The mystery of the Epstein files

The phrase Epstein files itself is contested. Do they exist as a coherent dossier? Or are they simply a mass of raw material — documents, recordings and testimonies — collected over years? Trump has publicly insisted, “No, there are no Epstein files,” yet former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi asserted in February, “They’re sitting on my desk.” This contradiction immediately underlines the deep uncertainty surrounding the subject.

Despite the ambiguity, the general assumption is that these files refer to an enormous cache of evidence seized by authorities. Reports claim the Federal Bureau of Investigation collected thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of videos and other documents from sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s properties after his arrest and death in custody. Whether this has been systematically analyzed and compiled or still exists as unprocessed evidence remains unclear. What is certain, however, is that public pressure continues to mount for their disclosure.

The conversation also highlights Epstein collaborator Ghislaine Maxwell’s central role. American lawyer Alan Dershowitz once remarked that she “knows everything.” But even if she does, can she be compelled to speak honestly and comprehensively? Peter and Kaitlyn say this uncertainty makes the entire affair even more combustible.

Trump’s promises, broken and reversed

A major focus of the discussion is Trump’s shifting stance. While campaigning for the presidency in 2024, Trump promised repeatedly to release the Epstein files and expose the truth. But once in power, he reversed course, casting doubt on the files’ very existence.

Kaitlyn interprets this as a familiar Trump tactic. “He just lies to his followers,” she states bluntly. She recalls his infamous boast that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing support, arguing that this cynical view of loyalty is now rebounding against him. Some of Trump’s base have grown disillusioned because of his inaction on Epstein. What once seemed like a weapon against Democrats has become a source of doubt.

Peter agrees that Trump lied, but nuances Kaitlyn’s position. While Trump assumed supporters would always fall in line, he is now facing unexpected defections. Figures like former strategist Steve Bannon, Turning Point USA nonprofit founder Charlie Kirk and former special government employee Elon Musk have distanced themselves. Peter broadens the perspective: “Everybody lies, but Trump is particularly egregious … He doesn’t try to cover his tracks.”

Another reason for Trump’s original push, Peter suggests, was his campaign against the so-called “deep state.” Epstein’s rumored intelligence ties made the case an ideal rhetorical weapon to dramatize the “swamp” Trump pledged to drain. But his personal ties to Epstein made that strategy self-defeating. His hope that those links would be ignored has proven false.

Epstein, intelligence and the deep state

The discussion turns toward Epstein’s puzzling rise and mysterious connections. How did a college dropout and former math teacher amass such influence and wealth? Alexander Acosta, who as US attorney oversaw Epstein’s controversial plea deal in 2008, allegedly told investigators that Epstein “belongs to intelligence.” This phrase, Peter notes, suggests higher powers ordered leniency.

Peter speculates that Epstein’s case represents a web of intelligence involvement designed to remain hidden. Reporter Clara Ward’s coverage, he recalls, cited testimony that Acosta explained his hands were tied; Epstein’s protection came from above his pay grade.

The conversation also considers Epstein’s ties through Ghislaine Maxwell to her father, Robert Maxwell, long rumored to have worked with Israel’s national intelligence agency, the Mossad. If Epstein was indeed an intelligence asset, it may have involved cooperation among the Mossad, the CIA and Britain’s MI6.

Peter stresses he isn’t asserting proof, but highlighting plausible storylines. For him, this intelligence angle is a vital part of the Epstein affair and potentially the most dangerous contradiction for Trump. He compares it to ongoing revelations about CIA involvement in past American traumas — the assassinations of US President John F. Kennedy, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. — arguing that the Epstein affair fits into a broader history of deep state secrecy.

MAGA cracks begin to show

The Epstein files debate, Peter and Kaitlyn agree, has fractured Trump’s MAGA coalition. Some supporters demand disclosure while others reflexively defend Trump’s retreat.

Kaitlyn remarks that many are realizing Trump is the figure the political left always warned he was. Yet his sexual scandals are not decisive for his base, who long ago proved willing to excuse them. Instead, she sees psychological contortions — cognitive dissonance and narrative rewrites — allowing defenders to rationalize his U-turn. Still, she remains uncertain how far loyalty can stretch this time.

Peter argues a “major change in the landscape” is underway. If Trump loses enough support, Republicans will face an identity crisis. He mentions rumors of Vice President JD Vance and other rising figures preparing to step into the vacuum, perhaps even trying to humiliate Trump in the process.

Elon Musk, Rasputin or pretender?

The conversation then turns to Musk, who once reportedly donated over $100 million to Trump’s cause but now openly breaks with him. On his platform X, Musk demands a release of the Epstein files.

Peter is unsurprised by the fallout, given Trump’s and Musk’s egos. He believes Musk is positioning himself as a political manipulator, though he doubts he can succeed. Kaitlyn, however, views Musk as a dangerous opportunist. “He’s like the modern-day Rasputin,” she says, arguing that he is attempting to seize Trump’s disillusioned followers and build his own cult of personality.

Can Musk credibly enter politics? Peter doubts Americans see him as ideologically serious. Kaitlyn, however, thinks his celebrity power and alignment with Trump-like populism could propel him into politics, given how unconventional candidates have succeeded before. She recalls controversy over whether Musk performed a Nazi salute on television, treating it as a hint at extremist sympathies.

Still, Peter insists Musk cannot replace Trump. He likens Musk’s prospects to those of US President Ronald Reagan, once dismissed as a cartoonish actor, but quickly adds that American politics is now so unpredictable that almost anything is possible. Kaitlyn concedes Musk would probably need to pursue the Republican nomination rather than a third-party bid, and even then, it would be a long-term play.

They also address the constitutional obstacle: Musk’s South African birth bars him from the presidency unless the US Constitution is amended. Kaitlyn acknowledges that Americans have cherry-picked constitutional clauses to suit elites before, but she doubts Trump himself would champion reform, given his anti-immigration stance.

Democrats smell blood

Turning to the Democratic Party, Peter and Kaitlyn outline a strategy of opportunism. Democrats, Peter says, have always obsessed over portraying Trump as an “outsized villain,” from the Access Hollywood tape in 2016 — a 2005 recording of Trump telling television host Billy Bush about his history of sexual harassment — to his current Epstein entanglements. Now they sense an opening to use the scandal against him.

