At this very moment, in fact, Oxfam published its latest data on global wealth distribution. It’s another sad rendition of an old theme: the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. Notwithstanding China’s remarkable poverty reduction, the rest of the world’s poor are getting a decreasing share of the economic pie. As a result, Oxfam reports, “the 26 richest billionaires own as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of the planet’s population.” In 2016 it took 61 billionaires to match the wealth of the world’s 50 percent in poverty, and 43 billionaires in 2017.
For the world’s 2,200 billionaires, wealth rose an astounding $2.5 billion a day in 2018. These people—the global one percent—typically take in 27 cents on every dollar of global income growth, compared with 12 cents on the dollar for the global 50 percent. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the real-world consequences of those figures—for example, that “about 10,000 people per day die for lack of healthcare and there were 262 million children not in school, often because their parents were unable to afford the fees, uniforms or textbooks,” according to Oxfam.
But campaigners for a second referendum say it’s the only way to break the logjam.
May says she plans to go back to Brussels after Jan. 29 to seek changes to the deal from EU leaders. The bloc insists that the legally binding, 585-page withdrawal agreement cannot be reopened, though it is more flexible about a non-binding political declaration laying out the framework of future relations between Britain and the bloc.
But EU leaders say they won’t consider any changes until Britain figures out what kind of Brexit it wants.
“I have a terrible sense of deja vu,” EU spokesman Margaritis Schinas said Tuesday, before using the words of the Spice Girls to send a message to British politicians.
Disclosure statement: Steven Reid receives funding from the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the research project described in the article.
Partners: University of Glasgow provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.
Disclosure statement: Bradley W. Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Charges have already been filed against 12 Russian intelligence officers for interfering with the 2016 presidential campaign, as special counsel Robert Mueller continues investigating the extent of the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. A Senate report concluded that the Russians’ interference was aimed at influencing the outcome of the election. If true, the president would not be the first U.S. politician that foreign powers tried to help.
In fact, two campaigns, in 1940 and 1960, featured bold attempts by hostile foreign powers to put their preferred candidates in the Oval Office. While neither was successful, both highlight a vulnerability in the American political system that, for the first time, has become the subject of major public discussion.
The 1940 election took place against this backdrop. For months, President Franklin Roosevelt refused to answer questions about whether he would run for a third term in office. No one knew who might seize the Democratic nomination if FDR choose not to run. There was also no clear candidate who could command national support on the GOP side. The Nazis concluded that if Roosevelt could be replaced by a non-interventionist, the prospects of U.S. involvement in the European war would be greatly reduced.
When war broke out in Europe in 1939, Davis’ fortunes changed as the British imposed a blockade on German ports. He believed the only way to save his business was by personally making peace in Europe by negotiating a deal between the warring parties himself. Calling on his Democratic Party connections, Davis approached the White House with his plan for peace. FDR was sensibly skeptical.
Undeterred, Davis traveled to Germany, met with leaders of the Third Reich including Hermann Göring, and returned with the vague outlines of a deal that would have given Germany territorial gains in exchange for Roosevelt mediating a peace treaty. Roosevelt refused to even meet with Davis upon his return, worried that he might be compromised and acting as a Nazi agent. In fact, there was a secret aspect to Davis’ mission to Germany.
Göring evidently allocated US $5 million to support the plan and stashed it at the German embassy in Washington D.C. for Davis’ use.
Despite the oilman’s confidence, his plan would come to nothing. The Democrats renominated Roosevelt by an overwhelming majority. Lewis never had a chance at the nomination. The Republicans then shocked the world by nominating an interventionist and former Democrat, Wendell Willkie, at a fractious convention.
The U.S. government discovered the extent of Davis’s plot after the war, when a Department of Justice official authored an explosive report about Nazi sympathizers in the United States. The report was buried by President Harry Truman and the plot would not be fully revealed until 1961.
After champagne and caviar, Menshikov presented Stevenson with a stunning message from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev, Menshikov reported, was impressed with Stevenson during their past interactions, particularly during the Soviet leader’s famous visit to the United States in 1959. Even before that, during a 1958 conversation, Khrushchev had told Stevenson that he “voted” for him “in his heart.” Now, Khrushchev hoped to back his feelings with concrete action.
Stevenson rejected the offer out of hand. He told the ambassador the offer was “highly improper, indiscreet and dangerous to all concerned.” He recorded an account of the conversation days later and never spoke of it publicly. The strange episode only came to light in 1977 when Stevenson’s biographer discovered his memorandum detailing the conversation.
Neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were able to sway American politics, and their preferred candidates never came close to the Oval Office. Whatever revelations may yet emerge concerning the current president’s involvement with Russia, it is critical to remember that foreign election manipulation is nothing new and is unlikely to cease. Combating such interference is crucial to the American electorate’s confidence in its own leaders, as Stevenson well knew.