US Elections Archives - Politics Today https://politicstoday.org/tag/us-elections/ Wed, 06 Sep 2023 13:29:14 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 Jewish Americans Wanted Anything But Donald Trump https://politicstoday.org/jewish-americans-wanted-anything-but-donald-trump/ Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:38:48 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/jewish-americans-wanted-anything-but-donald-trump/

Trump moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, legitimizing Israeli settlements, and brokering normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, did not dramatically shift Jewish voting.

The post Jewish Americans Wanted Anything But Donald Trump appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

While we continue to watch Trump’s disregard for the U.S. democratic election process and unwillingness to concede to President-elect Biden, how Jewish Americans voted gives some indication about the significance of Biden’s win and the opportunity to roll back Trump’s policies and disregard for humanity on national and global levels.

Jewish Americans are a religious and cultural minority that most closely aligns with the social, economic, and political priorities of the Democratic party. In the Jewish Electorate survey, Jews supported Biden over Trump at a higher rate than the general population. A J Street poll showed support for Biden 77%-21%, a 56% margin. The Jewish electorate has broad ideological commitments, including to many progressive causes. Factors pulling voters to the right include assimilation, economic class, religious conservatism, and Israel policy. Because of strong voter turnout, Jewish voters, though a small minority, can be a factor in pushing a candidate over the line in a swing state or in a tight race such as the January 5th Georgia U.S. Senate runoff elections which will determine the Senate majority.

The U.S. Jewish population, the world’s largest at about 7.5 million, comprises 2% of the U.S. population but between 2-5% of the electorate. The majority of Jewish Americans are white and Ashkenazi, however, the Counting Inconsistencies study estimates that 12-15% are Jews of Color, Black, Latinx, or other. The majority of Jewish Americans who vote Democratic identify as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, secular, unaffiliated or with no religion, while orthodox Jews make up 10-12% of Jewish Americans. Ultra-orthodox Jews principally vote Republican, backing Trump on Israel and conservative religious issues. Sephardic voting patterns are less clear, since it is ambiguous whether Sephardic Jews identify in surveys as Hispanic or Middle Eastern or otherwise nonwhite, and whether they identify with a particular Jewish religious stream. In terms of influence on political campaigns, 15 of the 25 major donors to 2020 Republican and Democratic presidential and other campaigns are Jewish or have Jewish ancestry. However, it is imperative not to conflate major donors’ personal priorities with those of a broad and diverse Jewish electorate.

Read: Trump Lost But Trumpism Thrives

Surveys can shine light on how Jewish voters cast their ballots while saying little about their deeper commitments. Pre-pandemic, the progressive Jewish organization Bend the Arc found that “[i]n an open-ended question about what matters most about next year’s elections [2020], the most common response is defeating Donald Trump.” An increase in Jewish political activism was directly related to how Trump dangerously emboldened white supremacy, racism, and antisemitism, enabled by the Republican party. Jewish support for Biden was the safest option.

According to a pre-election American Jewish Committee survey, the majority supported Biden and strongly disagreed with Trump’s actions. Domestic issues such as COVID-19 and health-related issues were the most important issues in choosing a candidate, followed by the economy and race relations. Foreign policy, even about Israel, was not among the most critical issues for Democratic voters. Similarly, Windmueller explains that Jewish voters prioritize the U.S.’s well-being over Israel.

Jews are gathered in front of the New York Public Library on 5th Ave. to protest anti-semitism as 'End Jew Hatred' in Manhattan of New York City, United States on October 15, 2020. By Tayfun Coskun, Anadolu Images

Most Jews felt less safe than the four years prior due to rising antisemitism, exemplified by Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Neo-Nazi marchers in Charlottesville and the deadly shootings at the Poway and Tree of Life synagogues. The shock and horror of George Floyd’s murder also brought with it a new understanding and commitment to fighting against anti-Black state violence.

An especially problematic feature of the Trump years has been the overt conflation of Jewish Americans with Israel under the guise of support for Israel. Trump told Jewish voters “we love your country,” and that they should vote for him because he “stood with your prime minister” (referring to Israel and Netanyahu). This ultimately endangers Jewish Americans by exposing them to antisemitic accusations of dual loyalty.

In fact, Jewish Americans have become more critical of Israel and Israel is a top-two concern for only 5% of J Street poll participants. With that said, however, since both candidates expressed a commitment to Israel, Jewish voters were not faced with a difficult choice related to Israeli policies. Were a presidential candidate to express genuine support for Palestinian human rights and equality, as Bernie Sanders did, we might have seen whether Israel would have emerged as a more significant issue.

Trump moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, legitimizing Israeli settlements, and brokering normalization agreements between Israel and the U.A.E. and Bahrain, did not dramatically shift Jewish voting. Though some Jewish voters sided with Trump, even some Republicans (e.g., at the online gathering Jewish Republicans for Biden – Putting Country over Party) expressed worry over the fallout of irresponsible Middle East policies as well as Trump’s lack of moral character.

Recommended

The Republican Jewish Coalition reports that Trump received 30.5% of the Jewish vote. The discrepancy between this number and J Street’s data could possibly be due to the organization’s political leaning and polling methodology which tilts toward an older and conservative population. It’s no surprise that the economy, Israel, and foreign policy weighed heavily for Trump, while support for Biden highlighted character and addressing COVID-19. Additionally, the ultra-orthodox and a quarter of modern orthodox supported Trump because of the administration giving Israel carte blanche. The U.S. administration’s diplomatic recognition of Israeli violations of international law indeed wooed some hawkish Jewish voters. Democratic voters might accept or even agree with these policies, but they do not determine their presidential choice.