A crucial part of that strategy, Peter suggests, is their willingness to sacrifice US President Bill Clinton. During US President Joe Biden’s administration, exposing Clinton’s Epstein ties was too costly. But now, with Bill Clinton aged and former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sidelined, Democrats may accept collateral damage if it means fatally wounding Trump. Kaitlyn agrees, describing a spiderweb effect that could entangle numerous elites, not just Clinton. In her view, Democrats are willing to “shoot themselves in the foot” if that is the price of defeating Trump.

What if the files are released?

Finally, the speakers consider what the release of the files might mean. Kaitlyn foresees a massive scandal, possibly involving politicians, tech billionaires, media moguls and especially Hollywood. The impact, she believes, would ripple far beyond government, damaging entertainment and culture itself.

Peter, meanwhile, stresses the deeper revelation: The exposure of a transpartisan elite “big club” where ideology is irrelevant and power, pleasure and secrecy rule. If this truth emerges, he warns, Americans’ understanding of their country could change permanently.

Above all, Peter insists the intelligence dimension is decisive. If these agencies fail to maintain secrecy, revelations could stretch beyond sexual scandal to matters of war and covert regime change. He predicts fierce resistance, with implicated actors colluding to bury the truth. Yet he also notes pressure from figures like Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who demands transparency on Epstein. The deep state’s secrets may eventually come under unprecedented scrutiny.

What lies ahead

The Epstein files, whether myth or reality, have already shaken American politics. For Kaitlyn, they reveal Trump’s pattern of manipulation and betrayal. For Peter, they expose intelligence-world shadows and elite complicity. Both agree that the issue is splitting the MAGA movement, tempting Musk into politics and giving Democrats a new weapon.

But the greatest unknown remains: Will the files ever be released? If they are, will they confirm suspicions of individual depravity or something even more profound: a system of elite power that transcends parties and nations?

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: What Are the Epstein Files and Why Is Trump Trying To Stop the Release Now? appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

The Epstein scandal resurfaces

Atul and Glenn open the conversation by acknowledging that while Trump has faced many scandals — indictments, convictions and connections to suspected Russian agents — the Epstein case is gaining unusual traction. Glenn calls the affair both “farce” and “sick,” noting that the pedophilia aspect hits a nerve but is also steeped in conspiracy theories.

Epstein was a wealthy financier who used his fortune and connections to sexually exploit adolescent girls, aided by his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Glenn emphasizes that both were involved in grooming young women under the guise of employment, including as masseuses or assistants, to serve Epstein and his associates.

Atul interjects with a comment on social status and naming conventions, briefly linking the prominence of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s families to elite networks. He and Glenn note Epstein’s properties in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, and his infamous private island in the Virgin Islands, which served as the backdrop for much of the alleged abuse.

Legal troubles and a suspicious death

Epstein was arrested in 2005, convicted and sentenced to just 13 months in prison — a lenient outcome criticized as protecting powerful figures. A non-prosecution agreement shielded others who may have been implicated, including Trump, former US President Bill Clinton and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

The case faded until 2018, when the Miami Herald newspaper interviewed survivors and revived public interest, resulting in Epstein’s rearrest. But before his new trial could begin, he was found dead in his prison cell under circumstances that Glenn and many others find deeply suspicious. Crucial surveillance footage vanished, and the prison guard assigned to watch him inexplicably left his post. Glenn sarcastically compares the event to a “Godfather movie or a Mossad operation.”

Trump, the client list and political blowback

Trump’s name appears repeatedly in the context of Epstein’s social circle. Though no illegal conduct has been publicly linked to Trump, Glenn and Atul explain how the mere association has political consequences — especially since Trump once vowed to release Epstein’s client list to expose elites like the Clintons. Once in office, however, he reportedly backed off after being told his own name appears in the testimony, though not as a client. This U-turn has enraged the conspiracy-minded Make America Great Again (MAGA) base that had hoped Trump would “drain the swamp” and hold elites accountable.

Another political flashpoint is the viral meme, “Epstein didn’t kill himself,” which has become a symbol of deep distrust in American institutions. Glenn expresses his disbelief at the convenient disappearance of the prison video and suggests the scenario reeks of a cover-up. Trump’s base feels betrayed — the justice it was promised never materialized. Glenn quips that Trump has gone from crusading against conspiracies to dismissing them as a distraction.

Impact on the political landscape

Despite the scandal, Glenn notes Trump’s poll numbers remain resilient. While most Americans disapprove of him, many MAGA supporters see the renewed attention to Epstein as just another Democratic attack. Traditional Republicans are divided — some approve, others disapprove and many claim not to know enough. Atul speculates the issue could hurt Republicans in the upcoming midterms, though he acknowledges that such damage might be modest.

Conspiracies, psychology and social media

Atul and Glenn go on to examine how conspiracy theories shape political behavior. Atul compares the dynamic to Soviet-era communists who reversed their beliefs overnight after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, illustrating how tribal loyalty can override facts. Glenn adds that people often cling to the worldview of their “tribal leaders,” regardless of contradictory evidence.

While these psychological patterns aren’t new, social media has radically accelerated their spread.

Glenn shares a personal story about friends who fled the Soviet bloc and were lifelong anti-Russians — until they became fervent Trump supporters. These friends now see any criticism of Trump’s ties to Russia as betrayal, which Glenn finds both tragic and illustrative of the broader social phenomenon. In his view, the Epstein case may create political cracks for Trump, but not an existential collapse. Atul agrees that this scandal may leave a mark, just not a decisive one.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Exclusive: Trump’s Epstein Files Fiasco Worsens as Democrats Take Aim at the President appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

On August 17, 1998, after months of denials, US President Bill Clinton to a grand jury: “I did have a relationship with Ms. [Monica] Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.”

Sex scandals in American politics were certainly nothing new. President John F. Kennedy’s remained whispered rumors, never televised. Gary Hart, daring reporters to follow him, like a stone when they did. Even Clinton himself had navigated earlier allegations from women, namely and , that might have ended another politician’s career. But Monica Lewinsky was a different proposition. She wasn’t merely another woman; she was the central, unwitting protagonist in an international psychodrama.

What set her affair with Clinton apart wasn’t the sex, juicy as that was. It was the unprecedented, raw access: the leaked transcripts, the damning voicemail, the infamous navy blue . This wasn’t just a scandal; it was a high-definition spectacle, delivered directly to every household and in real time.

Accidental celebrity

Clinton made history by becoming the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury as the target of a investigation. The questions were deeply personal and, at times, vulgar; the setting borderline surreal. Beamed from the White House via closed-circuit TV, Clinton answered prosecutors’ questions with lawyerly evasion and painstaking, almost excruciating, phrasing.

