president is more at home in an autocratic framework” – Interview with Roger Cohen, New York Times erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

October 8 to 13, 2017

Over the course of six days, the Atlantik-Brücke delegation traveled to the United States and met with a diverse group of politicians, CEOs, journalists, academics, and others, in Charlotte, North Carolina and Washington, DC, the nation’s capital.

Each year, a group of the organization’s members undertakes this journey to gain new insights and to strengthen the links between Germany and the United States. With a new administration in place that has new priorities,  it is even more important to persist in creating dialogue. And each year, the delegates visit Washington as well as one other American city, to get beyond the beltway bubble. This year, the group traveled to Charlotte because of its strong trade ties to Germany, as well as to experience “the new South.” This term was originally coined by the journalist Henry W. Grady and characterized the new beginning for the economy of the South after the civil war and the end of slavery. In the meantime, the term has come to refer to successful economic growth in the American South, which is also promoted by innovative technologies.

Hope for the Transatlantic Relationship

“This president was elected to be disruptive,” is a sentiment echoed multiple times over the course of the week the group spent in the US. It became obvious that there is a major battle going on within the country. President Donald Trump’s attitude reflects some of the most negative ideas in American political thinking: isolationism, populism, nativism. Similar trends can be seen in Europe right now. What is unique in the US is that President Trump is acting as an independent president – independent from the party lines and positions which puts off many within his own party. The fact that many government positions have not yet been filled makes cooperation with transatlantic partners difficult.

“This president was elected to be disruptive,” is a sentiment echoed multiple times over the course of the week the group spent in the US.

And this is dangerous. Multiple government security officials noted that states with a different view of international order than the West are becoming more powerful (read Russia and China). For the American security apparatus, they see German leadership in multilateral organizations as greatly appreciated, and would like to see more of it in Central and Eastern Europe. On an “America First” note, it was pointed out that Americans “are spending as much as 3.5% of their annual salary on other countries’ security. Germany, as one of the most prosperous countries in the world must step up its own efforts.”

Despite these tensions, the relationship between the two countries remains a vital one at many levels: individual, corporate, political, administrative. Congressman Robert Pittenger (R), the US Representative for North Carolina’s 9^th Congressional District, assured that “We love Germany. Don’t believe the media, they are not our friends.” Several high-ranking members of government noted that “nothing has actually changed. Connections are as strong as ever.” As a consolation it was repeated that the “administration is still working itself out” and that partners should not be discouraged from interacting because the behind-the-scenes work remains the same as always. It seems that those who actually carry out the work do not share President Trump’s negative opinion of working with Germany. As Ambassador Daniel Fried of the Atlantic Council pointed out, “actual US foreign policy under President Trump is in fact picking up where the Obama administration was headed in its final months.”

Trade: Leave the Washington, DC Bubble

Frances Burwell, Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and an expert on TTIP, foreign policy and transatlantic relations, warned that “not only is the government rhetoric on trade bad, but so are the policies themselves, under this president.”

The completion of TTIP, as the group heard often, is unlikely. “TTIP Light,” an edited version of the agreement which focuses on shared standards and other regulatory questions rather than import taxes, may be possible.

There is a “big push for protectionism combined with a lack of historical sense in the highest levels of the administration,” weighing heavy on long-standing partnerships. The completion of TTIP, as the group heard often, is unlikely. “TTIP Light,” an edited version of the agreement which focuses on shared standards and other regulatory questions rather than import taxes, may be possible. But as Congressman Pittenger noted, “the president prefers independent trade agreements” which would of course fundamentally alter the premise of TTIP.

NAFTA is another matter of great concern, particularly for the Canadians. The question on the table is whether there will be an exit from NAFTA, or just a renegotiation. There are no clear answers yet. In both cases – TTIP and NAFTA – the conditions for renegotiation certainly aren’t favorable. As the motto goes, “Buy American, Hire American.” Wilbur Ross, US Secretary of Commerce, however, has shown openness to join the conversation on how TTIP can be renegotiated. He is aware of the relevance of free trade for the US economy.

[related] In the end, a form of encouragement came from those who counsel against the fixation on Donald Trump. In reaching out to politicians, civil society representatives, universities, and innovators from across the country, one can find partners and allies outside of the Washington bubble. This is exactly what became obvious during the visit to Charlotte, where one notices firsthand the effect of German businesses in the region: Siemens Energy, Daimler Trucks North America, Groninger, Bosch Rexroth, Schaeffler Group USA Inc, and 200 others, including 59 US headquarters. This makes Germany the most largely represented foreign country in the region. With daily nonstop flights to Frankfurt and Munich and an active German community, the partnership between Charlotte and Germany is thriving.

The city’s outgoing Mayor, Jennifer Roberts, presented the city’s historic links with Germany – the city was named after Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz – but also its international nature. 18% of the city’s population is foreign-born, and the city boasts 1000 foreign companies, 200 of which have headquarters in Germany. 17% of the labor force of the city is foreign born, according to John Silvia, the chief economist of Wells Fargo, American international banking and financial services holding company. He also noted that nationally, foreign-born workers have accounted for half the growth in the labor supply over the past decade. Despite the unfavorable policies concerning foreign-born individuals living in the United States, Silvia hopes that “business is resilient, even with the fluctuation in politics.”

Preparing for Work in the Future Economy

In various meetings with the National Association of Manufacturers, the Central Piedmont Community College and its vocational training program, and the software startup Tresata, the need for change in educating a future workforce – both in the US and Germany – was very clear. Vocational training programs have been among the most successful exchanges between the two countries. The German vocational training model is well-known, but has lately been further improved by various programs in the US, some of whom have even surpassed their German counterparts.

Former and current US administrations have emphasized the need to fill the skills gap. President Trump in his meeting with Chancellor Merkel in March 2017 was joined by company representatives from the US and Germany and several young apprentices. This clearly shows that there is common ground and a common goal to advance alternative training options to fill the skills gap and offer a real opportunity for young people.

A highlight of the trip was a visit to Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) in Charlotte, which currently serves 70,000 students. 20% of those students are in the College and Career Readiness Program, which offers a variety of programs to prepare students for their working careers. CPCC has offered manufacturing apprenticeships since 1995. A four-year program that guarantees a job at the end that emulates the German vocational education and training (VET) system and is primarily used by German companies located in Charlotte. To graduates, IHK Karlsruhe offers certificates of completion for equivalency in competence for automation and CNC machining, and there are student/apprentice exchanges to Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Crailsheim, and Gaggenau. Fourteen CPCC faculty are trained in Berlin at the Siemens Technik Akademie, and there are ongoing facilitator and administrator visits and courses in Germany.

Kevin Poet, director of operations at the Siemens Charlotte Energy Hub, noted that Siemens Energy has a workforce of 1,550 employees and more than one million square feet of space under one roof. It has become the largest manufacturer in Charlotte, and the third largest among the 250+ energy companies based in Charlotte. To develop a trained labor force to operate the new Siemens plant, the company began a partnership with CPCC to develop a mechatronics apprenticeship program, in 2011. By introducing the German apprenticeship model to the US, Siemens has been able to train its Charlotte workforce successfully.

Conclusion

The 2017 members trip to the United States has proven the need for regular exchange between the US and Germany. In a time of uncertainty, it is more important than ever to reach out to those outside of the government bubbles in both countries, and create long-lasting relationships. This has especially seemed to be the case when it comes to preparing future generations to succeed in a new economy. The presence of German companies, individuals, and organizations in the United States greatly benefits the regions they are in, and the same is true vice versa. There is a great need now for a strong commitment to the relationship between the two countries, with a hope that it will continue into the future.

Der Beitrag The “New South”, New Skills, and Old Alliances erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

How would you describe the current state of American politics after ten months of President Trump?

It is important to realize that the United States is a very strong country – not just militarily but economically. We are very decentralized. So when you have a weak president, which Trump is, life goes on. The economy is doing fine. The federal reserve runs the economic policy in the United States, not the president or congress. So, that doesn’t make such a difference unless the president does something really awful like get us into a war, which is not as likely as the European press is saying. It is very scary of course, because if there is a war there would be a nuclear war, but you know, it’s a strong country. Underneath Trump’s bombast, life is going on for most Americans. The really bad part about Trump’s presidency is he has given permission for people essentially to be racist, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant. But, he is not a strong president, because he is unfocused and I think people are paying less attention to him.

Apart from the President justifying white supremacists, what do you think is at the bottom of this growing right wing extremism? Do you see any similarities between what is happening in the United States and in Europe?

[related]What you see happening in America has actually happened before. Brexit was exactly the same thing. The AfD in parliament now is the same phenomenon. These are people who have been left behind by globalization for the most part. In Germany that is maybe not as true. There are some educated people in the AfD, although many of them are taking advantage of frustrations of working class people. I also think Europeans have done somewhat of a better job with the social safety net, but that’s marginal. Because we are not talking about people that are starving, we are talking about people that feel like they are losing their place in society. And they are. If you are an older white worker in America, you were used to having a certain position and if you are not skilled, you have lost that position. The truth is that trade is good for the world, not bad for the world. Trade has created hundreds of millions of jobs. We have fewer people under the poverty line in the world percentage-wise than we have ever had before. But in the old days you could get a good union job making cars. Now, you can’t do that anymore. If you cannot use the internet and you are low skilled, you lose your job. Your children – if they are smart – have left your small town and gone to the cities. And they are fast with the internet. Working class families around the globe tend to have a more authoritarian set-up. That is disappearing. In the United States in the last 40 years, we have had a civil rights revolution where black people can vote, we have had a black president and two men can marry each other if they fall in love. You can imagine what this is like for somebody in a small village who is not terribly well educated. And that is what’s going on all over the West. And I think that is what’s really causing the upset. And then of course there are always unscrupulous politicians that are willing to take advantage of that by blaming some group. Farage did it by blaming immigrants. Trump did it by blaming immigrants and Muslims. The AfD has done it by blaming refugees. It is a convenient, short-sighted, and I think unpatriotic way to run a political party but it’s an instinct as old as human beings.

Your own party appears to be more introspective after the loss of the election. There was a piece by Senator Schumer in the New York Times a few months ago. It was entitled “A Better Deal For American Workers” and in it he said: “We failed to communicate our values to show that we were on the side of working people.” Would you agree with this assessment and what does that mean for the party moving forward?

I think we have failed at communicating well, but I think most of the reaction is not a reaction against the Democratic Party, it is against the establishment. People ask “So what’s the message of the Democratic Party?” Well, there is never really a message of the party out of power, because the president has the power to control the message and all the media attention. In 2018 our message is “We are not Trump” as the message in 2010 was “We are not Obama” for the Republicans. And then there’ll be a backlash against Trump. I expect to win the house and I think we have a shot at the senate. This is a debate in the party: do we try to bring white working class people back in the party? And my answer to that is: not if we have to give up on human rights. Our party is founded on the notion of human rights and diversity. There were more transgender delegates to the Democratic Convention than there were African-American delegates to the Republican Convention. They are old and they are white. That is not what America looks like. I want to be in the party of the future of America, not of the past. If we can bring white working class people back into our party by sticking to economic issues and fairness that is great. I am not sure we can because a lot of the message was about race and other very divisive issues simply aimed at separating us. And I don’t think we can be the party of division and I won’t be. And I don’t think most Democrats do, either.