While most Jewish Americans continue to find a home in the Democratic party, the makeup of the Jewish community is changing. Mainline Jewish institutions are losing their influence and relevance while movements like Black Lives Matter are capturing the ideological imagination and providing the leadership and home that radically inclusive, intersectional, young, Black, Indigenous, Jews of Color, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews (BIJOCSM) and other progressive Jews are seeking.

These movements unapologetically support justice for Palestinians and oppose harmful U.S. foreign policies. These activists will increasingly engage with the progressive wing of the Democratic party, working tirelessly to get out the vote even for a centrist Democrat such as Joe Biden because they know their lives depend on it, and in the hope of advancing a broader and more meaningful, transformational progressive agenda.

Read: Trump, the Israeli Lobby and Christian Zionism

The majority of Jewish Americans continue to vote for the Democratic ticket as they have for decades. It remains challenging to measure what this vote actually means beyond support for the Democratic party platform. The surveys are limited, their questions constrained by the framework of the two-party system and the priorities of surveying organizations, rather than providing a true, in-depth analysis of what Jewish voters, in all their diversity, support.

How many Jewish voters, for example, embrace a vision that demands dismantling structural oppression and immediate action to close detention centers, champion immigrant and indigenous rights, invest in climate justice, establish healthcare for all, protect women’s reproductive rights, support working families, end police brutality and anti-Black racism, and stop U.S. global militarization, while working toward restorative, transformative, and healing justice?

For now, the results tell us that the majority of Jewish Americans wanted anything but Trump and his Republican enablers.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews gather during an event held to explain the importance of education according to religious values at Melrose Ballroom in New York, United States on October 30, 2019. Photo by Lokman Vural Elibol, Anadolu Images

The post Jewish Americans Wanted Anything But Donald Trump appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Muslim American Votes Were More Anti-Trump than Pro-Biden https://politicstoday.org/muslim-american-votes-were-more-anti-trump-than-pro-biden/ Mon, 30 Nov 2020 04:28:40 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/muslim-american-votes-were-more-anti-trump-than-pro-biden/

The future of Muslims in America is dependent on whether they are willing to set aside the convention and be innovative in ways to empower their communities.

The post Muslim American Votes Were More Anti-Trump than Pro-Biden appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

The 2020 presidential election showed record number turnout from American Muslim communities. 70 percent voted for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, while 17 percent voted for Donald Trump. As American Muslim communities voted overwhelmingly Democrat in the previous years, their vehement opposition to another Trump presidency does not come as a surprise. Trump reminded American Muslims of the violence they experienced under George W. Bush. Islamophobia in its rawest form was on display in the very onset of his presidency from the announcement of the Muslim Ban on immigrants coming from Muslim-majority countries to halting assistance to Syrian refugees to valorizing the death of Muslim prisoners “dipped in pigs’ blood.”

American Muslims did not always vote Democrat, however. Prior to 2001, 80 percent of American Muslims were Republican and 70 percent of registered Muslims voted for the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush in 2000. However, 9/11 changed the political landscape of American Muslims.

The violent policies and wars of post-9/11 America are embedded in the memories of Muslims today. Domestically, Muslims were targeted as a suspect population and government policies as well as the social climate of socio-political exclusion drastically shaped American Muslim life. Muslims faced deportation (sometimes regardless of citizenship status), interrogation, surveillance, random searches and acts of hate crime. Violence against Muslims was institutionalized. This became evidently clear with the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. The state convinced the American people they were fighting acts of violence as they destroyed Muslim-majority countries to oblivion. American Muslims watched in anxiety as the state created Islam its enemy.

Read: Systemic Racism in the U.S. killed George Floyd, not Trump

In 2008, American Muslims voted for Barack Obama with hopes of breaking away from the legacy of the War on Terror. Obama, however, enforced the Islamophobia prevalent with the Bush Administration. As president, Obama expanded the Patriot Act that allowed the arrest and deportation of U.S. Muslims citizens and non-citizens alike without due process of law. He categorized American Muslims killed in drone strikes overseas as “enemy combatants,”  withdrew his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, and instead, created a “kill list”, a sweeping provision allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge.

We will see more Muslims running for office and calling for an end of unconstitutional surveillance on their communities in the United States.

The Obama Administration also perfected and expanded Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs, a dystopian “pre-crime” targeting method that almost exclusively profiled, surveilled, and infiltrated American Muslim communities and places of worship. CVE was based on contrived criteria such as religious tendencies and political activism. In cities like New York or Los Angeles, the police became the arm of CVE through their “community mapping” programs to “identify Muslim community susceptible to violent ideologically based extremism.” Under Obama, CVE became the government’s top national security priority which permeated throughout the country.

By 2017, 47 percent, nearly half of American Muslims believed neither party was friendly towards the interest of American Muslims. For some, the Obama presidency revealed that the Democratic establishment did not relieve Muslims from the expansion of the War on Terror, but accelerated it.

Just as it was apparent with Obama, Joe Biden and his VP pick, Kamala Harris are not anti-Islamophobia candidates.

Just as it was apparent with Obama, Joe Biden and his VP pick, Kamala Harris are not anti-Islamophobia candidates. Just as violence against Muslims happens through various methods, including war, both Biden and Harris are vicious allies of the military. Biden was directly involved in the advancement of the Iraq war and just recently professed his intention to keep special operations in the Middle East, while Harris voted against even a moderate cut in the gargantuan military budget in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis.

Yet some American Muslims responded differently to these challenges than others. What formed was a more radical politic: a group of American Muslims who understood that in order to combat state violence, you needed to avoid collaboration and instead, actively fight against it. Other Muslims however, were satisfied with Obama’s presidency. They believed that by welcoming law enforcement into their mosques, and accepting CVE grants (which gave access to private information on congregants and community members), there would be more trust between the state and Muslim communities, emphasizing they have nothing to hide.