In one memorable exchange, the prosecutor asked: “Mr. President, do you understand that the statement that there ‘is’ no sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship, could be false if indeed there was one, even though it’s in the past?” Clinton’s convoluted response became an instant cultural touchstone: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true .”

Following his grand jury appearance, Clinton delivered a televised address to the nation. It was short, stiff and heavy with legalisms. He admitted the relationship had been “not appropriate” and that he had misled people, including even [his] wife.” He appeared unsettled yet spoke with an underlying defiance. The nation and indeed the world remained transfixed, unsure how to feel — disgusted, tantalized or simply impressed by Clinton’s audacious bravado.

Three days later, on August 20, American cruise missiles struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Officially a response to the East Africa embassy bombings, Operation was immediately dubbed a distraction. Jokes were made comparing these events to the previous year’s comedy film, ; in the film, a government spin doctor (Robert De Niro) and a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) work to fabricate a war in Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal. It was, perhaps, the first time in history a significant international military action found itself relegated to a mere footnote in a domestic sex scandal.

What held this entire spectacle together, making it so utterly compelling, was Clinton himself. He wasn’t imposing like President Ronald Reagan, patrician like President George H.W. Bush or saintly like President Jimmy Carter. Clinton was fundamentally different. He possessed the easy manner of a man you might chat with in a Walmart supermarket checkout line — someone seemingly knowable, perhaps even someone who might flirt with you. His flaws, his all-too-human messiness, ironically, made him the first truly relatable president. That quality, once unthinkable in a commander-in-chief, now became an unexpected asset.

The age of the spectacle

By the end of that August, America’s political culture had undergone a quiet yet profound and lasting transformation. The presidency, once associated with distance and solemn dignity, had become a pivotal component in the nation’s entertainment machinery.

By the late 1990s, America was already a nation expertly “trained in watching.” Talk shows routinely blurred the line between confession and performance. Paparazzi relentlessly pursued not just film stars, but increasingly, personalities. Shows like packaged dysfunctional families as primetime entertainment. Stores now offered more than groceries — they stocked America’s new unholy secular scriptures: glossy weekly gossip magazines like People and National Enquirer. Into this readied landscape stepped Lewinsky: intern, lover, national punchline and, ultimately, a reluctant protagonist in the most-watched real-life soap opera the world had ever seen.

But to grasp how Monica became Monica™ — a name that, for a time, needed no surname — we need a brief glance at the preceding cultural landscape. Few figures shaped that terrain more dramatically than Madonna. Throughout the 1980s and ‘90s, the diva transcended mere pop stardom; she was a cultural agent provocateur who taught audiences how to look, how to stare and, crucially, how not to look away.

She turned taboo into a trending topic years before hashtags even existed. Whether on stage, publishing her explicit 1992 book, or using the word “” repeatedly on the Late Show with David Letterman, Madonna didn’t just push boundaries — she dissolved them. More significantly, she made it respectable, even desirable, to gaze intently… and to enjoy the spectacle.

By the time Clinton’s affair was exposed, the public was ready. What once might have been muttered discreetly became common watercooler chat. And the media, by then no longer deferential gatekeepers but increasingly predatory content chasers, knew how to satisfy the appetite for tittle-tattle. Monica™ was like a gift from heaven.

Clinton’s scandal wasn’t merely covered; it was serialized. It possessed a clear structure, escalating suspense, compelling secondary characters (like civil servant and attorney ) and even unexpected wardrobe plot points. Lewinsky’s semen-stained blue Gap dress transcended mere evidence, as did a cigar Clinton used as a sex aid. They became pervasive cultural references, almost sacred objects in a new age of scandal. The narrative had sex, power, concealment, betrayal and a president who, with every denial, seemed only to get more intriguing.

In an earlier era, shameful exposure meant indelible disgrace, dishonor and often everlasting stigma. But shame was in the process of being redefined. It might still have felt temporarily humiliating, but it carried no lasting loss of respect or esteem and the disgrace was far from indelible: It was quickly effaced. But, with the rapid ascendance of celebrity culture, shame seemed oddly out of place. Becoming famous by any means necessary was quickly becoming a legitimate career aspiration and shame, at times, was simply accepted as collateral damage.

Lewinsky became an accidental celebrity: a woman who, by her own later , lost not just her privacy but her “reputation and dignity and … almost [her] life.” Clinton, meanwhile, seemed to waft above it all, protected less by institutional power than by his sheer attractiveness, an undeniable charisma and an audience seemingly too rewarded by his very human antics to abandon him.

It’s easy to categorize the scandal as purely political, and of course, it did have political consequences. But at its heart, it belonged less to Washington, DC, than to global popular culture. The public wasn’t shocked by what Clinton did; it was utterly captivated by the unprecedented access. People were allowed to watch it all unfold. The real revelation wasn’t about morality; it was about media. The affair didn’t signal the fall of a president; it heralded the rise of the culture of spectacle.

Scandal fatigue

“If you can’t trust the president to tell the truth, who can you trust?” an incredulous reporter asked. But for much of the public, that question entirely missed the point. By then, Clinton was no longer being measured by old-fashioned virtues like trustworthiness or reliability, but by his performance.

Remarkably (perhaps), his approval ratings spiked after he admitted to the Lewinsky affair. This wasn’t despite the scandal: it was, in a perverse way, because of it. His transgression became fused with his relatability, even his disarming authenticity. The public was so exhausted by the continual prurient allegations against the president that what might have started as shock or indignation became an agreeable distraction. “” was the term used to describe the cultural desensitization.

He lied, he squirmed, he strangled grammar (as demonstrated previously when he defined the word “is”). But he did it all in plain sight. For a public raised on The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Geraldo Rivera Show and the confessional stylings of reality TV, that transparency almost felt honest. (Today, of course, we are all habituated to US presidents who lie, squirm and strangle grammar.)

Lewinsky, meanwhile, was publicly and savagely destroyed. “I was of losing a personal reputation on a global scale,” she reflected years later, keenly aware of the Internet’s embryonic yet devastating role in her humiliation. Her name became a cipher for shame, a global punchline in a thousand late-night monologues. Yet, in time, she courageously reclaimed her voice, emerging not as an object of scandal but as a speaker, writer and against cyberbullying. If Clinton represented the survival of political power through personal disgrace, Lewinsky came to represent something arguably more modern and profound: the possibility of a woman surviving a potentially global scandal and, in the process, discovering agency.