There were more transgender delegates to the Democratic Convention than there were African-American delegates to the Republican Convention.[quoter]Howard Dean[/quoter]

I do think the Democratic party has gotten a bit cozy with big money. That’s what made Sanders strong and that’s what makes it harder for the Democrats to convince working class people we are really for them. To that extent I think we can improve the party. I am very much for lowering the corporate tax rate, but I want to pay for it by getting rid of the oil depletion allowance and the carried interest and all these things that are benefitting Wall Street, which really doesn’t create wealth for most of the country. We should give tax breaks to people who are building new houses, putting new jobs in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. That would be something that would be helpful for the working class. But remember that a lot of working class people are of color. So maybe we should stop talking about the “white working class” and start talking about everybody in the working class.

The president has been very critical of international alliances and it seems that a lot of Americans agree or at least don’t see the importance in maintaining international bonds. How do you think that perception in the American public could be changed?

I don’t think it is true. I think the majority of people in the United States are for trade. I think both parties have been very untruthful about what trade has done for the United States. It has created millions of jobs in the United States. I call young people the first global generation. And they are. Americans are not that different than European kids. They consider themselves citizens of the world as much as citizens of the United States. They all want to live in big cities, because this is where there are lots of different kinds of people. The under-35-generation in America believes diversity is good. They think immigrants are good. They believe gay rights are a civil rights issue of their time. Climate change is probably the most important political issue. So they are really nothing Trump stands for. I personally believe that the young people in our country are never going to vote Republican. They are not Democrats because they don’t like institutions, but I believe the future of our country is to integrate more fully with the rest of the world.

I saw Mrs. Merkel at the October 3rd celebration and I said to her: Thank you for being the leader of the free world and filling the leadership vacuum.[quoter]Howard Dean[/quoter]

Obama was the first president who embraced multilateralism. He really had to struggle especially with Europeans because Europeans were used to a different kind of bond. They tended to say: “Let’s call Washington and make sure we don’t do something they disapprove of.” That is gone now. So ironically, Trump’s behavior has enforced Obama’s larger vision for foreign policy. I saw Mrs. Merkel at the October 3rd celebration and I said to her: Thank you for being the leader of the free world and filling the leadership vacuum. Of course, she was too skillful to say “Oh yes, thanks!”. But she is. And I think this is going to give an opportunity to Europe to come into its own. Now, Europe has an enormous amount of work to do, like becoming more transparent and fixing some of the systems. I think the EU is the future of the West. It is the most important governance experience since my government was founded 250 years ago. The EU seeks to essentially extinguish nationalism and religion as a source of war. I see the success of the EU as absolutely essential to the future of mankind. It is an enormous step forward in terms of how we look at each other as human beings. I am sure that the people who read this interview are going to be as committed to the EU as I am but the question is now: can we get everybody else committed?

Der Beitrag Howard Dean: “That is not what America looks like” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Friedrich Merz, Chairman of the Atlantik-Bruecke, presented the award. “George Bush has supported Germany in a time of upheaval and has thus paved the way for freedom, peace and democracy in all of Europe. With great personal commitment, he made it clear that the United States consider Germany a friend and a partner”, Merz commented on honoring the former President.

With the George H. W. Bush Award, Atlantik-Brücke honors distinguished individuals for their contribution to German-American relations.

George H. W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States from 1989 to 1993. He was Vice President from 1981 to 1989. From 1971 to 1973, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations after having been a member of the United States Congress from 1967 to 1971. From 1976 to 1977, he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is the father of George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, and of Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida.

Der Beitrag George H. W. Bush receives Award from Atlantik-Bruecke erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On the first day, John O’Farrell, partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a company specializing in venture capital, revealed the seven secrets to success in the Bay Area. One of the central infrastructural prerequisites contemporary founders are able to draw on is the long tradition of successful tech-innovations in the area, which began with the founding of Hewlett-Packard seven decades ago. The universities located in the Bay Area are an essential success factor, as well, given the fact that they do not only produce excellent developers but also promote entrepreneurial spirit. The large number of start-ups located in the area play an important role, too: they foster mutual support and inspiration. Large companies such as Google and Facebook do not only serve as role models but are also “targets” of the smaller start-ups, which are much more flexible in their operations. Venture capital firms located in Silicon Valley are a financial source for the funding of brilliant ideas, and the Bay Area’s high standard of living attracts the best tech talents. Offering a comparison to the gold-rush of 1849, O’Farrell also emphasized the appetite for risk-taking shaping the Valley.

The delegations meetings with SV Angel‘s Robert Pollak and eVentures’ Mathias Schillingfurther emphasized that venture capital relies on different strategies when it comes to investments in promising start-ups. Personal contact to the founders plays an important role for all venture capitalists, but statistical analyses of successful business strategies also matter. In the end, however, good fortune plays a key role in success as well.

Tom Gillis, founder of the cloud computing company Bracket, does not only embody risk-taking propensity but also the willingness to overcome failure. Gillis talked to our delegation about the failure of his first venture and the tenacity it took to successfully build his current company. Former employees of Palantir founded the start-up BlendLabs and offered our delegation insights into how this young company is planning to simplify the application process for mortgages for both customers/clients and banks. A visit to BlendLabs’ office spaces revealed a lot about the everyday work of a young tech-company: a ping-pong table and a great variety of snacks were an integral part of the office equipment. The Airbnb headquarters offered a large variety of food and drink choices for their employees, as well, and creativity played a central role in the decoration and creation of the headquarter’s office spaces. During their visit, the delegation learned more about Airbnb’s business model, a platform for listing and booking accommodations with more than 2 million listings worldwide.

Maria Amundson of the communications and marketing company Edelman shed light on the downside of the tech boom in San Francisco: The high demand for housing has caused rents to skyrocket (the average monthly costs for a 1-bedroom-apartment are $3.500), and many of employees earning average wages are no longer able to afford living in the city. While the tech-founders donate large sums, these tend to benefit small groups with very particular/niche interests only.

The delegation trip’s itinerary also included a visit to the heart of Silicon Valley. The delegation visited the Facebook campus located in Menlo Park. Kevin Quirk talked about an initiative aiming at expanding internet access in areas without fiber optic cables, namely by using drones connected by laser beams. Kahina van Dyke further elaborated on another ambitious undertaking Facebook is pursuing: a peer-to-peer payment feature on the platform/Messenger. The delegation was able to observe the young founders at work at Plug & Play in Sunnyvale. A panel with German “Expatriates” offered insights into the factors pulling German founders into the Silicon Valley (apart from the quality of life, the proximity to American business partners is an important aspect) as well as an explanation of why Germany has not yet been able to create its own Silicon Valley (flexibility, openness for cooperation and a greater willingness to take risks). Arwed Niestroj, the head of the Mercedes Benz Research and Development in Sunnyvale, highlighted that well-established companies such as Mercedes benefit from the creativity in the Valley. Especially “automated driving” is an important topic for car manufacturers.

The delegation’s visit to a vineyard and Napa Valley and a ferry ride to Sausalito offered our participants a glimpse into why so many young tech talents move to the Bay Area: a beautiful landscape and Mediterranean climate.

Der Beitrag Delegation Trip to San Francisco and Silicon Valley erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Every year the Atlantik-Brücke invites a group of American social studies, German, and history teachers to participate in a week-long study trip to Germany. The program is one of Atlantik-Brücke’s oldest, and it allows teachers from different parts of the country to learn more about modern Germany. The study trips are very comprehensive: the teachers visit German schools, learn about German companies, and speak with leaders from politics, the media, and culture. The teachers bring their experiences and insights back to their classrooms in order to provide their students with a vivid picture of Germany.

An integral part of the trip is the connections that are enabled through Atlantik-Brücke’s network. Our members generously open their doors to the teachers and provide intimate atmospheres for open exchanges with high-ranking politicians. This year, Atlantik-Brücke member Ulrich Kissing invited the teachers to his home for an evening discussion with Hans-Ulrich Klose, the former Coordinator for Transatlantic Relations and Chairman of the USA Parliamentary Group in the Bundestag. Another member, Christian Krienke, invited the participants to join him for a private dinner with the former Defense Minister Volker Rühe to discuss the German-American friendship and the future of transatlantic relations.

One of the core elements of the exchange for American teachers is the introduction to the German school system which is supported through visits to different types of schools. Last year, the teachers visited the Hamburger Stadtteilschule Finkenwerder, which focuses on integrative teaching methods in socio-economic and ethnically diverse classrooms. At the Berlin Herder-Gymnasium, the emphasis is on bilingual classes and the promotion of student exchanges. The visits to the German classrooms allowed the teachers to get to know their German counterparts and have discussions with the students. The participants were also able to observe the different teaching methods and compare them with their own. In Leipzig, the teachers visited a Berufsschule (technical training school) which is part of the duales Ausbildungssystem (dual education system) which does not exist in the United States. Satinder Hawkins from Milikan High School in Long Beach, CA summarized her experiences, “I loved learning about the dual education system in Germany. The way that workers of all kinds are honored and trained with the inclusion of communities and business partners goes a long way in explaining Germany’s economic strength.” Furthermore, the teachers were able to see trainee students in action at Airbus Operations GmbH in Hamburg.

The participants also visited the offices of SPIEGEL, a prominent news magazine, and met with Cordula Meyer, the Deputy Editor in Chief of the German Desk. The group discussed a wide range of current events in Germany from the parliamentary elections to the energy transformation to the percentage of women in leadership positions. It was important to the teachers to discuss the NSA revelations, which they were able to do in a lunch meeting with Journalist and Moderator Ingo Zamperoni. These meetings provided them with a thorough overview of the German and American media landscape and the different communication formats. The teachers were also able to gain insights into the role of the church in Germany through a discussion with Pastor Alexander Röder in the Hamburg St. Michel Church.

In Berlin, the teachers visited the offices of the Insitut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (Cologne Institute for Economic Research). The speech given by the Deputy Director Dr. Hans-Peter Fröhlich, imparted the group with a summary of the current economic challenges that Germany and Europe are facing. Afterwards, the group met with several members of the German Bundestag: Reinhard Brandl (CSU), Christian Hirte (CDU), Lars Klingbeil (SPD), und Stefan Liebich (Die Linke). The representatives spoke with the teachers about the results of the elections, the coalition negotiations, and the political system in Germany.

During their time in Berlin, the teachers also confronted Germany’s past. The group visited the Sachsenhausen memorial and learned more about National Socialism and also the division of Berlin at the Berlin Wall Memorial. In Leipzig, the teachers learned even more about the post-war history of Germany. The dinner with Atlantik-Brücke Board Member Karsten Uhlmann left a lasting impression on the teachers. He shared his personal experiences from his youth in the DDR. Eric Twisselmann from LaSerna High School shared his feelings, “I feel I have a lot of personal stories – real names, with real faces – to bring back to my students and my school, that I did not have before. And so many of these stories, though unique and situated in the ‘German History,’ have something universal to communicate that our students need to hear.”