Read: Making Sense of Hunger Strikes and Symbolic Politics

The election of Donald Trump however, grayed the political differences of American Muslims. For the last four years many segments of the American society, including Muslims, became occupied with getting Trump out of office. The term ‘resistance’ became mainstream and suddenly the “soul of the country was on the ballot.”

A group that took advantage of the horrors that Trump represented and Muslims’ desire to see anyone else in office was Emgage. Emgage is the American Muslim community’s first “issue advocacy organization” and refers to themselves as the “political home for Muslim Americans.” In anticipation of the 2020 election, Emgage promised the Biden campaign one million Muslim votes and stated that their aim is to get many American Muslims registered to vote before the 2020 election. Of course, there is not any concrete proof Emgage succeeded in their promise, but the bigger controversy lies with their tendency to disregard the community’s concerns with the U.S.’s foreign policy ills for a so-called ‘seat at the table.’

Recommended

As Palestine has always been an important foreign policy issue for American Muslims, Emgage disregarded a serious and sensitive issue as many high ranking members, including board members, worked with Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian organizations such as the Muslim Leadership Initiative, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. Notable board member Farooq Mitha, who also served as Biden’s Muslim Engagement Advisor and now is on his Pentagon transition team, formerly helped the Obama administration “to normalize ties between Israel and Arab nations under the banner of Track II diplomacy” and boasted to former employees that he was a member of AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S.

Eventually, a campaign called “Drop Emgage” was formed. The group calls on Emgage to “formally end its current normalization activities” and asserts that “Farooq Mitha does not represent the views or will of our communities.” They end their claims by urging “all people of conscience to no longer tolerate unprincipled leadership threatening our community.” Subsequently Emgage was removed as a member from their umbrella organization, U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations USCMO.

The politics of American Muslim communities will see a starker divide.

It is a flaw to consider all Muslims who voted for Biden as pro-Biden. It is more appropriate to view them as anti-Trump. While Biden pleasantly shocked some by saying “Inshallah” on the debate stage, others remember humiliating White House iftars that told us who the “good” Muslims in our communities are and why they must support war overseas. As the country’s electoral process forces American Muslims to concede to establishment Democrats, they have to reconcile that their politics is not in fact unified, and more divided than ever.

The politics of American Muslim communities will see a starker divide based on the probable return of a newly-termed CVE strategy, the continuation of the Islamophobic wars under Biden and the re-emergence of gatekeepers who claim they know what is best for Muslims.

Yet, there is another theory. As we continue to see more and more organizers prioritize fighting Islamophobia in its grandeur scale, we can hope for American Muslims who will unite together and pressure a Biden presidency to confront these challenges. We can look forward to the younger generation of Muslims and the emergence of a more radical politic that pushes for universally just policies which fights against state violence on local and international levels. We will also see more Muslims running for office and calling for an end of unnecessary and unconstitutional surveillance on their communities.

The future of Muslims in America is entirely dependent on whether we are willing to set aside the convention and be innovative in ways to empower our communities.

The post Muslim American Votes Were More Anti-Trump than Pro-Biden appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Systemic Racism in the U.S. killed George Floyd, not Trump https://politicstoday.org/systemic-racism-in-the-u-s-killed-george-floyd-not-trump/ Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:53:59 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/systemic-racism-in-the-u-s-killed-george-floyd-not-trump/

Floyd is dead because American history is full of racial inequalities against African Americans from the very first day of Mayflower’s arrival to the New World.

The post Systemic Racism in the U.S. killed George Floyd, not Trump appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

The United States was shaken by the death of black American George Floyd, who was pinned to the ground as police officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes on May 25th and three other officers looked on. His last words, “I can’t breathe”, have become a motto for the millions who took to the streets to protest the violence against black people and the Trump administration’s handling of the issue. Floyd’s death sparked mass demonstrations in cities across the US, demanding an end to racial injustice and police brutality. Yet the peaceful demonstrations partly turned into violent protests and many people started to defy violence and looting. The murder was further politicized when President Trump declared the protestors as “anarchists” and “radical left”. The United States has now been soul-searching on how to end racial inequalities and securing law and order.

“I can’t breathe” protests

After thousands flooded the streets of Minneapolis to protest the killing of Floyd, four officers involved in his death were fired. Protests spread to major cities across the country, including New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Memphis, Denver, and others in a couple of days.

Lafayette Park across from the White House became the center of the “I can’t breathe” protests, and soon turned into an anti-Trump base. President Trump’s reaction was to call the protesters “thugs” and take to Twitter saying: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” The tweet caused an outrage and was labeled as “glorifying violence” by the American public.

National Guard soldiers were deployed in some states; nighttime curfews were imposed and Donald Trump vowed to suppress the “thugs”. As nationwide protests continued, Trump said the administration would list far-left, anti-fascist movement “Antifa” as a terror group. Trump doubled efforts to stem the protestors and threatened to deploy the military if states and cities failed to quell violence during protests. Trump’s controversial visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, DC marked a turning point as the pundits blamed Trump for mixing religion with politics.

Read: Racism Has a Tradition in U.S. Politics

Demonstrations continued for almost three weeks in major cities from Los Angeles to New York and Chauvin faced second-degree murder charges. The other three officers were charged with aiding and abetting murder in the second degree. Eventually nighttime curfews were ended, National Guard soldiers drew back, and cities returned to normal. Floyd was laid to rest with memorials in Minneapolis, Houston, Texas, and North Carolina.

Questions upon Floyd’s tragic death

Floyd’s tragic death raised many questions, but almost all of these questions have been discussed before. Why did a police officer act brutally against a black citizen while he was in custody? Why did the other police officers, witnessing the event, not intervene? Why are there such high numbers of black people who are killed by the police in America? And why hasn’t police brutality against black people been prevented? These questions are not new. Police brutality against black people has been a topic of concern since the first black American President, Barack Obama, was in office. Within the last couple of years, the world has witnessed many tragic deaths of African Americans: Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Philando Castille, Tamir Rice, and others. The truth is, America’s racial inequality and police brutality against black people have always been around.