The end of privacy

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of August 1998 wasn’t political or purely personal. It was cultural: the irrevocable departure of the concept of a “private life” for public figures and, eventually, for virtually everyone. Clinton’s affair and the ravenous media machinery it cranked into life were features of a nascent era in which visibility became permanent, intimacy became endlessly shareable and secrets became monetizable. And everyone was left asking and answering a question: If the most powerful man in the world couldn’t conceal an affair, who the hell could?

Fast-forward to July 2025. At a performed by rock group Coldplay in Foxborough, Massachusetts, the jumbotron’s kiss-cam pans to a couple sharing what appears to be an intimate moment. The image flashes on massive screens across the stadium. The woman recoils, visibly embarrassed, as she realizes she’s been caught on camera. Coldplay frontman Chris Martin even comments on the scene. Within hours, the video of the brief encounter goes viral across social media. Reddit threads wildly about a potential affair as TikTokers frantically try to the pair. X explodes with . No one, anywhere, pauses to ask if this exposure was fair or proper. The story wasn’t about morality.

That fleeting moment, brief yet dramatic and seemingly random, is connected to August 1998 by a kind of molecular chain. It serves as a gentle reminder that the rules, such as they were, have fundamentally changed. There is no on-stage versus off-stage anymore. No quiet corner of life remains immune to broadcasting. There is no longer true privacy. We are all potentially “that woman” or “that man” now — framed, packaged and offered for the casual delectation of anyone. We are all shareable now. And today, we are so accustomed to it, we don’t notice. And, if we did, large demographics wouldn’t care. Generations Y and Z are products of the post-private era.

Clinton was the first president of that era. He was a politician who smudged the demarcation lines between statesman and spectacle, between leadership and sheer . He didn’t fall from grace so much as slide into a new kind of fame, the kind in which the fall itself was an essential part of the entertainment. The sleazy kind.

Lewinsky, more than anyone, bore the cost. She didn’t crave celebrity status; it was affixed to her. The affair, the dress and the endless denials weren’t just political moments. They were cultural markers, showing the world that no one, not even the president of the US, is exempt from unwelcome, permanent exposure.

[Ellis Cashmore’s “” is published by Bloomsbury.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and the Politics of Spectacle appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

Republican candidate George W. Bush stood and started to answer this question before the chair interrupted him and warned he was digressing. “Help me with the question,” he requested after getting tongue-tied. The questioner wanted to know how he was personally affected. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton took his turn to answer. He stood, walked toward the audience and spoke, not to the audience but to the woman who had asked the question. He motioned to her, his eyes fixed on hers. “In my state, when people lose their jobs, there’s a good chance I’ll know them by their names.”

It was a transformational in politics. Of course, we didn’t know it at the time, but on October 15, 1992, at the University of Richmond’s Robins Center, politics changed. The hapless Bush was aloof and seemed almost contemptuous while Clinton interacted relaxedly with the audience without feints or deviations. It was as if he was having private conversations that could be heard, not overheard.

Outside politics, cultural change was turning us all into voyeurs. I don’t mean that people started to take an unwholesome pleasure from watching others engaged in sex or suffering in some way (although some might have). No, the new voyeurism involved the guiltless enjoyment of observing or eavesdropping on private conversations and discovering intimate details of others’ lives, particularly through television and, later, social media. This reflected a growing fascination with the personal and often unfiltered experiences of others. We called it curiosity. It soon extended into politics.

Political celebrities who seem like real people

Celebrity culture was, for many, a Trojan horse: Innocuous-looking enough to allow into our lives but baleful in its consequences. Our captivation with the lives of other people seems perfectly natural now. But it wasn’t in the 1970s. The misleadingly inoffensive horse entered in the 1980s, so that by the early 1990s, it had already taken up residence. Impatient with entertainers who were cautious about sharing details of their private lives, audiences wanted everyone to be like Madonna: unsparing in their distribution of the minutiae of their lives.Ěý

Audience appetite was for real people —  not the disproportionately impersonal and untouchable godlike characters who dominated public life for most of the 20th century, but people who resembled the other people they were supposed to entertain. 

This affected politicians. It seems laughable that we once looked up to them. For most of the 20th century, they were guardians in a benevolent moral and ministerial sense. The electorate admired, respected and, in some cases, idolized these near-transcendent beings. By the 1990s, however, audiences no longer admired politicians from afar; they wanted close-ups. What’s more, they demanded access to their private lives, blurring the lines between public service and entertainment.

Clinton seemed to understand the power of ordinariness. The folksy, down-to-earth charm that characterized him and allowed him to face several accusations of impropriety and an impeachment with equanimity made him one of the most popular presidents in history.

Clinton’s kind of ordinariness became a valuable resource. Audiences responded to politicians who mirrored themselves: They may have had more power, authority, status and attention; they may even have led more opulent lifestyles; but, unlike politicians of earlier eras, the new breed could and probably should exhibit the same kinds of flaws and problems as the people who followed them. So, Clinton’s sex scandals, far from being a source of damnation, worked like a celebrity benediction. There had been sex scandals before, but never anything approaching Clinton’s triple obloquy. The media, which by the early 1990s were ravenous for scandal, covered it extensively.

Related Reading

Bush’s struggle to connect with the audience starkly contrasted with Clinton’s approach, highlighting a shift in what Americans began to value in their leaders. Bush followed Clinton to the White House. He was prone to gaffes, making him the object of parody and criticism, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

By contrast, Bush’s successor Barack Obama masterfully balanced the demands of celebrity culture with a scandal-free image, projecting the persona of a cool president. He had suaveness, eloquence and an uncommon ability to connect with a broad range of people, from appearances on talk shows to a preparedness to share his (he was known to favor Beyoncé, Tyla and Kendrick Lamar.)

Harris, Trump… and Oprah

Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, entered politics as a fully formed celebrity in a similar way to President Ronald Reagan and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger — all three were well-known entertainers before their forays into politics. Trump hosted The Apprentice for 14 seasons from 2004 till 2015, so, by the time he won election in November 2016, he was an established figure in the media and popular culture.

Trump may have lacked Clinton’s magnetism and Obama’s relatability, but he could challenge both with his sex scandals and ability to dominate the news cycle. He had little experience in public office but was adept at maneuvering the media. Perhaps he still is. But is his audience still excited? Or are we witnessing Trump fatigue?