On Sunday, the teachers made their way back to California and even before they had landed they had already started discussing a reunion. The lasting impressions that the trip left were evident through various thank you letters that were sent to the Atlantik-Brücke. Karina Morales from the Albert Einstein Academy in San Diego wrote, “I will describe this trip as the most intellectual and powerful trip I have ever experienced. Since I have been back I can’t stop talking about it, to my colleagues, friends, and family. I learned so much about Germany and am eager to learn even more, I was inspired by this trip.”

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2013 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

During their short, yet intensive stay in Germany the teachers got to know high-ranking leaders from politics, economics or the media and visited various schools, companies and institutions. Especially the group from Texas was grateful to escape the heat at home and enjoy the gentle temperatures in Germany during summer.

Thanks to the hospitality of Atlantik-Brücke members who opened the doors of their homes, the teachers enjoyed intimate atmospheres for open exchanges with invited speakers. This year, our member Dr. Sebastian Muschter and his wife Pamela invited the teachers to their home in Eltville. After the welcome by Patrick Kunkel, mayor of Eltville, and his wife Eva-Maria, the group took a walk through Eltville’s famous rosarium and enjoyed a wine tasting in the cozy backyard of the Muschter family.

In Berlin, the teachers were invited for dinner at the house of Atlantik-Brücke member Dr. Kurt Schwarz. During the dinner, Karsten Uhlmann, CEO of the Frankfurter Brauhaus GmbH and member of the Atlantik-Brücke, shared his experiences and memories of his youth in the GDR. At another private dinner invitation in Cologne, organized by our member Martin Wilhelm and his wife Kathy, U.S. Consul General Stephen Hubler talked openly about current challenges for the transatlantic relationship – mainly the NSA-affair – but also elaborated on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Mr. Hubler also discussed possibilities for strengthening trust in the transatlantic relationship again.

Sandra Dieckman, a long-time German and Spanish teacher at Denton High School in Texas, summarized her experience with the personal contact to our members and guests-speakers as follows: “This was the best experience I have had in Germany. The assortment of people and topic fields was so diverse that I feel that every corner of my Germany picture has begun to fill in. Making the personal connection and simply being able to ask questions without judgment was invaluable.”

One of the core elements of the study trip is to familiarize the American teachers with the German school system. In order to be able to contrast the German with the U.S. school system, the teachers visited various schools and got to know teachers and students during several discussions. This year, the group visited the Paul-Hindemith comprehensive school in Frankfurt. The school’s principal Matthew George is especially committed to the integration of all cultural backgrounds and school forms. In Bonn the group visited the Clara-Schumann-Gymnasium and learned about the school’s approach of how to combine language teaching with history lessons. During a visit of the Bildungswerk Kreuzberg, the teachers learned more about the German concept of the dual education system. Beth Burau, German teacher at Bishop Lynach high School, Dallas, Texas, described the influence of the school visits on her own teaching as follows: „The Atlantik-Brücke Study Trip experience will be an instrumental influence on my teaching. Not only will I be able to share the facts, history, and story of Germany with my students, but I will now be able to fully immerse my Texan students (as much as possible) in the modern German culture. Stereotypes will continue to be dismantled and the significance and importance of the German / American relationship will be examined.”

A further topic on the agenda of journey was a visit at the WDR in Cologne. Here, the group discussed freedom of the press in the German media system – especially in comparison to the USA. In Cologne, the teachers also visited the Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft. Dr. Hans-Peter Fröhlich, Deputy Director, spoke on current economic developments in Europe, answered questions about the German labor markets. He also gave an overview on the hotly debated plans for aTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). At the European Central Bank, Christine Graeff, Director of the Department of Communication&Language, elaborated on the development of the Euro and the European banking system.

In Bonn, the teachers visited the Deutsche Post / DHL and were introduced to the company over lunch by Christopher Wade, team leader of internal communications. Wade, an American himself, also shared personal insights about his experience of cultural differences between the U.S. and Germany – for example that mowing the lawn on a Sunday is prohibited in Germany. While having a joint breakfast at Microsoft Ventures Accelerator in Berlin, the teachers gained insights about the German Start-Up scene and had a discussion with Shelley McKinley, Member of the Managing Board, Assistant General Counsel and Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs at Microsoft Deutschland GmbH. Afterwards the teachers participated in a discussion with members of the German parliament. Christian Hirte (CDU), Lars Klingbeil (SPD), Stefan Liebich (Die Linke) and Manuel Sarrazin (Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen) discussed the German political system, the transatlantic relationship and the current challenges it faces. The teachers were impressed that the politicians got along so well – in spite of their different party affiliations.

During their time in Berlin, the teachers also confronted Germany’s past. The group visited the Sachsenhausen memorial and learned more about National Socialism and the division of Berlin at the Berlin Wall Memorial.

Suzy Holland, German teacher at the Earl Warren High School, San Antonio, Texas, summarized her overall impression of the study trip as follows:„ I am honored that I was chosen to participate and get to know some very fine human beings. This far outweighs any nationality. I am hopeful for our future as I see what kind of people are working for mutual understanding here in Germany.”

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2014 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The 2015 program was offered in close cooperation with the office of Congressman Charlie Dent (R – PA) who also supported the selection process of the teachers. This year the regional focus lay exclusively on Pennsylvania. All teachers were expected to have several years of professional teaching experience in a relevant subject. Atlantik-Bruecke was looking for candidates that showed a genuine interest in cultural exchange and could demonstrate how they plan to utilize this experience for the benefit of their students and fellow teachers. Thorough preparation of the materials provided by Atlantik-Bruecke was expected of each candidate. Eventually ten women and five men were selected to come to Germany.

The study trip took place from the 14th to the 21st of June 2015 and led the fifteen teachers all across Germany to the cities of Stuttgart, Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin. During this intense week the teachers met German students, historians, high-ranking political leaders as well as the heads of some of Germany’s most exceptional businesses.
A number of Atlantik-Bruecke members invited the group to their homes for conversations and discussions in a more private setting. Among them were Harald Leibrecht, President, Board of Directors of the CEPA Foundation, Ingersheim and Karsten Uhlmann, Atlantik-Bruecke member of the board and CEO of Frankfurter Brauhaus GmbH, Frankfurt an der Oder. Harald Leibrecht and his family welcomed the group to a BBQ at the family’s historic castle Schloss Ingersheim. Karsten Uhlmann took the teachers on a tour through the Feldschlößchen brewery and spoke of his upbringing in the GDR over dinner.

In Berlin, the group visited the German Bundestag and met with Atlantik-Bruecke members Andreas Lämmel, MdB (Christian Democrats) and Stefan Liebich, MdB (The Left Party). Andreas Lämmel and Stefan Liebich discussed the current political issues in Germany with the group and shared their views on the crisis in Greece. The teachers were positively surprised by the level of transparency and comradery among the leadership. Afterwards the group headed to the foreign ministry for a joint lunch with Jürgen Hardt, MdB (Christian Democrats), Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation. Mr. Hardt, an Atlantik-Bruecke member, spoke of Germany’s global role and gave insights to the conflict in the Ukraine as well as current challenges for the transatlantic relationship.

At the United States European Command Headquarters (EUCOM) in Stuttgart, Ambassador Patrick Moon welcomed the group for a briefing, explained the deep and successful military ties between the United States and Germany and put them into a historical and contemporary perspective.

In Stuttgart, Minister Alexander Bonde (The Greens/Alliance ‘90), Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection Baden-Württemberg, met the group for a joint lunch. Minister Bonde talked about the differences in consumer protection between the EU and the United States, thereby illustrating some of the challenges of successfully negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

One core element of the study trip and naturally of great interest to the teachers is the German educational system. The teachers visited the renowned Friedrich-Schiller-Gymnasium near Stuttgart and joined the children in their classrooms. In Dresden, the group visited the Berufsschulzentrum für Elektrotechnik Dresden (Vocational School) and got to experience and understand the German dual educational system. In both institutions the group had engaged exchanges with the students and their teachers and in some cases even decided to become pen pals.

Another important element of the trip is to experience the German business world. This began with a meeting at the Daimler AG headquarters with the department of external affairs. Here, the group received insights to the concerns, potentials and overall global strategy for the company’s Mercedes brand cars. At Bell Flavors & Fragrances in Leipzig, American-born CEO Michael Heinz introduced the teachers to some of the origins of well-known scents and tastes in the food industry and spoke of his experiences as an American living in Germany.

In Berlin, Launch Manager Martin Bell of Rocket Internet SE introduced the group the local start-up scene. Afterwards the teachers visited the office of Atlantik-Bruecke for an Energy-Talk with Atlantik-Bruecke member Dr. Wolfgang Dierker, Director Government Affairs & Policy, General Electric Germany, Berlin, Dr. Joachim Lang, Head of Berlin Office, E.ON AG and Marie-Christine von Hahn, Head of Group Representative Office Berlin, Aurubis AG. The discussion revolved around Germany’s energy mix, energy related policies and the public’s concern regarding fracking. Coming from Pennsylvania, the teachers were very informed and interested on the experts’ opinions on fracking technology.

At the ARD Berlin studio (German television), TV correspondent Arnd Henze explained the functioning of German public broadcasting and shared his views on current political issues and the role that the German media should play with respect to coverage.

Naturally the teachers were also keen to broaden their understanding of German history. The group visited the Sachsenhausen Memorial and experienced firsthand the darkest chapter of Germany’s past. A guided tour of the Berlin Wall Memorial illustrated the former division of Berlin, explained the geopolitical reasons behind it and gave insights to life in the GDR.

Andrew Hull, an economics teacher from the Palmyra Area High School in Palmyra, PA, acknowledged in his thank-you letter: “When I was younger, I was told that the world is only as big as a person can see. Through this trip, you have opened my eyes in a way that words cannot properly articulate. I am forever grateful for Atlantik-Bruecke coming into my life and for being accepted into the program.” Rick Hadley, a German teacher from the Kutztown Area Middle School in Kutztown, PA, summarized his overall experience as follows: “I was absolutely blown away by this experience! Meeting with policy makers, business men and educators first-hand is the best thing that has ever happened for my profes-sional career and students back home…” German Teacher Kristi Szabo, from the Parkland High School in Allentown, PA, concluded: “I think the program is fantastic! What I found most useful were the speakers who spoke about current topics and opinions in Germany. This is what I try and teach in my classroom.”

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2015 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Fifteen American social studies and history teachers participated in this year’s study trip to Germany. From June 5-12, the teachers from Ohio travelled from Munich and Garmisch-Partenkirchen to Dresden and Berlin. The study trip’s itinerary included visits to schools and companies as well as meetings with representatives from politics, the media, and think tanks to promote discussion and the exchange of ideas.

Just like in the past, many of Atlantik-Brücke’s members and Young Leaders Alumni contributed to this year’s study trip program. Young Leaders Alumni Carsten von der Linden and Roman Deininger guided the teachers on a city tour exploring Munich. Markus Blume, Member of the Bavarian State Parliament (CSU), welcomed the group of teachers to the Bavarian State Parliament. After a tour of the historical building, he provided interesting insights into German politics on state level.