Number of people gather at the 16th street "Black Lives Matter Plaza" near the White House to mark the 155th anniversary of Juneteenth, end of slavery in Washington, DC, United States on June 19, 2020. Photo by Yasin Ozturk, Anadolu Images

The United States has now seriously divided into two main camps: Trump-lovers and Trump-haters. It is unfortunate that there is no middle-way between these two polar opposites. It’s becoming increasingly common to view everything that happens in the U.S. under these two main perspectives. Floyd’s tragic death could have led to a broader consensus going beyond this bipolar politics, yet it failed. Floyd is dead because American history is full of racial inequalities against African Americans from the very first day of Mayflower’s arrival to the New World. This story didn’t change much when African Americans got their “legal freedom” in 1865. American history books are full of lynching stories awful enough to fill one’s heart with horror. The idea is simple – the main reason why police brutality against black people hasn’t been averted in the U.S. is that it’s a systemic and institutional problem.

Data from 2019 of all police killings in the U.S. compiled by Mapping Police Violence shows that black Americans are nearly three times more likely to die at the hands of the police than white Americans. Other statistics have shown that black Americans are nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to be unarmed before their death. In 2019 alone, black people were 24% of those killed despite only being 13% of the population.

Recommended

Another dimension of systemic racism is the lack of accountability of police officers whose actions have led to the death of a black person. “Mapping Police Violence” also tracked what had been happening in the aftermath of any white police officer killing an African American citizen. According to data, they reveal more than 200,000 internal investigations that were opened against approximately 85,000 police officers over the last 10 years. Yet, most of them were internally closed without any submission to the jurisdiction. All these speedy internal investigations seem to have set a precedent for officers dealing with black people.

There is one last thing about why a white police officer could kill Floyd so easily: the lack of education. This subject is sometimes not given due attention, yet it’s as important as other items on racial inequality in the U.S. A high school diploma or equivalent is enough to be considered qualified to get admission into police academies where the training lasts between 13-19 weeks. This implies that many American police officers do not have adequate education on the issue of racial profiling. As a result, systemic racism in the U.S. carries on with impunity as a lack of education and racial bias continues the problem of police brutality against African Americans in different parts of the country.

Any gain from the nationwide protests?

As the nationwide protests spread the flame of Black Lives Matter through Washington D.C., Democrats stepped up to change some laws to honor Floyd’s memory. The House Democrats have unveiled some resolutions targeting police misconduct and racial bias; there is no concrete outcome yet. On the other hand, President Trump signed an executive order last week in an effort to bring significant reform to law enforcement. Trump’s order will ban police from using chokeholds “except if an officer’s life is at risk,” as part of a wider effort to incentivize police departments to adopt nationwide standards. Those that choose to be certified by independent credentialing bodies will be eligible to receive Department of Justice grants under his order.

Some people believe that neither Trump nor the Democrats could have done more, so we should accept what has been done so far. Others don’t acknowledge Trump’s executive order as a “success for their mission” and demand more structural changes like “abolishing police departments” or “defunding” them. This is where the politicizing of Floyd’s death starts: Trump and the GOP have strongly spoken out against this kind of “anti-police” discourse and blame the Democrats for paving the way for it. The Democrats and Trump’s rival, Joe Biden, cautiously tried to balance this dilemma between rectifying police departments from racial bias and avoiding being labeled “anti-police.” A nationwide awakening on racial inequality and police brutality against black people is a big plus for those who took to the streets for George Floyd. But, at the end of the day, nationwide protests for Floyd have only made minor police reforms possible. Trump’s executive order and the Democratic bids are important gains to some extent, yet they are far from an overhaul of systemic racism in the U.S.

A steel fence at Lafayette Park turns into a makeshift memorial at 16th street after DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has renamed that section of 16th street "Black Lives Matter Plaza" near the White House on June 16, 2020 in Washington, DC. Photo by Yasin Ozturk, Anadolu Images

Will this affect the elections?

The Covid-19 pandemic has hit the U.S. hard at a historic level both mortally and economically. As the country approaches the November 3rd elections, sound economic structure has been Trump’s main driving force, but the pandemic has hit his ‘trump’ card hard. Millions of people have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to about %15. Honestly speaking, this will likely be a bigger issue in the elections for the American people than Floyd’s death and police brutality. That doesn’t mean that Floyd’s tragedy won’t affect anything as the clock ticks but the effect of these nationwide protests will likely be limited to some voters. As Trump portrayed himself as the man of “law and order” during violent protests, his Republican base would likely find his strategy to be okay.

Although Joe Biden leads the race according to almost all the nationwide polls, Trump’s GOP base seems unwavering. Floyd’s death and its aftermath would likely affect some black American voters when it comes to casting their votes in November. In that sense, swing states will be more important to win the Electoral College. Yet, economic recovery or collapse will still be the main driving factor for many Americans to choose their next president. Other than the issue of the economy, Trump-lovers still love him and Trump-haters now hate him more than ever. Beyond the U.S. elections, if the systematic racism in the U.S. is not systematically addressed, many racially segregated people in the country will continue to fall victim.

The post Systemic Racism in the U.S. killed George Floyd, not Trump appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Who really wins elections? Politicians or data companies? https://politicstoday.org/who-really-wins-elections-politicians-or-data-companies/ Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:02:09 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/who-really-wins-elections-politicians-or-data-companies/

So what does Cambridge Analytica do exactly? One thing the company does is “data mining.” In this case, they’ve omitted this to over 50 million people. By doing so, the company searches for personal data through Facebook accounts and creates a data bank. With this, the company becomes able to map the psychological conditions and tendencies of users in order to give advice to their customers – such as political parties.

