Jason magazine 3

Page 1


US ELECTIONS International peace- and security questions * volume 41 * issue 3 * 2016



JASON Magazine is the periodical of the JASON Institute Chief Editors Rik van Dijk Daniël Stuke

Senior Editors Dana Cohen Rik van Dijk Ilias halbgewachs Daniël Stuke

Editors Giles longley-Cook Emanuel Skoog Contributors Kevin Benning Victor pak niels van de Ven Frans Verhagen Mark de Vries

Special thanks to Wouter Zwart

Design Ervee design & Drukwerk (Ruud van der Vegt) Co-ordination Geschreven en gedrukt (hans van der lee)

Printing Drukkerij noordhoek, Aalsmeer

Executive Board Chairman – Jan Willem Bode Secretary – Cerissa Appelman Treasurer – Floris Duvekot External relations – loesje van leeuwen pR & acquisition – Eline hietbrink Editorial office – Rik van Dijk/Daniël Stuke Events co-ordinator – hanif Moshaver General Board Dr. laurens van Apeldoorn Bart Beltman llM Dr. Francoise de Companjen Col. Marco hekkens, RnlMC (ret.) Bart hogeveen MA, llM Simon Minks MA pim van der putten MA Ms Marjolein de Ridder MA Ms Elsa Schrier MA Capt. niels Woudstra, Rnln

Advisory Board Chairman – Dr. W.F. van Eekelen prof. dr. E. Bakker lt. Gen. Jan Broeks, RnlA Col. M.J.M.S. hekkens, RnlMC (ret.) Cmdre M. hijmans, Rnln prof. dr. J. lindley-French R.D. praaning Ms l.F.M. Sprangers MA A. Baron van lynden

Contents 04 07 10 14 17 20

US Elections

Elections for Dummies Rik van Dijk

US Foreign policy

Straight and Steady? Daniël Stuke

Amerikaanse politiek

Een Democratie zonder Kiezers? Mark de Vries

24 28 31

The ‘Clinton-effect’ on the NATO-US Relationship

Kevin Benning & niels van de Ven Amerikaanse campagne

Een Kijkje bij de Democratische Partij Victor plak

The US and China

The Myth of the Impending Decline of the US as the Global Superpower Emanuel Skoog


neither the JASon Institute nor the JASon Magazine editorial office is responsible for the views expressed in the contributions to this magazine. ISSn 0165-8336

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

EDIToRIAl US presidential Elections and Gender

What the Upcoming Elections Means for Women’s Rights Dana Cohen

American politics and the Media

Elections and Journalism in a Divided America


Dear reader,

As the 2016 US presidential elections reaches their climax, it serves us well to stop for a moment and to think about the implications for the US and for the world at large. After all, as the US is still the most powerful nation on earth and its commander-in-chief arguably the most powerful person, these are probably the most important elections in the world.

our leading article is a crash-course on the American electoral system, which aims to give you all the information you need in order to follow and understand these very important elections. Whether the US is indeed “the world’s greatest democracy” we leave up to you to decide, but be sure to read the article on the problem of democratic legitimacy beforehand.

Rik van Dijk

Amerikaanse politiek

De Grote Flip-Flop van de Amerikaanse Partijen

of course the implications of the elections for US foreign policy are not left unaddressed. one article investigates the impact of previous elections on the nation’s foreign policy in the past, whereas another sets out to analyse what a Clinton presidency could mean for the future of nATo.

Interview met Wouter Zwart

hillary Clinton and nATo

Contact us Kaiserstraat 25 nl-2311 Gn leiden T +31 (0)71 527 79 72 E info@stichtingjason.nl I www.stichtingjason.nl



Frans Verhagen Website pick

Terror is Winning

Gilles longley-Cook

The bigger picture is discussed as well, with the important question: is the US slowly being overtaken by China in its position as the global superpower? In addition, the role of the US in women’s rights across the globe is critically assessed. Also do not forget to read the new column of Frans Verhagen, in which he talks about the curious changes in the electorates of the Democrat and Republican parties.


Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to point you to our exclusive web content. For the past six months, our editors have worked hard to bring you a new and exclusive article on the JASon Institute website every other week. We have selected one of these articles for you to read in this edition of JASon Magazine. please be sure to check out the others as well.


We hope that you will enjoy this latest edition of JASon Magazine, and no matter how the presidential elections plays out, we will of course be there to analyse the fallout, in print as well as online. Rik van Dijk and Daniël Stuke, Chief editors JASON Magazine

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


Elections for Dummies



US Elections

November 8th will be the day of reckoning. The day of the elections in which the ‘world’s greatest democracy’ will decide if America Will Be Great Again or stands With Her. Hillary vs. Trump, the Rumble in the Plastic Voting Booth. All year we have been preparing for this showdown. RIK VAn DIJK


e sat through gruelling primaries and a summer filled with outrageous remarks and political bickering. But before we start this fight, what are actually the rules of the American elections? Here I will provide a crash course on the American electoral system so that JASON readers are armed to the teeth with the right knowledge to understand these oh-so important elections. THE PRESIDENT e President, the man or woman this whole campaign is about. eoretically, every natural-born US citizen who has lived in the United States for 14 years and is 35 or older can become president. If you meet these requirements, the only thing you need to do is fill in Federal Elections Commissions Form 2 and you are officially running for President of the United States You do not need a nationwide party, billions in donations or even one vote. Just a pen and a printer. As with most other things, unfortunately, theory does not work in practice. Because the hard part is getting on the ballot so people can actually tick 40

your box and cast their vote. And because the US, like the EU, is a conglomerate of states, each has their own rules on how to get on their ballot. is can be very problematic for someone without a strong political campaign to support them. For example, in 2012 California required the candidate to hand in 500 autographs from each of its 50 congressional districts to be placed on the ballot by the Californian Secretary of State. One estimate found that Independent presidential hopefuls would need 880,000 signatures to appear on the ballot in every state.1

s Map of the US in 2012 including the number of Electoral College votes of each state.

five general candidates are officially competing. To mobilize their voters and crush their opponent these parties have already raised close to a billion dollars, with the Democrats in the lead with 550 million and the Republicans trailing with 440 million.2 And that these vast political machines dominate the country is clear from the amount of votes they receive. To give a telling example, in the California primary more than a million people voted for Donald Trump and

Independent presidential hopefuls would need 880,000 signatures to appear on the ballot in every state

As a presidential candidate you require a vast political machine to support you in your race. Which is why in the United States the presidential race is in reality only between two parties, even though

more than two million for Hillary Clinton in their respective elections. e leader of the Green Party, Jill Stein, won her primary in California with 11,000 votes. Moreover, only the candidates of

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

the Democrats and the GOP participate in the traditional three live debates. To become President, you need money and manpower, both in startling amounts. at is not to say other parties do not matter in the election. In a very close race, third parties can lure away crucial votes from either of the two major ones. is is called the ‘spoiler-effect’, its most recent example, although also a little unfair, is the Green Party’s candidate Ralph Nader’s success in Florida in 2000, which many believed led to Al Gore’s loss to president Bush in the crucial swing state. What is more, third parties offer a way out for people who are fed up with the traditional two-way divide and feel their issues remain unaddressed. NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT However, voters are not just casting their approval for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or the three other candidates. On November 6th there is a general elections, which means that at the

federal level all seats are up for elections, since Congressmen/women serve a period of two years, and one-third of the Senate seats are open for replacements, as Senators serve six years. Some of these

President and having to fight with Congress for every step of legislation. is is the reason some Republicans deem it wise that their party’s leadership, the Republican National Committee,

elections have already been held. Republican Majority leader Paul Ryan defeated his opponent, a Trump-like businessman, this July. Most run unopposed actually, resulting in an 84% re-elections rate for incumbents. But for a party it is of the utmost importance to do well in all races since a President without a majority Congress of his or her own party will find it very hard to govern, becoming a ‘lame-duck’

spend party funds less on Donald Trump’s elections, which they see as hopeless, and more on securing wins for Republican Congressmen and Senators. Furthermore, on Elections Day in many states citizens also vote in their local authorities, including police commissioners, judges and school boards. e ballot on November 8 is much longer than just the two presidential nominees.