The study trip also included a visit to the George C. Marshall Center, a European Center for Security Studies located in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. It was the highlight of the week for many of the participants. Director Keith W. Dayton and Dr. Robert Brannon, Dean of the College of International and Security Studies, introduced the group to the Center’s different programs and discussed current issues in security and foreign policy with the teachers. After this, the group visited Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitze, which allowed the teachers to be in two countries at the same time: with one leg in Germany and one leg in Austria, the trip to the Zugspitze offered an exciting experience.

At the BMW Welt in Munich, the group was introduced to the various vocational training opportunities offered by BMW and gained insight into the company’s products and marketing strategies. The teachers spent the evening in Dresden with Atlantik-Brücke board member Karsten Uhlmann. He invited them to his brewery, the Feldschlößchen Brauerei, where they enjoyed a traditional German “Abendbrot” (a light supper). Uhlmann shared his experiences living in the GDR and ofthe fall of the Berlin Wall. This offered the teachers a new perspective on an important part of German history.

The teachers were very interested to learn more about the German school system and its differences to the American system. At the Oberschule (Highschool) Cossebaude in Dresden they joined classes and met 8th graders. Some teachers, who were able to witness the integration of young refugees into German classes, were particularly impressed. Lainie Keper from Islander Middle School described her visit as „incredibly powerful“ and pledged: „I will advocate for my school to act in the refugee crisis.”

The teachers spent a historic afternoon in Dresden and took a tour of the Frauenkirche with Reverend Sebastian Feydt before they headed to the Sächsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung (State Agency for Civic Education of Saxony). The Center’s director Frank Richter did not only offer an overview of the goals and methods of his institution but also impressed the teachers with his personal history of the German reunification and his recommendations for social studies lessons. For Kayeann Batanian, a teacher from Swanton Middle, this discussion was certainly one of the trip’s highlights: „Everything he said I am going to focus on with my 7th graders.“

Atlantik-Brücke’s Young Leaders Alumni and members also contributed to the Berlin section of the trip. The teachers participated in a lively discussion about freedom of speech and populism with Members of the Bundestag Metin Hakverdi (SPD), Tobias Lindner (Alliance90/The Greens), and Mark Hauptmann (CDU/CSU). The upcoming presidential election in the United States was a major topic as well. After the discussion, the teachers had a lunch discussion with Jürgen Hardt, Member of the Bundestag (CDU/CSU), and coordinator for transatlantic cooperation, at the International Club of the German Federal Foreign Office. They discussed the importance of transatlantic cooperation and the necessity to promote open communication given the increasing complexity of international conflicts. An event at the Magnus Haus provided insights into the refugee crisis. Sebastian Muschter, acting president of the LaGeSo, Juliane Schäuble from the newspaper Tagesspiegel, as well as  Joachim Jäger and Mario Geiger from the German Red Cross discussed their experiences of how the refugee crisis is being handled in Germany. The role of the media and its impact on public opinion in Germany and the United States was of particular interest at this event.

Young Leader Alumnus Uwe Horstmann, a representative of Berlin’s thriving start-up community, introduced the teachers to his company called Project A Ventures. During this meeting, the trip’s participants were able to experience Berlin’s entrepreneurial spirit first hand.

German history certainly played an important role during the study trip. The teachers visited theBerlin Wall memorial, where they gained insights and took pictures to use in the classroom. Carrie Lockhart, a teacher at Otsego Junior High School, summarized: „I have so many historical references and pictures to take back home.“ The group’s visit to the museum and Memorial Sachsenhausen was a very moving part of the program which created lasting and unique memories and insights into this period of German history. Kristin Schnerer from Toledo’s Start High School has captured this in a single sentence: „Sachsenhausen – being there, where truly horrible things happened, will fundamentally change how I discuss the Holocaust.”

A festive dinner in Berlin marked the end of the 2016 study trip for the group of American social studies teachers. On Sunday morning, they headed back to the United States. While the farewell was “bittersweet”, the teachers were very eager and excited to share their experiences with their friends, families, and especially their students. Andrew Carr from Swinton High School concluded: “The people I’ve met here have shown me that it’s ok to be more open and direct with my students, even about politics. “

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2016 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

According to Schulz, there is no other political area where claims are further from the true reality than in the European foreign policy. The Arab Spring, the crises in Lybia and Syria, and even dealings with China and other regions of growth show that the European states are often simply overwhelmed by the strategic challenges they have to face.

Schulz went on to state that in the reality of the 21st Century, the interests of the European states are better secured by the transfer of sovereignity to the European level. This “abdication of power”, as the convinced European would say, “will be returned to us as a gain in strength in the globalised world.” The loss of governing ability of the nationstate has already become obvious in many areas; by 2050, Germany will not qualify as a G8-state according to today’s standards. “Germany is too small for a world without Europe,” Schulz says.

The fatal mistake that European decision-makers make again and again is to position themselves against the EU in favor of domestic politics of their own countries, thus undermining European institutions’ credibility and capacity to act: “European achievements are nationalizied and failures europeanized.”

“We could be so strong, but we are so weak”, stated the President of the EU Parliament. However, Schulz believes that the European project still has enormous appeal and great potential to serve as an example for other regions in the world. If Europe wants to have global impact and influence, it will have to create a real European government with a strong European parliament.

Der Beitrag The EU Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Visions, Ambitions, Realities erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“Thank you, Tom Buhrow.  And Friedrich, once again thank you for that warm welcome.  And I say “once again” because, in addition to the many times you and I have worked together and shared podiums over the past three and a half years, you and the members of the Atlantik Brücke were the first to officially welcome the Emerson family to Berlin back in August of 2013.  I remember that very vividly.  And I must say, it was a little intimidating to come into that tent, filled with so many of Germany’s luminaries, waiting to take the measure of the new Ambassador.  But you all made us feel so welcome, and quickly put us at ease.

We have become dear friends with so many of you who are here tonight. And in particular, I want to thank you for inviting many of my colleagues from Mission Germany, with whom I have had the honor of working.

And so, it is an understatement to say that this occasion is truly bittersweet; because in 36 hours, before the President-elect takes the oath of office, the Emerson family will board a plane and return to our home in Los Angeles.  Tonight is our official farewell to you, and to the people of Germany.

On behalf of Kimberly and our entire family, I would like to thank all of you for your friendship and your support over the course of our time here.  Serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany has been the honor of my life; and it has been an enormous privilege for each and every one of us.

Our three girls have been a significant part of our presence here in Germany.  Taylor and Hayley finished high school and then took a gap year in Berlin, before beginning their freshman year at Washington University, St. Louis.  During their three years in Germany, they were able to further develop their soccer and musical skills (as some of you saw last week on MorgenMagazin) – and found many new friends on the Fussballfeld, on the stage, and in their various gap year internships.

In the fall of 2013 Jackie, our oldest daughter, started her freshman year at Stanford University, just a month after I arrived as a “freshman” Ambassador.  Last year she was able to do a semester abroad at Stanford’s Berlin campus, and she has spent most of her vacations here in Germany.  All three girls are missing their first week back at school so they can be here for our final goodbyes; and when they heard we had purchased an apartment in Berlin, they cried tears of joy.

As a board member of Human Rights Watch, as well as proving that with the Emersons, Germany got two Ambassadors for the price of one, Kimberly became deeply engaged in Germany’s humanitarian, arts, and entrepreneurial communities.  As the refugee crisis unfolded, she worked proactively to help.  And Kimberly has built so many close friendships here in Germany that we could not leave without getting that apartment!

As several of you have noted tonight, our time here has been anything but uneventful.  We have often worked together on many of the challenges Germany and the United States faced over the past three and a half years, most of which were not even on the radar screen when I was nominated for this job in the spring of 2013.  Consider the following: the NSA disclosures;  the civil war in Syria; the brutality of ISIL and the metastasizing of terrorism into Europe; the Russian incursion into Ukraine, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and NATO’s collective response to Russian aggression; the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan; Ebola; the Greek financial crisis; Brexit; the loud, vocal opposition to T-TIP in the one European country that will benefit most from that agreement; the demise of “safe harbor” and the damage that posed to inter-company data transfers; the threat to our governments, our economies, our societies, and our politics of increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks by both state and non-state perpetrators; and the greatest movement of refugees through Europe since the end of the Second World War.

The extent of Germany’s engagement on these issues has been remarkable.  I remember vividly my first Tag der Deutschen Einheit back in 2013, and President Gauck’s eloquent speech,   in which he urged Germany to become more engaged globally.  And he spoke about trust, thanking Germany’s friends and partners for their steadfast belief that one day this country would be re-united, respected worldwide for its vibrant and stable democracy, and its economic strength.  This morning I was privileged to attend his farewell speech, and he built upon many of those same themes.

During the seminal and critical early post-war years, the transatlantic partnership was born out of a trust that was defined and nurtured by the members of newly-formed organizations such as the Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany.  Both were designed to promote reconciliation and understanding between Germans and Americans, and to build connections so that people could not only follow, but understand, developments in both countries.  Over the decades, transatlantic partners have invested heavily in this relationship, and strengthened their trust.

And to that point, let me unequivocally state that the European Project, which has long had, and continues to have, bipartisan support in the United States, is one of the great success stories of world history.  When Europe and the EU prosper, so too does the United States.  And if some in the incoming Administration do not understand that now, I am hopeful that in time they will.

Well, as it turned out; trust became a major theme of my Ambassadorship, and a challenge as well.  As noted, tonight serves as a bookend to my introductory speech to this organization, when I acknowledged   a “very large elephant in the room” – the disclosures about the NSA.  And from day one, my main priority was to re-build the trust between our countries that had been so badly shaken.

At that time, cooperation between our intelligence services was seen in a very negative light.  To put it bluntly, the whole concept of intelligence, and its relationship to law enforcement, was radioactive.  From the beginning, I stressed the need to reform; but to do so in a way that did not jeopardize one of the fundamental responsibilities of our governments: the protection of our citizens. Well, President Obama implemented important reforms.  And the tragic re-appearance of terrorists in Europe underscored that we have to take necessary steps to obtain and share information within Germany, within Europe, and between the U.S. and Europe, for the purpose of disrupting, and ultimately stopping them.

The reality is we live in an era where non-state actors and metastasized terrorist groups, having gone to school on how our intelligence services operate, thanks to highly publicized hacked and leaked information, have become very adept at using evolving technology to recruit, train, plan, and carry out their attacks.

Accordingly, it is essential that we continue working together to stay one step ahead of them.  The good news, as I look back over the last three and a half years, is that we have never worked together more cooperatively or effectively than we are today.

And yet, to be sure, in today’s world there is no such thing as 100 percent security.  The attack last month in the heart of a traditional Christmas market, nestled around the Gedächtniskirche, brought home to us once again the threat of violent extremism in our societies.  Nevertheless, in the face of such horrific violence, it is even more important that we hold fast to our values, and not allow acts of terror to incite xenophobic resentment or subvert our way of life.  I have been so moved by the manner in which Berliners came together throughout the holiday season, undeterred by this terrible tragedy, in solidarity and in strength.

Now I know that this attack, and others before it, has added to the ongoing debate regarding Germany’s decision not to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis on its borders in the summer of 2015.  Yes, there are likely some terrorists who came in to Germany through the refugee trail.  But make no mistake: the vast majority of individuals who have been committing these terrible acts in Europe are home grown.  And the idea that by somehow closing all its internal borders to those seeking refuge, Europe could eliminate acts of terrorism; or the related assumption that those bent on inflicting harm cannot otherwise find their way into Europe, is preposterous.