The post Who really wins elections? Politicians or data companies? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

Recently a scandal emerged pulling to the surface the fact that the data of over 87 million Facebook users have been used for President Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Beside Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, “the firm that worked for Trump’s campaign” has been accused of stealing and benefiting from individual opinions.

Cambridge Analytica was established in London in 2013. The firm serves its customers who want to analyze and change the behavior of their consumers – or voters. The data obtained from these individuals were not only mis-used to analyze political tendencies, but it has also become clear that they were used for political manipulation.

This incident is very important for two reasons. First, while Trump’s success in the 2016 elections had originally been questioned due to Russian meddling, the picture has now also changed with this scandal. Second, the importance of data science has shown itself and displayed its power. The issue has now become the power of manipulating individual political choices and the future of a country’s governance.

Using and benefiting from personal data is not a new phenomenon. Our browsers direct us to commercial advertisements every day and even manipulate us to make us buy objects or think about issues we usually may not.

Although data about our personal tendencies are used by several companies that work in different fields, the offence committed here is that this data was derived from Facebook users.

Zuckerberg’s testimony

Recommended

Even though Facebook announced that it will not work with the company anymore, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was demanded to testify before the U.S. Senate and Congress about the incident. On 11 and 12 April, 2018, he testified to Congress – this took over 2 days and 10 hours. Questions asked by the senators gave particular emphasis to the individual privacy of individuals.

Zuckerberg’s testimony is important for two reasons: First, Mark Zuckerberg is the first CEO of a tech company who ever testified to Congress. The second is that the hearing became an opportunity for Facebook to amend its public appearance.

New age: social engineering

Social engineering refers to taking advantage of the behavior of individuals and manipulating them by collecting confidential information. The methods and aims of this vary. Criminals may try to trick people in order to obtain financial information, or may try to hack computers. In this case, social engineering was processed to obtain the political tendencies of voters.

So what does Cambridge Analytica do exactly? One thing the company does is “data mining.” In this case, they’ve omitted this to over 50 million people. By doing so, the company searches for personal data through Facebook accounts and creates a data bank. With this, the company becomes able to map the psychological conditions and tendencies of users in order to give advice to their customers – such as political parties.

The post Who really wins elections? Politicians or data companies? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> With Brexit and the Trump Election, Turkey Has a Chance to Draw More International Students https://politicstoday.org/with-brexit-and-the-trump-election-turkey-has-a-chance-to-draw-more-international-students/ Mon, 26 Dec 2016 04:31:16 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/with-brexit-and-the-trump-election-turkey-has-a-chance-to-draw-more-international-students/

Recent political developments in the UK and the US point to an increased potential for push factors concerning the flow of international students and scholars, and, this may lead, although slowly, to the emergence of new centers of attraction in the world.

The post With Brexit and the Trump Election, Turkey Has a Chance to Draw More International Students appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

The internationalization of higher education does not just increase the quality of educational institutions in a country, but also offers the potential to make remarkable contributions over a wide spectrum, from politics and economy to social and cultural areas. Countries, which are competing for regional and global influence, are putting into practice a variety of projects with significant budgets to become an important center both for international students and scholars. In this regard, the US is the still the most attractive country for foreign learners in the world.The importance of the economic gains of internationalization of higher education is obvious given the fact that the contribution of international students to the US economy was $30.5 billion in 2015, according to the US Department of Commerce. The flow of international students and scholars to the US is one of the leading traits, which make the country’s higher educational institutions strong, dynamic, and sustainable, while it offers great benefits for the country’s economy and public diplomacy. Other countries also put in place some important incentives to compete in this race and not lose their young and intelligent brains to others.

Recommended

Several factors, including the quality of education, living conditions, language of instruction, and employment opportunities before and after the graduation, influence the country choice for an international student. Perhaps the most important of these factors is the visa requirements and immigrant policies, which in many ways reflect the perception of foreigners in a country. Recent developments in the UK and the US, the two most preferred destinations for international students, indicate that there would be a decrease in the flow of students and scholars to these countries. It also implies that there would be fluctuations in the distribution of the ever-growing number of international students on the global scale. This essay will first briefly discuss the recent developments in the UK and the US and will address rising opportunities for Turkey in the higher education sector.In addition to the problems that emerged with the EU on student exchange programs and related projects in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, several new decisions of the UK government to reduce net migration to the country have already made international students and scholars there, or planning to go there, uncomfortable. Theresa May, the new Prime Minister, argues that UK universities should develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students. A tightened visa regime, tougher employment conditions for international students after graduating, and the inclination of the government to include these students in net migration figures – which it is desperately trying to reduce – have already begun to reveal some of its initial results. According to a report by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas), the number of undergraduate students accepted from outside the EU fell by 2.3% in 2016, the first fall since 2011. This statistic reflects the decrease in both applicants and the acceptance rate. It appears that the decrease in the number of applicants seems not only limited to the non-EU countries. Although all the figures are not yet available, the number of applicants from the EU countries to Cambridge University, which has an earlier application deadline, has already seen a 17% drop.

Considering that international students are contributing £7 billion a year to UK universities and the country’s economy, several leading names from the academic and economic sectors called for urgent action to remove the international students from official immigration statistics. They also urged the authorities to change their rhetoric and policies and claimed that if this was not done, the existing policy would cause great damage to higher educational institutions and to the UK economy. According to the experts, when there is low funding from international students it will not only have negative effects on research funds but will also effect the possibility of entering higher education institutions for English students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. These students will face difficulties in finding scholarships.