Audiences like novelty, freshness and new personalities. If Trump’s celebrity appeal begins to wane, Kamala Harris emerges as a pristine face in American politics. Despite being vice president since 2021, she’s relatively unknown. She’s probably the least-known nominee in living memory. She didn’t even benefit from the exposure of going through primaries. Ironically, this might not be such a bad thing.

Her paradigm will surely be Oprah Winfrey. A proven kingmaker with her pivotal “We need Barack Obama” at Des Moines, Iowa on December 8, 2007, Oprah has already given Harris her.

Related Reading

Do Celebrity Endorsements Help or Hurt Politicians?

As far as I’m aware, there is no celebrity equivalent of osmosis in which style, knowledge and appeal can pass from one person to another. If there were, Harris should learn how it works. Harris’ campaign already has an Oprah feel: The “Joy” theme is confection, though not meaningless confection: It suggests Harris will, if elected, be a person who brings great pleasure and happiness — as celebrities often do.

The most amusing political spectacle in history

It seems frivolous to discuss celebrity culture in the solemn context of politics. But let’s face it: politics is no longer solemn: The dignity that once seemed to ennoble politicians has vanished and whatever they say seems glib or, at best, rehearsed. Small wonder that audiences expect value-for-money entertainment from politics. Politicians, at least the successful ones, know this and often respond in a way that elicits a reaction. Trump has an intuitive grasp of this: His bombastic statements and bumptious behavior guarantee him an expectant audience and a breathless media. His dismissal of a miscellany of accusations with a shrug gives him a certain sheen. He also recruits established showbusiness stars, sometimes to their chagrin (Abba Trump to stop playing their music at his rallies).

Like everything else, politics changes. Some might despair at the prospect of politics succumbing to trashy and meretricious celebrity culture. But voters demand it: They want politicians who are as imperfect as they are, empathic enough to be relatable, unpredictable in a way that keeps everyone curious and, above all, entertaining. And, if they’re not, they’re gone: There are plenty of politicians with presidential aspirations who rose to prominence but not for long. Who remembers Deval Patrick, Jim Gilmore or Lincoln Chafee — all hopefuls from recent political history?

Voters are accustomed to being entertained by all manner of celebrity, some weaponized with talent, others just disposable and quickly forgotten. Harris and Trump both want to convince voters that they’re not celebrities but serious politicians. That means much of the campaign will be about trying to command the media’s attention and shape the way it presents the candidates, whether as impressively august with superabundant leadership skills or just pretenders. This guarantees the campaign will deliver a theatrical, extravagant and probably the most amusing political spectacle in history.

[Ellis Cashmore is the author of, now in its third edition.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Voters Want Politicians Like Trump and Harris to Be Celebrities appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

The BBC sums up this moment in the interview: “Pressed on whether she would throw her hat into the ring at the last minute, Mrs Clinton said: ‘I, as I say, never, never, never say never. I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Pressure:

A real or imaginary force that influences people’s behavior. It can be real for people in most ordinary activities but is largely imaginary for politicians.

Contextual Note

Some may wonder why serious media are paying so much attention to Hillary Clinton these days, though the launch of her book — co-written with her daughter, Chelsea — provides a pretext that the media, always more attracted to celebrities than contemporary issues, will always exploit.

The BBC and every other popular media outlet have turned Clinton’s remark into what they deem a newsworthy headline. The former first lady and disappointed presidential candidate, who bears the indelible shame of allowing US President Donald Trump to beat her in 2016, added a reflection that would appear to contradict her remark about the growing pressure on her: “But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.” Shouldn’t the idea of “absolutely” pretty much put the story to bed?

A good look at Clinton’s rhetoric will help to clarify a few things. Yes, she does say “absolutely,” but her qualification of the context (“sitting here in this studio”) throws everything into doubt. Not only does she rely on the cliché of “never say never,” repeating the first “never” three times, but she suggests, in a way that most people easily understand, that what someone says in a British studio they might not say in another place or at another time.

When Clinton tells us that running for president “is absolutely not in my plans,” she hints that she does have plans but isn’t ready to reveal them. The major media outlets that identify with the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – MSNBC, The New York Times, CNN and others — have recently been planting their own meme about the weakness of the current crop of 17 candidates. This amounts to an avowal that only the totally unacceptable progressives have the heavyweight bearing capable of knocking out Trump.

Insisting, with no evidence to back it up, that progressives can’t win middle America, those same media appear to be seeking a savior and have trouble looking beyond all the familiar places or rounding up the usual suspects. As everyone in the entertainment and political business knows, the key to being a savior is clearly either celebrity or money. Clinton has the celebrity — though many believe it is tainted by her past performance — and Michael Bloomberg has the money and a small dose of celebrity. But he’s also a New York Jewish billionaire who, as mayor of New York, offended that same middle America by trying to ban supersized sodas.

Knowing how resistant the Democratic Party has been to the progressive assault Bernie Sanders initiated against the party establishment when he opposed Clinton in 2015/16, many in the party believe that the primaries will see no clear winner and the 2020 convention may lapse into deep confusion before the pair of providential presidential and vice-presidential candidates can emerge. That could define the moment when Clinton, no longer confined to a BBC studio, would “absolutely” decide to change her mind.

Historical Note

The title alone of the Clinton mother and daughter team, “The Book of Gutsy Women,” gives us an idea of her reading of a period of US political history that spans the end of the 20th and the initial decades of the 21st centuries. The book purports to be a review of history celebrating women of the past and present. But few will doubt that self-celebration is part, if not most of it. For one thing, Clinton is offering the public a remake of John F. Kennedy’s best-seller, “Profiles in Courage,” a book about men of the past that set the stage for his victorious presidential campaign of 1960.

Clinton clearly wants people to think of herself and her daughter as gutsy. The choice of the epithet may seem a bit odd. “Gritty,” whose meaning is similar, would sound more appealing.

The meme of “grit” and “grittiness” derives from a popular — “True Grit” — followed by two iconic movies, a commercial starring John Wayne and the other, decades later, a more sophisticated version directed by the . Gritty usually describes someone who is not only gutsy, but also mobilizes enough energy to win a difficult battle. In contrast, gutsy can include the acceptance of defeat in the face of overwhelming odds. On the other hand, it avoids the problem of having to apologize for failure, something Clinton clearly doesn’t like doing.

So, what are the components of the message the book’s title conveys? The plural, “women” is perhaps more important than “gutsy.” This is where we can detect the historical sweep of Clinton’s discourse.