The course that Chancellor Merkel has charted, while difficult and challenging, is a demonstration of moral leadership, in a world where that is far too rare.  It is a course that, as President Obama said in Berlin last November, gives voice to the principles that bring people together, rather than divide them; something that is very much in the long term national security interests of both of our countries.

Chancellor Merkel and Aussenminister Steinmeier describe the German-American relationship as a cornerstone of their country’s foreign policy.  And from an American perspective, there are few other countries that project the same resolve, capability – and trust – on the world stage as Germany.  Our partnership is indispensable.  And in these complex times, a certain amount of predictability will be important as we go forward, which brings me to the topic that is, of course, on everyone’s mind: what will be the priorities of the new Administration, especially as it relates to Europe and to Germany?   Let me share a few thoughts.

First, in terms of foreign policy, it is no secret that there may well be some significant differences between the incoming and outgoing presidential Administrations: attitudes about climate change, immigration, Russian aggression, the Mid-East,  the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the role of multilateral institutions, to name a few.

Possible changes in our relationship with Russia have been in the news quite a bit these past few days.  President Obama has always believed it is important to have a good working relationship with Russia – that is clearly in all of our interests.  But having a strong relationship with another country does not preclude standing up for our values.  And after the lessons of the past century, we need to send a clear message to powerful nations that the unilateral re-drawing of boundary lines of adjacent weaker countries cannot and will not be tolerated; and neither will attempts to manipulate the electoral processes of sovereign nations.

The international community needs to stand up when this happens; there need to be consequences; they cannot be allowed to simply fade away because maintaining them seems to be inconvenient, politically awkward, or because someone says something nice about you.  And  as we saw during last week’s Senate confirmation hearings, many members of the United States Congress strongly believe this as well.

More broadly speaking, President-elect Trump campaigned on a foreign policy platform that was much more isolationist in nature than the long held bipartisan consensus in administrations going all the way back to President Truman and the Marshall Plan; yet many of the challenges we face are not ones that America or Europe can solve on their own.

President Obama said that one of the main topics of his discussion with the President-elect, right after the election, concerned the crucial role of the United States in addressing global challenges.  The fact is, good leadership on behalf of one’s own country requires engaging the world as a whole, and participating effectively in multilateral institutions.  That means that the United States, Germany, the G7, the G20, and the European Union all need to maintain, and in some cases expand upon, our engagement in the transatlantic alliance and in global affairs.

I know there is some concern here on this topic.  But as President Obama pointed out, once you’re in the White House, once you begin interacting with world leaders, once you have visibility to the full complexities of the challenges we face, the demands of that office tend to shape and in some cases significantly modify your thinking.  And the fact that the President-elect’s designated Secretaries of Defense, State, and Intelligence are career-long internationalists is a positive sign.  So we shall see.

A second topic: I am fairly certain that one of the President-elect’s priorities will be strengthening the American economy in hard-hit areas of the formerly industrial mid-West and in the rural communities of the United States.  That is where he got most of his support.  The question is: how he will go about accomplishing this?  Through a combination of domestic infrastructure spending and global economic engagement, or through a more protectionist approach?

I think most of us here tonight believe that trade can be a key to expanding global economic prosperity.  But, trade was also a red-hot focal point of the presidential campaign.  I am sure you all heard that the President-elect has declared the Trans-Pacific Partnership dead – and the leadership in Congress, which was previously supportive of TPP, went along with that, failing to push for its approval during the lame duck.  This is unfortunate.  When you consider that China is seeking to advance its own trade agreement with countries in the region, it is clear that the U.S. may have lost an opportunity to have helped set higher standards for global trade.

Now, the domestic politics of T-TIP in the U.S. are not as difficult as those for TPP; yet it is highly unlikely that the new Administration will make this a priority either, as I said repeatedly over the past year.  And, candidly, given the reluctance of many European politicians to forcefully confront the vocal opposition to T-TIP, and the embarrassment of the EU’s efforts to approve CETA, Europe will need to make clear to the United States that it wants, and can implement, a newly negotiated T-TIP – whether by that or another name.

Beyond that, I know there is some concern here over recent comments about Germany’s trade surplus with the U.S.  I trust that in time the new Administration will come to understand that there is a difference between trade surpluses that are generated by low wage, low standard economies with control over their own currencies, that have erected their own protectionist barriers, and those generated by high wage, high standard economies operating on a much more level playing field, that simply make high quality goods that Americans want to buy.  And by the way, BMW is on track to make more cars in Charleston, South Carolina than it does in Bavaria!

At some point, hopefully, trade negotiations of some sort will commence between the U.S. and Europe.  You all know the arguments for T-TIP; and many of you have led efforts to explain its potential benefits to a skeptical public here in Germany.  But clearly, when we finally do go forward, we need to do a much better job.  Complain as we might about the well-funded, often truth-challenged opposition to T-TIP, we waited far too long to get the positive story out, in ways that were clear and understandable.  The days when governments can go off and spend years quietly negotiating a trade agreement and then unveil it to an eagerly awaiting public are over.

With well-funded, perpetual advocacy groups, many of which depend on a bogey-man to generate their grassroots funding, and with pervasive social media allowing for the creation of silos where information and misinformation are exchanged back and forth at ever increasing volumes, the effort to explain the purposes and benefits of a trade agreement needs to begin with a well-structured, well-funded, proactive campaign, from day one.

There also needs to be greater transparency, from day one; not conducting negotiations in public, but explaining what the objectives are; what is included in the negotiations and what is not; where progress is being made and where it is not.  Otherwise, as we’ve seen, a vacuum of information is created which can be filled by anxiety-ridden fears and misinformation.

And from the outset, the fact that every trade agreement will have some dislocating effects must be acknowledged.  Our governments need to work just as hard at addressing the impact of that dislocation, as they do at negotiating the actual agreement.

Now, don’t get me wrong; there will always be those who oppose any trade agreement – but by taking these steps we will have a much greater likelihood of success in the future.

The third issue I would like to discuss is something I have heard from virtually everyone I have spoken to in Germany since the election, and that is the concerns so many have about the possible impact of our election on those coming up in France, Germany, and the EU this year and next.

Well, we all know what happened in the U.S.; and it wasn’t exactly how I – and many others – thought things would turn out.  Of course, any time you have a very close election, there are multiple factors and events that could have swung it one way or the other.  But at a fundamental level, what happened, and why?

The very complexity of our world – fueled by the rapid pace of globalization and technological change – has created a pervasive sense of unease.  Increasing economic, cultural, demographic, and social changes, coupled with a polarization in government and in society that makes it harder to get things done, have significantly diminished public confidence in the political process.  In the U.S. and in Europe, people on both extremes of the political spectrum are increasingly angry because they don’t think government, or any establishment institution – including the business world – is working for them.

But it’s not just a question of economic well-being.  Increasingly, since the 1980s, Americans are also divided by views regarding cultural questions, such as LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, religion, climate change, race and immigration.  These differences in views are most pronounced between rural and urban communities, the areas of America that coastal elites quite literally look down on as “fly over country;” and these cultural issues, which cynical political operatives exploit as “wedge issues,” have created deep emotional cleavages in our country.  The opposing camps are so entrenched that rational discussion seems almost impossible.  We need to get beyond that.

And polarization in society has been enhanced by the instantaneous news environment, where a 140-character tweet can capture the news cycle for an entire day; and by the tendency of social media and ideologically targeted cable news programs to create silos where people can easily isolate themselves, getting information only from sources which reflect their pre-existing points of view.  People increasingly “choose their news,” and their opinions are shaped in a post-factual environment.  The danger, as we have seen, is that this ‘siloization’ creates an echo chamber of misinformation and, ultimately, of anger that can be used to generate political support; or to undermine confidence in our electoral process.

This anger, and the anxiety from which it arises, contributed to the Brexit vote; to the rise of populism, both right and left, in much of Europe; and to the anti-establishment voting we saw in our Election 2016, as well as the anti-trade, anti-immigrant movements that we’re seeing on both sides of the Atlantic. So the dislocating effect of globalization must be acknowledged and addressed; so too the relationship between social media, the press, perpetrators of fake news, and our politics, especially with the European elections coming up.  This might be a topic for further examination by the Atlantik Brücke.

Now, I know there is a great deal of concern in Germany over the incoming administration; but I am convinced that the significance and importance of our relationship with Germany will not diminish over the coming years.  History and politics, as President Obama says, never moves in a straight line.  In his words: “We zig and zag and sometimes we move in ways that some people think is forward and others think is moving back.”  What’s important is that we retain our faith in democracy, and the lively, open debate that it presupposes.

Returning to the question about the next Administration’s priorities, for those who are trying to read the tea leaves for some answers, I have some words of advice.  First, don’t over-react to the tweets.  Pay attention to them, but don’t get distracted or spun up by them.  Tweets are not policy, and often what a President says is modified substantially after it comes out of the policy making machine that is the U.S. government.

Second, it is a truism in government that people are policy.  So, pay attention to the confirmation hearings, which began last week.   And by the way, who is asking what questions may be as revealing about how Congress will react to proposed Administration policies, and how those policies will be shaped, as the answers themselves.

Third, listen to Friday’s Inaugural Address.  This should be an aspirational statement of an incoming President’s vision, goals, and priorities; a high level road map for the next four years.  Listen to what is said; what is not said; and of equal importance, the tone of how he says it.

Then, finally, look closely at the budget that is proposed by the new Administration in late February.  A President’s proposed budget is an operational blueprint.  Closely examine what will be spent, and what will be cut.  This will show you what their priorities truly are.

Accordingly, I would urge folks here in Germany to approach the incoming administration with some patience, and with a sense of objectivity, but without hesitating to promote our shared values; and I would encourage you to emphasize how our close economic ties and trading relationship help to raise the prosperity of both countries’ citizens.

So, where do we go from here?  Yes, Chancellor Merkel and President Obama have a strong personal connection.  But it wasn’t always so.  German-American relations go far beyond the name or political affiliation of the current President.

The basis of our close relationship is at its core the personal contact between our citizens.  Our people flow across the Atlantic as writers, journalists, researchers, scientists, artists, students, business people, employees and tourists.  Our two-way trade and investment opens new opportunities for synergies, new products, and innovations in technology.  And strong institutions like the Atlantik Brücke and the American Academy in Berlin are dynamic platforms for German-American collaboration on issues of global importance.  So we need to re-double our efforts on the people-to-people and the business-to-business fronts, especially as we enter choppy waters.

I concluded my remarks in that first speech to you three and a half years ago, by talking about the crucial importance of reaching out to young people.  And those will also be my parting thoughts this evening.

One of the most indelible connections Europe and the United States share as partners is the miracle of 70 years ago when, from the ashes of global devastation and genocide, new principles were crafted and implemented for governing relations among states, and safeguarding the fundamental rights and dignity of all people.

There are entire generations of Germans and Americans, however, who did not live through the searing experiences of the second half of the 20th century.  People for whom the Luftbrücke, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” “Tear down this wall,” and reunification are so much as ancient history.   Our vibrant trans-Atlantic relationship is not an inherited trait; its value needs to be transmitted from one generation to the next.  That’s why we in Mission Germany consistently include youth in all of our public diplomacy efforts.