Trump’s US presidential election win sparked a hot debate among political analysts to estimate its effects on local and international politics. Some others have already started discussing how it would influence the higher education sector in the US. Trump’s xenophobic views and call for a ban on Muslims entering the US have pushed experts into pessimism since they realized the negative impact of this rhetoric on the internationalization of the higher educational institutions in the country. While the experts warned authorities about the undesirable effects of this rhetoric, it is reported that some of the international scholars who are teaching at US universities have already begun to revise their careers plans.

In a report in University World News dated November 11, 2016, Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Witt, two renowned experts in the field of higher education, pointed to three potential risks to the internationalization of the US higher education system under Trump. These risks are: a fall in the flow of international students to the US, the US becoming less attractive for international scholars due to the political climate, and a fall in donations from international graduates, an important revenue income for the higher institutions in the country. It will not be surprising to see that when international students and scholars face more stringent visa policies and Muslims are increasingly scrutinized by security services, it will result in potential students looking to other destinations where they can feel more comfortable and welcomed.

While it is still early to predict to what extent these risks will materialize, it is certain that many other countries will update their higher education policies and expectations for internationalization. The flow of international students and scholars, often defined based on push and pull models and pull-in factors, is still prevalent in the US and UK. The two countries still host the largest number of international students in the world. Recent political developments, however, point to an increased potential for push factors both in the US and the UK. Given the large body of international students, this may lead, although slowly, to a new break in terms of the international network of higher education and the emergence of new centers of attraction in the world. It is not difficult to claim that the countries, which are in an advantageous position in terms of internationalization of their higher education institutions, will implement proactive policies to attract more international students and scholars.

Turkey, a regional and global actor with its strong economy and great transformation in the higher education system, has the potential to take a strong place in this new formation. The Council of Higher Education (YÖK) in Turkey is working hard to develop joint projects with higher education institutions all around the world. Support programs of the Ministry of Economy for overseas education fairs, the priority given by the Ministry of Development to internationalization in higher education in state planning, Turkish scholarships and other grants provided by the Prime Ministry for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), and the Yunus Emre Institute’s branch offices in different regions of the world, have already made great contributions to the internationalization of higher education in the country. Turkey, which has no xenophobic record in its culture and historical trajectory when one compares it with the West, needs to develop a new stand that will turn the recent political developments in world politics to its favor. Turkey has the potential to become a safe and secure place for all international students and scholars, especially from Muslim countries. The current distribution of international students in Turkey, which varies greatly, reflects its potential and advantageous position in this regard.

Amidst perpetual perception boosting operations, Turkey should prepare itself for aggressive promotion campaigns that will explain to international students and scholars how Turkey is a safe destination for study, teaching, and research. Both public institutions and the Turkish academia have a greater responsibility than ever. The Office of Public Diplomacy should take a more active role in this process. To take the best advantage of this historic opportunity, it is more important now than ever that Turkish authorities urgently and systematically improve their policies to make the country a more attractive destination for international students and scholars.

The post With Brexit and the Trump Election, Turkey Has a Chance to Draw More International Students appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Lessons on a New Kind of Political Communication to Win the Silent Majority: US Elections 2016 https://politicstoday.org/lessons-on-a-new-kind-of-political-communication-to-win-the-silent-majority-us-elections-2016/ Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:18:43 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/lessons-on-a-new-kind-of-political-communication-to-win-the-silent-majority-us-elections-2016/

The rise of the far right has grown on the back of highly divisive, identity-based rhetoric. It emphasizes the growth of fear, anger, Islamophobic discourse and anti-migration policies. How this new wave will impact realpolitik going forward will be watched by many with great concern and unease. Yet it is clear that this new paradigm is a revolt against the postmodern period, which has been increasingly candidate-centered at the expense of any party or social movement.

The post Lessons on a New Kind of Political Communication to Win the Silent Majority: US Elections 2016 appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

Political communication is closely related to rhetoric, discourse and political ideology realized through engagement. This was evident in the most recent US Election, which was particularly important as an example of the relevance of the ‘silent majority’.

Recommended

During the election, the CEO of Goldman Sachs called Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, ‘dangerous’. This led Donald Trump, President-elect, to describe Sanders’ backing of Hillary Clinton after his defeat as equivalent to “Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs”. On the other hand, a real estate tycoon who inherited a business empire was campaigning to be the president of America’s “forgotten men and women”. This paradox was the real face of the latest US elections, which on the one hand challenged the political status quo, and on the other, re-conceptualized political communication in the context of the silent majority.As many important technological developments in electioneering have their origin in the United States, the term ‘Americanization’ is a crucial concept within political communication. Opinion polls, telephone canvassing, direct mailing, faxing, campaign consultants, market research and television saturation are all Americanisms. Ostensibly, the purpose of these tools of political communication is to gain the support of voters who can be summarized as either: 1) uncommitted voters who are there to be won, 2) hostile voters who must be converted, 3) loyal voters whose loyalty must be reinforced, or 4) all potential supporters who must be motivated to go to the polls.However, during the 2016 US Election this interaction had a different dimension. When analyzing how political communication was re-designed, the messages and language used during the campaigns must be considered. It is important to highlight that both candidates were less popular than previous presidential nominees. It was a race in which Trump’s abuse and harassment of women and former Secretary of State Clinton’s email scandal were at the forefront of media coverage. Despite this, the popularity of Clinton was unquestionable.

When Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek emphasized that “Hillary Clinton built an impossible all-inclusive coalition”, he focused in particular on the media, think tanks and election polls. However, this could be seen in all three presidential debates too: after each debate, most mainstream media outlets announced Clinton as the winner, which was endorsed by the polls. Trump claimed this was proof his opponent was “Crooked Hillary”, a term he coined for emphasizing her ties to the so-called “establishment” as negative, referencing traditional politics, moneyed interests and mainstream media.