As the first lady in the 1990s, Hillary earned a reputation for being assertive. She did this, partly by refusing to adopt the traditional role of the dutiful Pennsylvania Avenue housewife, which even the highly-assertive Jacqueline Kennedy had accepted. Instead of limiting her role to that of the cheerful, gracious host of lavish dinners for visiting heads of states or, in her spare time, suggesting to “beautify America,” Hillary gutsily tackled the problem the US has still been unable to solve: universal health care.

She again mobilized the contents of her guts to defend her beleaguered husband, President Bill Clinton, accused of dilly-dallying with a lady slightly too old for his friend Jeffrey Epstein’s tastes. Hillary to the world that it was nothing but a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” At that time, Vladimir Putin wasn’t quite yet ready to play the role of Moriarty she has assigned to him in her latest conspiracy theory.

Because she had created her image of the gutsy co-director of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary became the natural choice for the presidential throne once George W. Bush finished his two terms in the well-scripted role of “war president with a mission.” By backing his mission and helping him accomplish it, Clinton offered further proof of her gutsiness though not much of her grit, since Democrats traditionally had a reputation of rising up against Republican xenophobic belligerence.

Will Clinton consider bowing to the pressure of the people pushing her to run? She not only tells us they are “many,” but her triple dose of “many” echoes her thrice-repeated “never.” To get a handle on her thinking, we mustn’t forget that “women” is plural, not just because of the heroic women whom she describes, but because the two authors are women and are meant to be the true subject of the book.

At 39, Chelsea is qualified to run for president in 2020. Alas, her gutsiness has not yet been established in the public eye. As a privileged heir to the favors of the elite her parents became a part of through their political success and flair for celebrity role-playing — Chelsea, it should be noted, studied at Stanford and Oxford just to seal her sense of belonging to that same  elite — she hasn’t yet had an opportunity to prove her grit or test her guts.

By sharing the epithet of gutsy with her daughter, Hillary is offering her a first stepping-stone in her celebrity political career. It may be that Hillary has “absolutely” renounced a bid for the White House in 2020. But in “her plans,” she may already be prepping Chelsea for a run at the White House in the coming decade or two. As Hillary and “many, many, many” other people appear to believe, a Clintonian White House can only be good for America.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, , in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Is It Hillary or Chelsea Who’s Running? appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

Forbes the basic detective work as the magazine dedicated to assessing wealth notes that it “has never included Epstein, 66, in its rankings of the World’s Billionaires, since there is scant proof he holds a ten-figure fortune.”

Citing court documents released at Epstein’s bail hearing in New York, subsequently revealed “Epstein’s self-reported assets, which totaled $559,130,954.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Billionaire:

A member of a class of people the media has taught US citizens to look up to because individuals who can achieve that magic number are assumed to be very smart and deserving of being seen as a role model for anyone incapable of earning even $1 million

Contextual Note

In the minds of Americans, $1 billion represents the threshold beyond which admiration turns to awe, just as $1 million represents the threshold between respect and automatic admiration. Numbers have always been important in American culture, as became evident when the founders made the calculation written into the US Constitution that a slave could count for three-fifths of a white person.

The diminished assessment of Epstein’s assets by both Forbes and USA Today may be premature. Citing the figures Epstein himself had reported, the judge at the hearing “previously called these numbers unverified and unaudited.” Does the judge mean Epstein may be hiding something, possibly in one or more tax havens and may, therefore, be the billionaire he was reputed to be? Or does he mean that, like President Donald Trump, Epstein is guilty of his own wealth just to impress people and project an awesome image?

The first hypothesis might be the right one. According to Insider, officials found “piles of cash” and “dozens of diamonds,” which could push up Epstein’s score at least beyond the half a billion he declared.

Forbes seems intent on feeding the suspense around the man’s wealth: “The details of Epstein’s net worth remain shrouded in mystery, prompting questions about his past business partners and how he raised money for his investment firm to begin with.” To Epstein’s credit, however, Forbes adds: “Still, Epstein once mingled with billionaires, including President Trump,” which means he may have accomplished the essential for any ambitious nouveau riche dude from Brooklyn. Even if he didn’t hit the magic figure of $1 billion, he was accepted into America’s — or even the Western world’s — most exclusive club. He earned the right denied to most less-than-billionaire mortals to taxi former US presidents and British royalty across oceans in his private jet.

Historical Note

Though it was hardly a secret before last week’s highly-publicized arrest, everyone is now aware that Epstein has a history that contains a potentially political dimension. That has even become a key feature of the current scandal. He was in 2008 of “soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14.” But he owed to President Trump’s labor secretary, Alex Acosta, his incredibly lenient sentence: a mere 13 months served at a rhythm of one day per week, which the media call “a slap on the wrist.” Forced to resign, Acosta for the scandalous outcome.

Media interest has obviously focused on Trump himself, who appeared to be not just a friend and admirer of Epstein — all the media have quoted his glowing from 1992 — but possibly an accomplice. And, of course, Bill Clinton, the only US president to be impeached for a confirmed sexual offense, is also in the spotlight, meaning that Epstein’s activities had bi-partisan appeal.

This is a story with numerous threads that the media will undoubtedly be eager to exploit. Among the outstanding mysteries that will keep the news cycle boiling over the next 18 months, we count these:

1) Which celebrity politicians will be called to witness at Epstein’s trial?

2) What will we learn about the private lives of those who we expect to rule not just over our governments, but also our culture?

3) What will we discover about “Epstein’s long-cultivated relationships within Hollywood and New York media circles?”

4) What impact will all this have on the 2020 presidential election?

5) And, of course, is Epstein a billionaire or a fraud?

The other matter of suspense that keeps everyone’s curiosity on high alert is the answer to the question: Where and how did Epstein earn, fabricate or steal his billion (or half billion)?

Americans want to know the answer to this one for several reasons. The media in the US routinely encourage the public not just to admire, but also to emulate the successful. How many people, fascinated with Warren Buffett, spend their spare time seeking to discover his secret in the hope of imitating his performance? “If Warren Buffett, a semi-autist from Omaha can do it, I can do it,” they appear to believe. The same doesn’t apply to Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, considered techie geniuses. Nor to Michael Jordan or Kim Kardashian, unique individuals endowed with special “talent” (of varying dimensions). But everyone wants to know about how the wealthy got there.