During his visit to Berlin shortly after our elections, at a small lunch in the Embassy, President Obama was asked what gave him the greatest concern, and what gave him the greatest hope.  On the concern side, by the way, climate change.  But without hesitating, Barack Obama placed his hope in young people.  He then noted, in a radio interview, that we have to do more than “celebrate or despair around presidential elections”; that we need to do more to help young people find their voices, hone their activism, and help to make a difference.

Politics can be frustrating, but as many are seeing for the first time in their lives, especially in the UK and the U.S., elections have consequences.  We need to focus on how, in our day-to-day lives, in our local civic lives, in our media, in our culture, we can all be part of the solution.  And that is what so much of the work of the Atlantik Brűcke is all about.

The fact is, today we find ourselves at a crossroads.  Simply put:  we are indeed stronger when we work together.  We must seize the opportunity to shape the future, based on our values and our ideals.

And so, in closing, Kimberly and I would again like to thank all of you for your dedication to building upon the close relationship between Germany and the United States, and for your friendship.  Yes, both Europe and the United States face a set of longer-run challenges.  But on all of these, we have much we can learn from each other; and with pragmatism, cooperation, flexibility, creativity, and hard work, there will be much we can do together in the months and years to come.

Vielen Dank.”

Link zur Rede von Botschafter Emerson

Atlantik-Brücke: Interview mit U.S. Botschafter John B. Emerson from Atlantik Brücke on Vimeo

Der Beitrag „Serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany has been the honor of my life“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In an interview with Robert Kagan, Dr. David Deissner, Managing Director of the Atlantik-Brücke, further explored some topics of the lecture:

David Deißner: In his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Mike Pence delivered the reassuring message that the United States ‘strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in its commitment to this transatlantic alliance’. Nonetheless, there is still serious concern among Europeans with regard to the future of this alliance. What did you make of the vice president’s speech?

Robert Kagan: The United States will not pull out of NATO. That is not really the issue. I still wonder how significant Vice President Pence speech was, because I do not think that anyone outside Trump’s very small circle of advisors has any say over what happens in American foreign policy. Clearly Pence was given authority to say all these encouraging things, so at the very least the president has no intention of making any fundamental changes at this time. But if you asked me what is in the President’s heart and mind, I still think he is not a big fan of Europe. I think he does not know how important Europe is for the United States. I don’t think he has a clear understanding of the economic relationship. So Europe needs to be vigilant. Most of all, it is very important that Europe itself will come together and be as strong and capable as possible. If there are two pillars of the world order that we all value, it is Europe and the United States. The United States is the one in question right now. So it is more important than ever that Europe is a strong pillar.

President Trump has endorsed the so-called Brexitiers, those in favor of Britain leaving the EU. We also heard from the administration that they would be in favor of bilateral trade deals rather than having a comprehensive trade agreement with Europe. How should Europeans make clear that the unity of Europe is crucial also for the Unites States?

Well, it is obviously very important. Pence talked about the two world wars of the 20th century. The United States happened to be involved in these two wars. But he doesn’t talk about the importance of European unity in preventing a recurrence of that. The EU is an economic organization, but at its heart, it is a political answer to the past. The United States needs to go back to understanding that European unity is important. The president and his advisors should understand that America is dependent on the European market, and that it would be wrong to implement a strictly bilateral, beggar-thy-neighbor economic policy. If the European economy has troubles, the American economy has troubles.

At this year’s Munich Security Conference, it has been repeatedly emphasized that Germany and Europe as a whole will finally have to make an appropriate contribution to NATO. Doesn’t the new administration have a right to complain that Europe comes late in taking action?

This is true. And it has been true for a long time. I think Europe would be a more powerful actor on the world scene if it had more military capacity. And I want Europe to be a more powerful actor on the world scene, because Europe is a pillar of this order. The only part that I do not accept is the ‘or-else-argument’, which says: if Europe does not do this or that, America would have to rethink. I am not interested in re-thinking the relationship. It is too important.

Many Republicans would say that the new administration does not get its fair chance, because the media is overwhelmingly biased against the president and his team, and portrays them in a negative light. Maybe the media is too hasty to condemn an administration which has not yet fully settled, let alone presented political measures and strategies in more detail?

I think the administration has been treated more kindly by the press than it deserves. The press has just exercised normal journalistic criticism. We have a president who says outrageous things. We cannot expect the press to ignore the things Trump said about judges, things he said about the press itself, being the ‘enemy of the American people’. In addition, there was the obvious mishandling of the executive order regarding immigration. No one could claim that this wasn’t a disaster. Or think of Michael Flynn, who was talking to the Russians about foreign policy before the administration had taken power. No one would question the capability of people like James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, but their role in making policy is yet to be determined. At the moment it seems that all policy is being decided upon by a very small group of people immediately surrounding the president. This fact has not even been reported enough. So, I do not think they are getting a bad rap.

What would be your recommendation to Europeans, and in particular an institution like ours which is devoted to transatlantic dialogue and partnership. What should we focus on in these turbulent times?

This is an opportunity for Europeans and institutions like yours to speak up, certainly more than has been necessary before. Before the election you were maintaining ties which were pretty healthy. Now you have to be more active in letting Americans know that Europe matters, that this relationship matters. Europeans should speak up and say: When you Americans are doing the right thing we are going to support you. When America is doing the wrong thing, we are going to tell them that it is the wrong thing. Speaking up will have a beneficial effect.

Der Beitrag “Europe matters, this relationship matters” – a conversation with Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Alec, can you tell us the two top strategies to stop alt-right narratives as well as Russian propaganda distributed through social media?

The platforms have substantial responsibility themselves. People from government and from civil society need to insist that platforms like Twitter and Facebook monitor very carefully who is using these networks and whether they are doing so for the purpose of manipulating the information environment in a malignant way that violates the terms of service of the platform. All of us should push these platforms to be much more responsible. In addition, we have to name and shame the purveyors of this activity. This is very difficult sometimes. Particularly Twitter allows for anonymity. However, people who are orchestrating these campaigns have to be identified. They have to be named and shamed so that there is consequence to their actions.

How much sense does it make to name and shame the purveyors if they are actually not individuals and not located in the United States?

If the point of origin of attack is from Macedonia but it is receiving instructions from Russia, which is frequently the case, you have to engage diplomatically. Honestly, the United States is unlikely to do so, because we have a president who is sympathetic to the extremists. For other countries that still believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the key is to put real pressure with consequences on the actors behind it. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians are seeking to destabilize the Western democracies. It is time for us to begin to hold Russia to account for molesting our democracies.

Given that there is also some anxiety in Germany with the upcoming general election, how can you make yourself less vulnerable against such attacks?

There is nothing you can do as an individual candidate. Beyond the technical things – every candidate and every political party should do what they can from a technical perspective – the responsibility is really on the nation state to make clear that there are consequences if there is foreign interference in the election. For example, with your election on September 24, the best way to keep the Russians from molesting that election is to let them know through public channels and through private channels that if there is evidence for their doing this,  there will be severe sanctions. Germany often has mixed emotions about sanctions but if you are not willing to say “No, we won’t buy your oil. No, we will not engage in commerce with you,” then you make yourself vulnerable.

Recently, Samir Saran, the Vice President of the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, demanded a compulsory social media participation from citizens in elections. Do you think that citizens should be held more responsible for their own online participation?

No, things that are compulsory are anti-democratic. People should have the freedom to engage and the freedom to not engage.

What do you think about the new German law that holds for instance Facebook to account for the content that it publishes?

I am not sympathetic to the German law in this respect. The most effective response to offensive speech is more speech. As long as what is being published does not violate Facebook’s terms of service, people should be free to publish it. The idea that 196 sovereign nation states could have 196 different sets of laws to govern a single private sector platform does not make sense and is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that allows for the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression allows for the freedom of offensive expression as well. It may irritate me. But a platform should not be regulated in terms of the kind of content that is there – as long as it does not incite to violence.

So the naming and shaming that you mentioned is holding accountable in a moral sense.

And holding accountable in an economic sense. For example, the most effective means for shutting the marchers in Charlottesville down in many respects has been putting their faces on the internet, making clear that they were marchers. What happens? Their employers fire them. They go home and suddenly everyone around them hates them for being white supremacists. The naming and shaming is both moral and economic. It isolates people societally.

Especially in Europe, populists from the far-right and the far-left use technology such as social media more effectively than other big parties. For example, the populist right wing party AfD here in Germany has almost as many Facebook followers as other parties in Germany combined. What can mainstream parties do to improve their use of social networking sites?

They have to be willing to take a bit more risk. A lot of these far-left and far-right parties are not afraid to engage in a rather over-forward way with citizens where the more formal, long-standing parties do so in a way that connects with people less effectively. Their tweets or the Facebook posts read like press releases as opposed to a conversation. If you want to connect mainstream political parties with the governed more effectively using digital tools, you have to connect directly and in a way that is a bit less formal.

How can that be achieved?

Using things like Facebook live for live video chats or speaking in a way that sounds more like people speaking on the street than behind a lectern. These stylistic differences matter greatly when connecting with younger voters. Mainstream political parties also have got to confront the nationalist parties parties when they are putting out fake news, when they are saying things that are actually inaccurate or when they are doing things which are rooted in racial or ethnic bigotry. We cannot be polite in responding to them. Part of how you confront people is most effectively done through social networks.

How do you confront the U.S. President best on social media?

Donald Trump has proven to be almost immune to being confronted on social media. Where He doesn’t pay any attention to what people say to him online – maybe just because he cannot even work his phone except send a tweet. But you can see him in an absolute rage some days because of what he watched on the morning talk shows or what he read in the newspaper. The way to confront Donald Trump is actually not through social networks. It is through television and the newspaper.

What did you take away from the 2016 election campaign for your own campaign right now?

It is a recognition that people are angry. You have to understand and value the perspectives of people who have been stagnating economically. I hold the believe that in the United States Democrats have failed recently, because our leaders are segregated from the working class. We have to reconnect ourselves to the working class in a way that we have not done for many years.

In your book “The Industries of the Future” you outline the thesis that digital competencies like programming languages are the key when it comes to reintegrating vulnerable populations into the work force. Could you give us three priorities that a future German government must tackle to ensure that particularly vulnerable populations are not left behind?

The first priority is an issue of access. You have to ensure universal access to high speed low cost broadband. The second priority is skills training in all schools, not just the elite schools in wealthy communities. Computer code is the alphabet that much of the future will be written in. It is not about everybody becoming a computer scientist but making sure that people are fluent in the alphabet of the future is very important. And the third priority is a focus on gender. Too often women are underrepresented in technical fields including computer science. It is worth it making an extra effort to ensure that the interest of women is sustained particularly after young girls enter adulthood when their engagement on technology tends to wane.

You are currently running for Governor of Maryland. Can you give us an example from your own constituency how you are trying to bring these three priorities together?