Whereas Clinton’s “deep state relations” undoubtedly affected public opinion, Trump’s inappropriate comments against women, immigrants, Muslims and disabled people had a crucial impact, which further increased the polarization of society in the US. In addition, his attacks on journalists and media outlets were important factors never before witnessed in any presidential race in the US. This populism had an encouraging impact on the “silent majority”: the “white working class”. Americans felt able to raise their voices after a long period under the Obama administration. People who were not happy for the last eight years knew that electing Clinton would mean the continuation of the previous terms. Therefore, the success of the Republicans was not only due to their political proposals, but also the failed policies of the Obama administration, such as ObamaCare, drone wars, weapon exports to controversial regimes, and a string of unfulfilled vows to defeat DAESH.

Clinton’s popularity began to shift two weeks prior to the election, when details of the email scandal was released to the press. She was depicted in the headlines alongside words such as: Wikileaks, email, FBI, investigation, scandal. However, it was more difficult for Trump, who appeared in the press alongside the words: women, immigration, tax, sexual assault and rigged, and suffered a far longer period of attack than his rival. Despite the mainstream media’s anti-Trump coverage, his use of direct communication through social media was hugely successful. He utilized Twitter and Facebook effectively, bypassing the traditional media by releasing immediate video responses that reached his sympathizers directly, making him appear more accessible than any other candidate. He rarely organized press conferences and press releases. Instead, he tweeted at 3am, for example, which increased the impact of his messages when mainstream media took his tweets and covered them in the news. Thus emerged a new mode of political communication, which was crucial to the campaign agenda.

In particular, after his infamous bus conversation about women, Trump immediately apologized via social media, without losing any time, and admitted that he had mis-spoken. This incident marked the beginning of more intensive women-focused campaigning for Trump. Part of the strategy was his daughter, Ivanka. She and her family appeared more at the forefront of the campaign, as a way of focusing on her successful career as an “independent American woman.” As a result, Trump received the support of 53% of white female voters.

Symbols and messages are the key tools of political communication. With regard to Bernie Sanders’ political communication, his political ideology should also be considered within the context of the silent majority. He challenged the status quo by criticizing the liberal capitalist order, proposing a strengthening of the education system instead of funding the military, and advocating free education. His absence from the AIPAC conference was equally important. Although he expressed his support for Israel, he also criticized Israeli settlements, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s actions in Gaza. Considering this approach alongside polls conducted by Pew Research showing that support for Palestine had increased among the younger generation; Sanders’ strategy was another way of raising the voice of the silent majority within the context of the oppressed and voiceless.

Yet Trumps success story must be analyzed within the context of the decline of the elite. Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, Brexit in the United Kingdom, the anti-migration policies of the Alternative für Deutschland can all be perceived as a new wave of mobilization of the silent majority. Of course, all these examples have different dimensions and cannot be confused; nevertheless, the common trend seems to be about challenging the establishment, and a greater focus on domestic problems. Consequently, in these circumstances, the meaning of polling, marketing, image management and spin-doctors, as in the usual “Americanization” of elections, received no response. Whether the realization of politics is possible or not, the latest US election and the far-right’s discourse in Europe make clear that especially during the election period, populist discourse is the most effective way of political communication, which is the cornerstone of the success story.

The rise of the far right has grown on the back of highly divisive, identity-based rhetoric. It emphasizes the growth of fear, anger, Islamophobic discourse and anti-migration policies. How this new wave will impact realpolitik going forward will be watched by many with great concern and unease. Yet it is clear that this new paradigm is a revolt against the postmodern period, which has been increasingly candidate-centered at the expense of any party or social movement.

The post Lessons on a New Kind of Political Communication to Win the Silent Majority: US Elections 2016 appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Should Turkey be Optimistic About Trump’s Presidency? https://politicstoday.org/should-turkey-be-optimistic-about-trumps-presidency/ Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:48:25 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/should-turkey-be-optimistic-about-trumps-presidency/

Trump may not be as Islamophobic or hawkish as his campaign statements, or his future cabinet members, make him out to be. Most likely, Trump in fact has little knowledge of the world he will soon be dealing with as the head of the sole superpower.

The post Should Turkey be Optimistic About Trump’s Presidency? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

On November 21, US President-elect Donald Trump met with a man that will apparently become his head of Homeland Security when he takes office in January. After the meeting, Trump and Kris Kobach were photographed, and in Kobach’s hands was a document spelling out what he would do to curb immigration and defend against the threat of terrorists coming to the country. At the top of the list were three policies: eliminating the intake of Syrian refugees entirely, re-instating a Bush-era tracking system for immigrants coming from “high-risk” countries, and ordering border security to question Muslim travelers on their views on “sharia law, jihad, equality of men and women, the United States Constitution” – something the Trump team has dubbed “extreme vetting.”

Recommended

Kobach’s proposal has confirmed fears among many Americans – from Hispanics, to African-Americans, to Muslims and a host of Christian and Jewish groups – that the bellicose talk that characterized Trump’s campaign might be more than just political pandering for votes, that the man may intend to do exactly what he promised to do, as soon as he is sworn in as President.Except for a vocal minority, a slew of world leaders have said they would like to give Trump a chance, that perhaps when confronted with the reality of his new job, he would sober up and review his ideas.  Yet there is little indication this is going to happen, and foreign leaders dealing with Trump may need to be more vocal of what a Trump presidency could mean for the rest of the world.

Trump himself has given little indication of what his policies would be, but the people – all white, and almost all men at this point – he has indicated for his cabinet are troubling enough. Journalists, trying to get a grasp on what a Trump presidency would look like, have questioned the potential cabinet members over the last two weeks on the most controversial proposals, and have been repeatedly told Trump will “not rule out” anything.