In fairness to all of Epstein’s A-list friends who now may be suspected of complicity, their motivation for cozying up to someone known for his specific interest in very young ladies need not have been their desire to partake in the exploitation of his apparently unlimited stock of underage girls. Some of those A-listers, such as Katie Couric and Chelsea Handler, are females unlikely to share his proclivities. Another name in his address book, that of Kevin Spacey, would — for other scandalous reasons — seem not to be a buyer in that marketplace. Others, such as Trump and Clinton, but also Charlie Rose and Woody Allen, have been subsequently shamed as predators themselves and may be suspected of an interest in partaking, though nothing points to evidence in that direction. Glamor alone — rather than sexual adventure — may explain their attraction.

The real motivation for anyone in that elite club had more to do with another aspect of their way of life. As Vanity Fair , “many others were fascinated or amused or impressed by Epstein or simply delighted that he wrote checks to their charities.” They perceived him as someone who embodied two American ideals: he was rich and had fun. In other words, he fulfilled the American dream of achieving, on his own and unencumbered, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Friendship with him reaffirmed their own identity as unequivocally successful members of an exclusive club defined by their vaunted capacity to fulfill their every desire, legitimate or illegitimate (the latter thanks to a shared sense of discretion).

Whether or not his A-list contacts took a personal interest in his special form of entertainment, we know that it was hardly a secret. He had a reputation for operating the “,” the sobriquet of his private jet specialized in servicing his ultra-private island. Epstein signed checks, threw parties and provided sumptuous occasions for important people to hobnob with other important people. That was surely enough of a reward for most of his friends. Unless you were specifically interested in his merchandise, you could simply take advantage of his generosity and look the other way. That happens to be one of the cardinal rules of the club: looking the other way.

So now with an impending trial, the fun — and most likely the embarrassment for some — will really begin. The coming 12 months or so will be a banner year for US media. They will regale their public with another inimitable Trump election cycle, full of insults, provocations, race baiting and other “cultural” fireworks, guaranteed to draw eyeballs on a daily basis. On top of that — and, to some extent, unpredictably interfering with it — will be the “Jeffrey Epstein show trial.”

Epstein is the real thing. His case is all about what interests Americans the most, the two most spectacular forms of power: money and sex. In a society in which life is defined as a struggle to get everything you want, money and sex are suspected of being the key to happiness, though nobody really understands how or why. Maybe the Epstein drama will be a “teaching moment,” leading to some form of enlightenment about what’s important in human society.

Or maybe it will just be one more example of an expensively produced television serial featuring a cast of stars. Stay tuned. There’s to come.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, , in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]Ěý

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Jeffrey Epstein May End Up as Time’s Man of the Year appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

When you thought things couldn’t get any stranger after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump invited women who have accused former US President Bill Clinton of sexual assault to attend the second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, think again.

Enter Malik Obama, President Barack Obama’s half-brother, who believes Trump can make America great again.

The spectacle of the final debate unfolded along the now-customary lines: Hillary hitting hard against Trump’s sexism and recent sexual assault accusations, his illogical rant against abortion, and describing his opponent as a “nasty woman” as the specter of Russian hackers and President Vladimir Putin lurked on the sidelines.

But then Trump refused to commit to accept election results, suggesting that he will keep us “in suspense” for the time being. What in effect is a denial of democracy itself became the final send-off into the November 8 election, after which we may well be referring to Donald Trump as supreme leader.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 

The post Let’s Get Ready to Ramble appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

What appears to have been a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, has made a potential US-led military strike against the Syrian government a very real possibility. Shocking videos of dozens of dead bodies in makeshift hospitals have widely circulated around the Internet. US Secretary of State John Kerry, when addressing the press on August 26, spoke of a “” and, in a more personal tone, of how as a father himself he couldn't “get the image out of [his] head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him.” Kerry clearly conveyed President Barack Obama’s belief that “there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people.”

On August 31, Obama stated: “.” In the same speech, he also announced that he would seek congressional authorization for such action.

At the time of writing, the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee reached a bipartisan agreement allowing the US president “.” While voting on the resolution will not occur before the end of the summer recess next week and since the House Foreign Affairs Committee is yet to meet, on September 3, Obama gained crucial .  

Before the president’s official statement, there was a clear build-up to his decision in favor of deploying military force, as the rhetoric on the need to ensure accountability,  with the exiled Syrian opposition in Istanbul, and the publicly stated  of the US and allied militariessuggested.

The Last of the Red Lines?

In the aftermath of the Iraq War and with the Afghanistan conflict still raging on, President Obama has always made it very clear that he does not intend to involve the US in another conflict. However, he already mentioned a red line regarding the movement and use of chemical weapons one year ago, on : “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

Images of the aftermath, combined with statements by Obama that “,” give the impression that the often cited “red line” has been breached. It has to be noted that previous  of the use of chemical weapons have not triggered a similar reaction.    

American Motivation

The very real possibility of “” military strikes against the Syrian Army has caused many analysts to speculate over why the US government, after more than two years of bloodshed and over 100,000 deaths, wants to engage in military action.

In an with PBS, Obama stated that if there was to be a military strike, “the Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war, trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again.” The US president also clarified that a military strike would not end “the death of innocent civilians inside Syria.”

The main point here is that any attack would serve as a punitive act against Bashar al-Assad, which is not intended to end the regime's rule. With regard to this last point, it is important to recall that there still remains a high degree of uncertainty and apprehension regarding power configurations in a potential post-Assad Syria, with Islamist groups such as the al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat Al-Nusra being among the strongest fighting forces.

The question at this point, however, is what the effect of such a limited punitive act would be on the Syrian government. To assess the material impact on the strength of the regime would be too far-fetched at present. However, one can speculate about the non-material impact on the government and its supporters.

Unsurprisingly, President Assad has demonstrated defiance in the face of a possible attack: “.” Although military strikes might cause further defections, such an attack, orchestrated by foreign powers, would buy into the regime’s narrative of a foreign conspiracy, and thus potentially strengthen overall cohesion among its supporters.

Moreover, Obama cited that the situation “.” He also hinted at potential dangers to allies such as Israel, Turkey, and Jordan, as well as US bases in the Middle East in case of a proliferation of chemical weapons. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, stated in May 2013 that Syria had used chemical weapons and urged the US to “.” Erdogan is also at this point one of the main supporters of an intervention.

Another reason, as Rachel Shabi argues, is that an attack would be to “.” This idea is directly related to Obama’s frequent reference to the red line and many actors urging him to take action due to continuous bloodshed. Notably, the US president said on August 31: “We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say.”