It is hard work. But for somebody who is running for office the most important thing is to remember: You only have one mouth but you have two ears. So instead of just going into the room and talking ceaselessly, you should really seek to understand the perspective of people. What I found is that you can disagree with somebody but if you understand why they think what they do, you can find common ground. Becoming a good listener will make you a better talker. When I use social media and Facebook in particular, I ask people why they think something instead of arguing with them. And instead of responding and telling people they are wrong I would put a series of facts in front of them – in a way that is not meant to humiliate them but in a way which is trying to bring them to the truth of a matter.

Alec Ross was interviewed by Kirsten Rulf, a Fellow for Artificial Intelligence, its Ethics and Governance at the Harvard Law School.

Listen to the Transatlantic Call:

Der Beitrag Alec Ross: “Name and Shame the Purveyors of Propaganda” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In addition to the question of how the established parties should deal with the new situation, the group also discussed the strong east-west divide that had become evident in the election. On average, AfD had received more than twice as many shares in the east of Germany than in the West (with some exceptions). Precisely for this reason, more emphasis must be placed on international exchange in the new Länder. In addition, a strong, content-driven debate should be initiated in the east in particular. The participants saw reasons for the success of the AfD in many Germans’ fear of the effects of large scale on society. Another reason that was discussed was the  political constellation of the grand coalition. The positions of the CDU/CSU and SPD were difficult to distinguish for the voters. The SPD’s decision to join the opposition, announced the evening before, was discussed critically. Edelgard Bulmahn, who had no longer been a candidate for the Bundestag, also stressed the need for a new generation in the political landscape.

Finally, Ms Bulmahn raised a political issue which she considered to be particularly urgent. The former Federal Minister of Education and Research underlined the necessity for more future-oriented thinking – investments in education and science were indispensable for this.

The discussion was moderated by Sarah Kelly from Deutsche Welle.

Der Beitrag Discussion of the Election Results with the Vice President of the Bundestag erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The most pressing issue on the table right now for Germany is the outcome of the elections. What has been the feedback in Canada to the German election results?

Canada was really comfortable with the two front runners. The Prime Minister has a strong relationship with Frau Merkel and a good relationship also with Mr. Schulz. The relationship between Canada and Germany is so positive. We work shoulder to shoulder around the world. German has been supportive of the free trade agreement between Canada and the EU. Frau Merkel now needs to find a coalition government, and the parties that she will negotiate with are also completely acceptable for Canada. From that point of view, we are very pleased that the winner is a friend of Canada.

One of the big issues here in Germany in the election was the relative success of the right-wing AfD. Many pundits have commented that this was due to fear of the current big wave of immigration. Canada is very successful at integrating immigrants into society. Are there are any lessons that Germany could learn from Canada?

We are always pleased to share our experience with our friends. Prime Minister Trudeau is convinced that diversity is a fact. Our population is aging. The work force is coming from other continents. And then, inclusion must be the choice. Because if there is no inclusion,  there will be xenophobia and populism and that is not a good, not the right path. That being said, we are not here to lecture anyone. If you want to see how we do it – in a completely different context –, why Canada is strong not despite but because of its diversity, we are happy to share all the experience we have. In Europe and especially in Germany there is a lot of curiosity about the way we deal with these issues. It is a core part of Canadian identity. There is no need to copy our Canadian experience exactly in Germany or elsewhere. But maybe the Canadian case can be a source of more optimism about the capacity to integrate people from all over the world.

You mentioned the trade agreement between Canada and the EU, which has just provisionally come into effect a few days ago. Especially in Germany, there have been many critics of the agreement. Many people are worried that it might hurt consumers. What words of reassurance would you offer these critics?

We are not at all going to have a race to the bottom regarding workers’ rights, food safety, the environment. To the contrary, the agreement is very strong on that. The ability of the government to regulate and of parliament to legislate for the common good is protected. In fact, we will show our populations in Germany, in Europe, in Canada, and in the world, that we should never choose between trade and progress. We should bring them together and that is what we have done through CETA. And now that the tariffs are gone, now that we have the implementation of the agreement, I am convinced that many people will see that the sky is still blue and they did not need to be so nervous about it. We work together, confident in the new opportunities that this market has to offer. Canada for Europe and Europe for Canada.

Let us shift focus to your neighbor to the south. Since the new U.S. administration has come into office, the tone has become somewhat confrontational; old alliances are not relied upon as much as they used to. What does this mean for Canada and for the European-Canadian relationship?

One of Canada’s roles in the world is to encourage our American friends to work within the multilateral institutions of the world and not try to isolate themselves or try to rule the world without allies. While cultivating a strong relationship with President Trump, Prime Minister Trudeau makes sure to point out that multilateralism is the way to go. Our national interest is linked to the interest of other countries. The countries of the European Union are among them. Canada is strongly supporting the integration of European countries in the European Union and we are making this point frequently with the president of the United States and his entourage. We have a lot of support in American society. It’s the same with trade. Protectionism is not the solution and we are making this point very clear. The fact that we have a strong support here in Europe with Angela Merkel and the other leaders is a great help.

As Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, what is at the top of your agenda?

Our priority is to make sure that the free trade agreement will be a success, to create jobs in Canada and in Europe and to show the world that yes, we need to trade and we need to be open to progressive policies and to sustainable solutions for the environment. We should not miss this opportunity. The environment, cultural policies, social policies, the social framework, all of this will be enhanced.

When you speak to friends in Canada these days, is there anything about Berlin that you find so remarkable that you always point it out to them?

What I find remarkable is that I have failed to meet one person, only one, who is unhappy to be in Berlin. Berlin is a city where you have all the advantages and none of the inconveniences of a big city. You have the arts, you have the beauty, you have the parks, but you don’t have a cost of living that is prohibitive, the traffic is still relatively acceptable and people are not as stressed as you see in the other big cities in the developed world. I think it is fantastic to be in Berlin.

Der Beitrag “Working shoulder to shoulder” – Interview with Canadian Ambassador Stéphane Dion erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Wenger, you are originally from Germany, went to the US to study computer science, founded a company and now you are an investor. Is it still necessary today to cross the Atlantic or can someone follow the same path in Germany as well?

Albert Wenger: I think one of the advantages of the internet is that you can build great companies all over the world. New businesses are started every day in Germany – such as Clue – as well as in China, Japan, or Korea. The notion that you have to be in the US to do so is an outdated one. In some respects being in the US may even be a disadvantage, especially when you consider how expensive San Francisco/Silicon Valley has become.

Mr. Raffauf, what is your view as a German startup founder in Germany?

Hans Raffauf: There were many moments when we thought about moving our business to the States. At the beginning, we also considered founding in the US, but ended up deciding against it because we wanted to raise our children here. As Albert already said: although there is less access to capital here, you also need less because the cost of living is lower. In terms of talent, I do still see a considerable difference between Germany and the large clusters in the US – Silicon Valley, of course, but also increasingly New York City. At the same time, we are seeing more and more Americans who move to Europe, especially with the current political situation. We currently have seven Americans on our team, most of whom moved to Germany for us. A critical mass has formed here, which is growing because it has created a certain magnetic pull.

Mr. Wenger, when you started your studies, could you have dreamed of today’s significant technological advances with far-reaching societal implications or did you imagine we would see even more radical changes?

Albert Wenger: I received my first computer around thirty-five years ago – an Apple 2. Already back then I was fascinated by topics such as artificial intelligence. So it was naturally quite disappointing that progress in this area was slow for years. But we’re talking about exponential curves. The developments over the last ten, especially the last five years, have been more dramatic than I ever would have imagined. Entrepreneurs and investors now see that the future will be radically different, but unfortunately most politicians have yet to realize this.

Saving American jobs was one of the central elements of Donald Trump’s election campaign. He talked a lot about jobs that had moved overseas. Yet many experts argue that a far greater number of jobs are lost due to digitalization and automation. What is your assessment?

Albert Wenger: I think that technology had a dual effect: some jobs were replaced as a direct result of technological progress, but technological change also enabled the relocation of activities. “Digital offshoring” only become possible when data could easily be sent to, say, Bangalore. These two trends operated in tandem. The promise to bring back jobs using the methods Donald Trump is proposing will lead us back to the past. In the US, the solar industry already creates far more jobs than the coal industry, yet Trump still insists that we have to send people back into the mines. This is totally backward-looking and fundamentally underestimates the effect that the extreme acceleration of the digital transformation will have on the labor market.

You have frequently commented on how societies could look where more and more work is done by machines and you are a proponent of an unconditional basic income. Do you think this is a realistic model, especially in the US?

Albert Wenger: The basic income movement today is present in Europe, Asia, as well as in the US. If there is one positive thing we can say about Trump’s victory, it is that business as usual will no longer suffice. So far, our approach has been to just tweak the interest rate a little bit or pass yet another job creation program, expecting that this would solve all of our problems. The election showed that people no longer buy into this. They did not believe that Hillary Clinton’s program of ‘more of the same’ with some fine-tuning would be enough. In my view, this has created space for more radical ideas. One of these more radical ideas is the basic income. I believe that the technological advances that we see today – be they self-driving trucks or computer programs that replace lawyers or doctors – show that automation is no longer limited to blue-collar labor. As a result, there is a growing interest in alternatives to the current system and Trump’s policy proposals, and society is more open than ever before to talk about completely new ideas.

Bill Gates recently proposed taxing robots to finance such as model. What do you think of this suggestion?

Albert Wenger: He proposed that because the alternative would be to tax people like Bill Gates. I think taxing technologies slows the process of making these technologies widely usable. If we had taxed tractors, then more people would have had to work in the agricultural sector longer. Similarly, a tax on robots would delay the use of robots in fields where we would all like to see them be used. Then there is the question: What exactly counts as a robot? Must it have arms? What about an algorithm or computer program that replaces human labor? Should Microsoft Word be taxed? This is a dumb idea from an otherwise very smart man. In my opinion we should rather tax things that we know are bad for the world, like carbon dioxide emissions. On top of that, I think we need some form of tax on money or wealth because digitalization has turned normal distributions into so-called “power laws”. In other words, today’s winners get much more than in the past, we see ever more extreme outliers and also more monopolies. Here money is piling up that can help finance the basic income.

Der Beitrag “Society is more open than ever before for completely new ideas” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to the article

Der Beitrag “Is the West Disintegrating?” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump emphasized that he does not want to dwell on the past. He only wants to look ahead now. And he feels committed to the welfare of his country above all: “America first”. During his first days in office, President Trump showed what he means by this.

We know and do not question that any government is committed to the welfare of its own country, first and foremost. But peace and freedom throughout the world are also dependent on large and small nations taking responsibility beyond their own borders. Looking ahead only takes you in the right direction if experiences from the past are heeded and tried and trusted institutions, which were established on the basis of these experiences, are not casually abandoned. It is with great worry that we witness the political developments on either side of the Atlantic.

The first half of the twentieth century was characterized by war, destruction, genocide and unfettered barbarity. After two world wars, responsible politicians in America and Europe were able to create a new political order, which has given us a unique period of peace and freedom lasting over seven decades. President Truman, who laid the foundations for Germany’s reconstruction with the signing of the Marshall Plan, saw the historic turning point here. Following the “era of national suspicion, economic hostility and isolationism”, a new age of “mutual cooperation, to increase the prosperity of people throughout the world” was called to life.