Trump’s handpicked Chief of Staff: a registry for all Muslims? No, but maybe a registry for “radical” Muslims. The head of the largest pro-Trump campaign fund: Japanese-style internment camps for Muslims? Maybe: “We’ve done it based on race, we’ve done it based on religion, we’ve done it based on region…There is precedent for it.” The man Trump has hired to be his chief strategist: the head of a news website that is a reincarnation of Nazi propaganda in all but name, with the addition of Muslims to the list of those who must be exterminated. Among Trump’s advisors are the most Islamophobic personalities in America, including Frank Gaffney, who helped coin the term “creeping Sharia,” and advocates Congressional hearings to summon all Muslim leaders to prove they do not have a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, in Gaffney’s view, is behind every ill that seems to plague the world today.

Muslims are especially worried. The last two weeks have seen hundreds of incidents of public violence and attacks on Muslims being reported – Muslim women having headscarves pulled off on college campuses, worshippers finding graffiti at entrances to their mosques – many of them cases where the perpetrators took time to mention they felt they could commit these crimes because Trump had been elected president.

Trump’s half-baked foreign policy is just as worrying.

While campaigning, Trump said he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS.” His choice for National Security Advisor is General Michael Flynn, a man who has called Islam a “vicious cancer,” and repeatedly says Muslims are not following a religion, but an ideology, and should not enjoy the benefits of freedom of religion given to others. Flynn would oversee President’s Obama’s vast intelligence and military powers, including a drone program that has killed thousands of civilians in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Flynn apparently sees little distinction between say, the ideas of Syed Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, Osama bin Laden, or Ayatollah Khomeini.

As Muslim nations who have the resources and clout to combat Islamophobia take stock of Trump, there are indications many no longer expect anything promising from any American president, and would prefer a straight-talking Islamophobe to the neo-liberal whitewashing they say Hillary Clinton would have continued.

Yet there is little reason to believe, beyond a hunch, that Trump will play in their favor, or that the kind of bargaining Trump has indicated he would engage in on the world stage will end up with other nations being able to walk away with any positive conclusions.

Flynn, for instance, has written he believes the July 15th coup attempt in Turkey was perpetrated by Fetullah Gulen, and that Gulen must be extradited to face trial. It would undoubtedly be a change Ankara should be happy about – extradition was perhaps always a political decision, even if President Obama’s administration has insisted it is a legal process.

But a closer look at Flynn’s argument for extradition should trouble Turkish leaders, who have been the world’s most active advocates for a pragmatic, careful, effort at combating extremist groups like Daesh. Flynn, in explaining how Gulen’s followers are part of a “sleeper terror network” does not just advocate for rooting out the Gulenists, he also puts forth troublingly ambiguous assertions that can be applied to every Islamic movement in the world today. And Flynn has repeatedly praised Egypt’s military ruler, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, for his work to combat “extremists” in that country.

Trump has done the same, and while he has not given his blessing to the 2013 Rabia massacre, the President-elect has praised what he calls “strong leaders” in the past. When confronted this March about comments he made in 1990 about the Chinese regime’s killing of hundreds of civilians at Tiananmen Square, Trump did not exactly back down from previous statements. “That [statement in 1990] doesn’t mean I was endorsing that,” he said. “I said that was a strong, powerful government. They kept down the riot, it was a horrible thing.”

Trump may not be as Islamophobic or hawkish as his campaign statements, or his future cabinet members, make him out to be. Most likely, Trump in fact has little knowledge of the world he will soon be dealing with as the head of the sole superpower.

But it is precisely that ignorance that should worry world leaders, in a world were facts seem to matter little, and leaders change positions as often as their socks.

Trump, for instance, has advocated for partnering with Turkey to create a “safe zone” in northern Syria, something that the Syrian rebels, human rights groups and Ankara have long called for. And on at least one occasion, Trump has hinted he would work harder than the Obama administration to meet Turkey’s concerns about groups like the YPG, which Washington currently relies on to fight Daesh.

Yet there are reasons to believe Trump has no idea what he is talking about, and when he finally sits down with his advisors to chart a course in the Middle East, he is as likely to be wooed by his Islamophobic cabinet as by a phone call from a Muslim world leader.

In September 2015, a radio host asked Trump about Iran’s al-Quds force, which Washington has accused of being behind a number of international attacks on Western interests. Trump responded by saying “the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated… I’m a big fan of the Kurds.” When the host asked about Iran’s Hezbollah, Trump responded by talking about Hamas.

To explain his confusion, Trump then made a telling remark: “You know, those are like history questions. Do you know this one, do you know that one … But as far as the individual players, of course I don’t know them. I’ve never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to meet them. If, if they’re still there, which is unlikely in many cases, but if they’re still there, I will know them better than I know you.”

“I will hopefully find General Douglas MacArthur,” Trump said, explaining that among his future advisors there would be a military expert like the acclaimed World War II General.

Fourteen months after that interview, Trump seems to have found his MacArthur, in Gen. Michael Flynn. Yet Flynn seems to be as ignorant and noncommittal as Trump himself. Flynn has lately praised the Turkish public’s victory over a mutinous faction of the military on the night of July 15th, but the night of the actual coup attempt, he had quite a different view.

As civilians died confronting tanks and jets in Turkey, Flynn was giving a speech at a meeting of an organization that lobbies for tougher measures against what it calls “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Flynn began by telling the audience he had just spoken with a Turkish military officer that he worked with as a member of NATO, then said Erdogan was “actually very close to President Obama.”

“If the military succeeds,” he continued, “one of the things that the military immediately said is, ‘We recognize our responsibilities with NATO, we recognize our responsibilities with the United Nations, we want to make sure that the world knows, we are, we want to be seen as a secular nation’.” The audience then broke out in applause, with Flynn raising a finger, saying “This is worth clapping for.

The post Should Turkey be Optimistic About Trump’s Presidency? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>