An important point in this regard, which is also mentioned by Shabi, is morality. As mentioned above, this theme featured prominently in Secretary Kerry's remarks on August 26 when he spoke of a “moral compass” and that the events defied “any code of morality.” Obama, in a similar tone, spoke about international norms. Without a  at the time of writing, the question is, will this be the main argument surrounding an intervention?  

In this context, it is crucial to remember the humanitarian dimension that the “red line” statements and the rhetoric surrounding the attack in Damascus have. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly stressed  when the “red line” was mentioned. The language of morality is closely related to the humanitarian dimension of the debate. Obama’s reference to “young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government” and the subsequent characterization of the attack as an “assault on human dignity” tie these two issues together.

Regardless of whether one is convinced of the humanitarian reasoning or not, it has to be remembered that the failure of the Clinton administration to act during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 has had a profound impact on the concept of humanitarian intervention.

Shadows of the Past

Russia, a supporter of the Syrian government, strongly voiced its opposition to a potential military strike. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described it as a “.” Referring to Washington's past military incursions into the Middle East, he warned of a repeat of the “Iraqi and Libyan scenario.” In the past, Russia, which had  from the UN Security Council Resolution authorizing action in Libya in 2011, has often voiced its opinion that this resolution was abused and turned into a campaign for regime change. Lavrov also called any military action “” and lamented the fact that the US has not produced evidence for the Syrian government’s culpability.

Russia’s opposition is rooted in several factors. Due to a , Moscow views the Syrian government as a key ally, in part due to the Russian Navy’s base in the port of Tartus. Furthermore, Russia is — as are, for example, the US — concerned about a post-Assad Syria, which, considering Russian support for the Assad regime, is unlikely to be friendly.

The Obama administration’s invocation of morality and norms has to be seen in this context in order to properly understand the build-up to a potential military strike. It would be not be the first time that moral justifications are a strong part of the reasoning before a military conflict. The rhetoric before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars brings up memories of such reasoning.  

*[This article was produced in partnership with the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post The Last of the Red Lines appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.

A great deal of hand wringing goes on as bad news continues to drown out progress in the transitions occurring in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). From Egypt and Syria, to Libya and Yemen, nay-sayers and pundits readily point out that there are few short term solutions that do not require some pain in the process of moving forward. As national identities crumble under the assault of religious and partisan appeals, it is problematic to come up with short-term remedies that do not have long-term consequences for the political and economic health of the countries.

It seems to me that, aside from Tunisia at the best of times, which is not often enough, there is a failure by governments in transition to sustain effective messaging that people can understand on how the government is going to concretely tackle unemployment and corruption. Blaming the IMF for subsidy reforms is not a credible strategy for laying the groundwork for other steps that must be taken to reduce public debt incurred as a result of inflated bureaucracies, inefficient labor regulations, and insufficient investment capital available for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In Morocco, even the thoughtful proposals on the parliamentary agenda are stalled, as the government negotiates every step of reforms needed to reduce expenditures and stimulate sustainable economic growth.

Setting aside the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, where extravagance permits over-the-top bandages such as forgiving private debt, the challenges in the Maghreb are enormous and yet citizens are rarely being mobilized to take part in economic development. Rather, they are pulled in different directions by political forces more concerned with scoring points and securing power than contributing to a way forward that is balanced, equitable, and contributes to necessary long-term changes.  

Considering the Options

Outside organizations working in the MENA are working to provide mechanisms to bridge the messaging gap between governments and citizens. The , in cooperation with the and , recently held a that “brought together business people, academicians, policy planners and other thought leaders for a day and a half discussion on regional economic integration in the Maghreb.” The purpose of the conference was to determine how the action principles behind the success of the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe “might best be applied to contemporary situations where economic reconstruction or mass relief is needed.” One of its principal tenets seemed quite relevant to my thinking about the challenge of promoting both top-down and grassroots support for economic reform: “Political leadership and elements of self-sacrifice and determination are essential to the success of aid programs.”

In the US, Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign built around the message “,” illustrated how critical it is to capture the public’s imagination and involvement in a dialogue about progress that had consequences beyond slogans. Similarly, the pressures of trying to reverse decades of economic and political mismanagement have resulted in a credibility barrier especially for the transitional governments in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. As is evident from the competing demonstrations in those countries, evolving a consensus on key solutions without some parties feeling marginalized is an overwhelming challenge at times.

Reaching the People

A key lesson in “participatory democracy” that seems to have emerged from the trials of the transitional governments is that the process of engaging citizens effectively in participatory and respectful politics is daunting under the best of circumstances. Their previous experiences with the former governments in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt in particular have not given people a sense of national citizenship that transcends more particular allegiances. To help address this “communications gap,” the US-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) has launched a series of in the Maghreb to enable youth, civil society, and advocacy organizations to in the political process.

The (WBI), along with the (MENA), recently “brought together government officials and civil society practitioners from Morocco, Jordan and Tunisia to discuss how citizen engagement can contribute to more informed policies; how to develop codes of practice for public consultations; and how to use online tools to facilitate consultations.” The to enable governments to “make informed decisions while creating public trust” by ensuring that the voices most impacted by the policy have been heard and addressed. Moreover, the program supports an inclusive process to ensure that the right players are involved, recognizing that public consultations can be critical “since the government may not have all the solutions at hand.”

This program complements others in the region, such as the , focusing on how more inclusive and transparent communications between governments and citizens can reduce conflict and promote consensus around key development and governance issues. An essential element is training trainers in both government agencies and NGOs on the principles of public consultations as a tool for civic engagement.

While these efforts may be small steps in terms of bringing governments and citizens together, they are critical for directing “street” energy into advocacy tools using outreach technology and e-government to provide better access for people and greater knowledge and awareness for public officials. For the international donor community, there is a lesson here from the Marshall Foundation’s tenets: “Any successful aid program must be driven by the country and not imposed by outside countries or institutions.” When people speak as part of a respectful dialogue and the government listens and acts to credibly engage its citizens, the street will return to being a thoroughfare rather than an avenue of protest and disorder.

*[Note: This article was produced in collaboration with , and represents the views of the author and not the perspectives of the Moroccan American Trade & Investment Center.]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔšĎ’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright ©    . All Rights Reserved

The post Economic Reform: Citizen Participation in the Middle East appeared first on 51łÔšĎ.