Generation Z-OP, North Korea Options, and the Rise of the Alt-Left
Here’s What You Need To Know
Earlier this week, North Korea successfully fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into Japan’s exclusive economic zone. The test puts Alaska in range of a North Korean missile, giving the rogue state the capability to reach U.S. soil for the first time. Although it remains unclear whether North Korea is able to pair the ICBM with a nuclear warhead at this time, the development greatly increases the urgency of this decades-old crisis.
President Trump has pledged a “severe” response to the test, but what options are on the table?
- Double Down On Isolation: Since taking office, President Trump has tried to pressure China, North Korea’s only significant trading partner and aid donor, to cut off ties with the rogue state. However, as the President himself has admitted, this strategy has largely failed. Even if China were to agree to employ greater pressure, it’s unclear that this step would change North Korea’s behavior. The North Korean regime has shown they can endure despite the mass suffering of their people. In the 1990’s, the regime survived a period of famine that cost as many as three million lives.
- A Military Strike: Trump could pre-emptively strike the North Korean weapons program and/or leadership targets. However, military action could result in a North Korean response, likely targeting South Korea and Japan, and putting millions of lives at risk. In 1994, the Clinton Administration considered targeting North Korea’s nuclear reactor, but backed off over concerns of this outcome. Today, North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons means military action may be even more dangerous than in 1994.
- Direct Diplomacy: Like the past three Administrations, Trump could opt to re-engage in direct negotiations with the North Korean regime. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all offered North Korea some form of economic aid and diplomatic recognition, and Trump could put forward a similar arrangement. However, given the nation’s track record and weapons advancement since the last negotiations, the North Koreans may not accept this type of deal, and even if they did, they could continue weapons development anyways.
- De-Escalate Tensions: Another area for potential compromise could be for the U.S. to freeze large-scale military exercises with South Korea in exchange for a North Korean moratorium on nuclear and missile tests. On Tuesday, Russia and China offered a joint statement endorsing a deal along these lines. Although North Korea might be more inclined to accept this arrangement, this move would show the world that the U.S. can be blackmailed into limiting its military support for its allies.
The North Korean threat is amplified at this moment by the missile launch. However, this current crisis is likely to follow a familiar playbook. Both the U.S. and North Korea have far more to gain from a diplomatic resolution than a military clash. After decades of kicking the can down the road, Trump’s best option may be to do so once again. Sadly, that leaves the North Korean people enslaved to a vicious dictator who does not care about their well-being.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
News You Can Use
REFORMING THE BUREAUCRACY
In a recent memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget, the Trump Administration pledged to “make government lean, accountable, and more efficient.” A report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) demonstrates why reforming the federal government workface might be the right focus to achieve this feat. The GAO found that only 0.4 percent of federal government permanent employees were classified as unacceptable or minimally successful, while the rest were deemed fully successful, exceeds fully successful, or outstanding.
Although many employees may be deserving of their rating, it appears unlikely that only a tiny minority of workers were underperforming. Despite this lack of accountability, government workers are paid 17 percent more in combined wages and benefits than their private sector counterparts according to the Congressional Budget Office. These facts suggest if the Administration seeks to make government more efficient, then identifying more honest and accurate ways to evaluate and report the performance of government workers may be a good place start.
Related Posts:
GENERATION Z-OP
Conventional wisdom dictates younger Americans are increasingly liberal, and therefore the country will ultimately shift leftward. However, according to new research, Generation Z (born from 1996 to the present) tends to hold moderate to conservative views on fiscal and security issues. They also attend church at twice the rate of the preceding three generations and have greater trust in their parents, two frequent indicators of a propensity to vote Republican.
These voters value security and safety over other priorities, possibly as a result of coming of age during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, and the following years of tepid economic growth. Generation Z’s more center-right leanings may already be impacting national politics. In 2016, the Democratic Party’s share of the youth vote decreased by 5 points from 2012. These factors mean today’s youth could become key Republican voters, if the GOP is able to develop an inclusive, long-term strategy to make a home for them.
THE RISE OF THE ALT-LEFT
The impact of right-wing media outlets, such as talk radio, Fox News, and Breitbart, has been a focus of great discussion for years. However, McKay Coppins of The Atlantic, describes how the Left has developed its own alternative media landscape. Liberal pages on Twitter and Facebook, blogs, and podcasts have grown in their popularity, creating their own media universe.
Much like their right-wing counterparts, these sources avoid the scrutiny faced by more mainstream outlets and often promote fake or misleading news items. According to an analysis by BuzzFeed, 20 percent of the stories posted by three of the most popular liberal Facebook pages were partly or mostly false. Just as was witnessed by the GOP, this altered media landscape can significantly diminish the influence the Democratic establishment holds over their party and allow for nontraditional candidates gain greater traction.
TRUMP RETURNS TO TRADITION ON MID-EAST POLICY
President Trump’s approach to the presidency may be viewed by some as unorthodox, but Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues the President’s Middle East policy actually falls more in line with U.S. tradition than the last two presidents. Before September 11th, the focus of the U.S. in the Middle East was fostering stability, protecting Israel, and ensuring the free flow of energy. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama departed from this policy by placing the promotion of democracy at the forefront of U.S. efforts.
By aligning the U.S. closer with Sunni and authoritarian states – such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia – and taking a harder line on Iran, Trump has moved the U.S. back to prioritizing its core interests. Trump echoed this outlook when, in his Saudi Arabia speech, he told over 50 Arab and Muslim countries he would not “lecture” them on “how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship.” Now having articulated this change, Trump faces the challenges of altering the paradigms that have been in place for the past sixteen years while avoiding being sucked into the region by unforeseen events.
THE SHORTSIGHTEDNESS OF FUNDRAISING SCARE TACTICS
During the recent Congressional special election in Georgia, failed Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff raised over $20 million in the last three months of the campaign. Some of his record fundraising haul is thanks to the hyperbolic, hysterical emails drafted by the Democratic fundraising firm Mothership Strategies. These emails included subject lines, such as “all hope is lost,” and “TRAGIC END.”
These type of scare tactics are nothing new and have been used by Republicans as well. However, although this “churn-and-burn approach” can be effective in generating donations in the short-term, it runs the risk of exhausting donors for future races. Voters who are oversaturated with hysterical emails are likely to eventually tune them out.