This political order is still characterized by common values and the conviction that a reliable partnership between nations and communities of states is only possible when the rules of our coexistence, which we have established through democratic processes, are complied with, when existing institutions of international cooperation such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union, are respected and when discussions and negotiations regarding their ongoing development are shaped by mutual respect and understanding.

This is exactly why bankers Eric M. Warburg and Gotthard Freiherr von Falkenhausen, entrepreneur and politician Erik Blumenfeld, journalists Marion Graefin Doenhoff and Ernst Friedlaender and entrepreneur Hans Karl von Borries founded Atlantik-Bruecke 65 years ago. They were convinced that open discussions and meetings would overcome the mistrust between the young Federal Republic of Germany and America, leading to trusting cooperation. Since then Atlantik-Bruecke has brought together thousands of Germans and Americans, and their exchange of ideas and knowledge has led to new mindsets and initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic and close personal friendships. In Atlantik-Bruecke, people of different political and professional experiences, of all skin colors and ways of life are linked by the conviction that the transatlantic partnership is and will remain a prerequisite for peace on our continents in the future.

We are not ignoring the fact that following the changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, new answers and new forms of international cooperation are urgently needed. We know and also regret that the European Union is not currently meeting these challenges. Nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are, however, the wrong answers.

In our countries we are confronted with new types of conflict and new risks to our domestic and international security. Both America and Europe are threatened by terrorism in the same way. We must respond to this firmly and consistently. The quality of our open, free societies, however, will reveal itself in the respect and protection with which we treat our basic values and liberal principles in the face of these threats. With all the differences there are between Europe and America, this is the common foundation on which we stand and from which we are able to act. Only together can Europe and America continue to ensure freedom, democracy and human rights in the future. If doubts about this premise continue to grow, this will be very damaging for Europe and America.

Ultimately, open societies and open markets belong together. We cannot overlook the fact that global development over recent decades has not only brought benefits. The United States and the EU must jointly set a good example in order to halt the dramatic effects of climate change. We must ask ourselves how we can guarantee that everyone benefits from globalization. Here too, however, nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are the wrong answers. The increase in wealth over recent decades has been greatest where borders are open and there is a climate of respect, a willingness to take responsibility and social equality. So at Atlantik-Bruecke we are not only committed to free trade, but above all continuing to uphold our joint values including freedom of expression, religious freedom, freedom of the press and academic freedom.

America and Europe must not only turn inwards. Governments and parliaments, institutions of civil society and not least the economy on both sides of the Atlantic now have an obligation and responsibility to work closely in partnership in the face of big international challenges and threats.

The Executive Board of Atlantik-Bruecke:
Friedrich Merz, Chairman
Dr. h.c. Edelgard Bulmahn MdB, Vice Chairman
Professor Dr. Burkhard Schwenker, Vice Chairman
Professor Dr. Andreas Dombret, Treasurer
Dr. David Deissner, Executive Director

Der Beitrag America and Europe can only succeed together – An appeal for transatlantic cooperation by Atlantik-Bruecke erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

For nearly a quarter of a century Robin Maynard has worked at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, building furnaces and creating a middle-class life for himself and his family.

Indeed, Mr. Maynard’s hourly salary of $24 was enough to put his two eldest children through college, and he had high hopes of sending his youngest daughter, now in high school, to Indiana University to study medicine.

But his plan – and that middle-class lifestyle – was put in jeopardy last February when Carrier decided to close the Indianapolis factory and move production to a plant in Mexico.

Not long after Carrier’s announcement, however, Donald Trump decided to make the Indianapolis factory and its 1,400 workers Exhibit A in his argument that the country’s free trade policies weren’t benefitting ordinary workers like Mr. Maynard. At the same time, Mr. Trump threatened to impose tariffs of 35 percent or more on American companies that moved production to other countries, and then shipped their products back home.

At campaign stops throughout the country and during the presidential debates with Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump repeatedly cited the story of Carrier, and promised that if elected president, he’d call the head of the company and demand it keep those 1,400 jobs in the United States.

Thanks to blue-collar supporters like Mr. Maynard in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Mr. Trump shocked the political establishment and won the White House on Nov. 8.

So when he took to Twitter on Thanksgiving Day in the United States, and hinted that he was close to a deal with Carrier to keep the Indianapolis factory open, Mr. Maynard was feeling especially grateful.

“I’m ready for him to come,” said Mr. Maynard, shortly before Mr. Trump visited the plant on Dec. 1 to announce that nearly 1,000 jobs would stay in Indiana.  “Now I can put my daughter through college without having to look for another job.”

For Carrier, and its corporate parent, United Technologies, the math was simple: it takes workers at its plant in Monterrey, Mexico an entire day to earn what Mr. Maynard makes in one hour. Taking advantage of lower-cost labor and moving out of Indiana translates to a savings of roughly $65 million annually for the company.

And like many big companies, United Technologies is under pressure from investors to grow earnings by 10 to 20 percent annually – while the economy is only growing by 2 percent – so savings like that is hard to pass up.

But in states like Indiana, where only 15 percent of adults have a college degree, the loss of these manufacturing jobs means the loss of a middle class lifestyle.

The typical manufacturing worker in the state earns $59,000 a year, about $20,000 a year more than the typical service job in stores, restaurants and medical centers.

And for less credentialed workers, that margin is the difference between having a shot at a middle-class life, including owning a home and sending children to college, and having to struggle to make ends meet.

Mr. Maynard is very fortunate that the factory will now stay open – sending his daughter to college at Indiana University will cost $20,000 a year, even though it is public and he is a resident of the state.

While loans and scholarships can reduce that bill, there’s no way he could afford to send his daughter there if he earned $15 an hour. That equals just over $30,000 a year – before taxes.  With his Carrier salary of about $55,000 a year, on the other hand, college is within reach for his daughter.

“These are truly irreplaceable jobs,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, an advocacy group. “A manufacturing job is one of the only ladders to fulfilling the American dream for a worker without a college degree.”

In the popular imagination, the Indianapolis factory where 1,400 Carrier workers build furnaces and fan coils looks like a scene out of movies “The Deer Hunter” or “Norma Rae.” Blue-collar guys walking through the plant gate, lunch pail in hand, or women barely getting by after years on the line.

But the reality at the Carrier plant that Mr. Trump visited is very different. About half the workers are African-American, making it a much more diverse workplace than many white-collar settings. Women account for a substantial portion of the work force as well.

“A manufacturing worker who loses their job at Carrier will be resigned to facing a lower standard of living and leaner retirement years,” Mr. Paul said.

Another veteran Carrier worker, Paul Roell, sees plenty of help wanted signs at warehouses of companies like Amazon every morning when he drives to work at the factory.

The problem is that they typically pay $13 to $15 an hour – compared to the $23.83 he makes per hour at Carrier.  “I guess I could work two full-time shifts a day,” he joked.

Mr. Trump’s promise to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States, even if it means tariffs on imported products, was a key reason why Mr. Roell and his wife supported him enthusiastically. So when Mr. Trump was declared the winner shortly before 3 a.m. on Nov. 9, Mr. Roell and his wife exchanged high-fives.

But no matter his rhetoric – or his tweets – Mr. Trump will have a hard time reversing the long slide in manufacturing jobs in the United States. Some of that is due to factories relocating to places where labor is cheaper, like Mexico and China. In other cases, jobs are lost to automation, when robots take the place of workers.

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has fallen from 17.3 million to 12.3 million.  And even with the pressure from Mr. Trump, at least 400 Carrier workers will still lose their jobs in Indianapolis, as some production will still move to Mexico next year.

What is more, another 700 jobs at a United Technologies sister plant in Huntington, Indiana, a two hour drive from Indianapolis, are also set to move to Mexico.

“Carrier is special because it happened at the right time and the right place and it gained a high profile,” Mr. Paul said.  “But obviously, Donald Trump and Mike Pence can’t intervene every time a plant closes.”

Nelson D. Schwartz has covered economics for The New York Times since 2012. Prior to that, he wrote about Wall Street and banking for the Times, and also served as European Economic Correspondent in Paris from 2008 to 2010. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago, and worked for a decade at Fortune Magazine before the joining the Times in 2007. He is based in New York. You can find his articles for the New York Times »here.

Der Beitrag For Blue Collar Workers in the United States, Donald Trump’s Victory is Personal erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In two months a bridge will be completed connecting San Diego in Southern California to Tijuana, Mexico. At first sight, this may not seem like a big deal – the most important border inspection post in the world withover 150,000 travelers a day has been located between these two cities for many years. The new overpass, however, is exceptional. The bridge links the United States to a Mexican airport and only pedestrians are granted access to it.

San Diego International Airport is being increasingly crowded in by the surrounding suburban settlements, which makes an expansion of the airport by construction impossible. Nevertheless, the flight traffic in Southern California has increased by over a quarter in the past eight years, mostly towards Asia. Today, 37 percent of global travel takes place in the Pacific region, and in 2031 over half of all trips will be boarded there.

Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for a Mexican sister city to help its North American neighbor on the other side of the Rio Grande out of its aeronautic squeeze.

Times have changed. Economic integration throughout North America has progressed significantly through NAFTA and the collective rebalancing to Asia by Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Mexico serves as a crucial link within North America, constituting the most important U.S. trading partner with greater trade capacity than Argentina and Brazil who are home to more than twice as many inhabitants.

The World Bank recently reported that Mexico’s investment conditions were better than those of Italy or Spain – establishing a new company is said to take only nine days. The modernization strategy of the government of Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto is based on two central pillars that will strengthen these developments: opening the federal energy sector to private investment and augmenting trade in the Pacific region especially through new technology and high-quality manufacturing.

This rapprochement is being accelerated by developments within the United States. Society is becoming more heterogeneous and there will no longer be a white majority in a little over twenty years. Hispanics constitute the largest minority with 17 percent, i.e. more than forty million people.

This number will triple in the next 25 years. In 2050, 110 million Hispanics will be living in the USA with an average age of under 31. Germany, in comparison, will be home to about 69 million inhabitants in 2050, with an average age of about fifty years, of which close to forty percent will be retired.

Already, the economic future of the USA lies in the West. At about 2 trillion US Dollars, the yearly economic output of California (with over 40 percent Hispanics) equals that of Italy or Russia. In Los Angeles and its surrounding area alone this group produces a higher gross national product than that of Switzerland, Argentina, or Taiwan.

This dynamic has a great appeal. The last American census revealed that the majority of the population is shifting from the North East to the South West, with a speed of more than 3 miles a year towards Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and California. That means America is moving away from Europe both in a socio-cultural and a physical sense. An increasing focus on Mexico corresponds with the new population dynamic. This development is occurring within the core of American society, and not at the margins, as is often the case with minority groups and immigrants in Europe. The conflicts of the civil rights era have democratized the United States and have shown that heterogeneity is a strength, not a weakness.

Many Europeans might miss these developments because they are spellbound by the euro crisis. Only few are willing to get involved in the new United States or to pursue more intense interaction and strategic collaboration with the minority groups who will constitute the new elite in a few years. Without these efforts, transatlantic relations will hardly outlast the Pacific Century.

Dr. Michael Werz is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington, D.C.

Link to the detailed biography of Dr. Michael Werz

Der Beitrag The New North America erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..