It has happened three times that the candidate with the largest amount of votes nationally did not win the elections

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016



Biography Rik van Dijk is co-editor-in-chief at JASon Magazine and a student of International Relations at leiden University.

The origin of the electoral college dates back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, as an alternative to the idea that Congress should elect the president and Vice-president. Smaller states were afraid that political pandering by the larger states would lead to their control over the presidency. Through the Electoral College states ensured more independence of the presidential office. Currently there are 538 Electoral College votes to be won, meaning that to win a candidate must obtain 270 votes. Should no candidate obtain such an amount, the house of Representatives is authorized to appoint a president, while the Senate chooses the Vice-president. And although such a scenario has never happened. in theory the direct votes of citizens only play an indirect role in the presidential elections.

WHY THE STATES MATTER In the American presidential elections there is one magic number. Unexpectedly this number is not 51. No, it is 270. is is the number of electoral college voters a candidate must obtain in order to become President. Electoral votes are won when a candidate wins the most votes in a state, resulting the amount for electoral votes that state is worth. More populous states are worth more votes than smaller ones, ending up in the winner’s pool. ere are a total of 538 electoral college votes to be won and most states work with a winner-takes-all system. And although the amount of electoral voters per state is derived from its population, it has happened three times that the candidate with the largest amount of votes nationally did not win the elections since he does not have the required 270 elec-toral college votes. Most recently

this was the case in the 2000 elections between Georg W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore. e so-called swing states3, states which have no clear Democratic of Republican affiliation and thus winning them swings the elections to one side or another, are bombarded with political ads, robo-calls, rallies and campaign volunteers fighting for their votes. ese battleground states of which Florida, 29 electoral college votes, and Ohio, 16 votes, are the most famous receive the lion’s share of campaign funds and are crucial in determine who becomes President. CONCLUSION To better equip our readers for understanding the political madness that is raging throughout the United States of America, this crash course has provided some basic information to understanding the upcoming

Straight and Steady?

US Foreign Policy

How changes in presidential administrations have influenced US foreign policy

presidential elections. To understand the role of the elections in US politics, you must understand it is about more than just the presidency. And that while the president will always be a member of either the Democratic or the Republican Party, there are other parties competing that can have a important role to play. Furthermore, it is crucial to pay attention to the states because, contrary to popular belief, it is not the total number of votes but the Electoral College that ultimately decides who becomes President of the United States of America.

t Road Map on how to become president.

With the elections of a new President of the United States, the country’s foreign policy is bound to change as well. Each time a new President is sworn into office, new foreign policy objectives – varying in ambition – are formulated. But how big is the effect of a shift in the country’s administration on its foreign policy really? This article will look at the way changing presidential administrations have impacted US foreign policy in the past. It will argue that a lot more continuity exists between successive administrations than most partisans would care to admit. DAnIEl STUKE


he end of the Cold War is a natural place to start when considering contemporary US foreign policy, as the sudden evaporation of the bipolar order caused a paradigm shift in how the West – and the US in particular – viewed the world. is roughly coincided with the elections into office of a new president; the Republican George H.W. Bush Sr., whose foreign policy objectives thus had to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

A NEW WORLD ORDER e end of Bush Sr.’s first year in office was marked by a historic moment: a meeting between the President of the United States and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, where they discussed the possibilities for cooperation between the two superpowers. is meeting was considered a significant step towards ending the Cold War, and stimulated speculation about the emergence of a so-called “new world order”. While the term was initially used by Gorbachev to describe a post-bipolar world, the idea of the new 60


JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

world order would become central to the foreign policy of the Bush Sr. presidency. e Persian Gulf War led Bush Sr. to define the new world order as an international commitment to law, order and democracy underpinned by the US-Soviet partnership and expressed through the United Nations. e doctrine of containment was officially

PAX AMERICANA When Democrat Bill Clinton assumed the office of President in 1992, his foreign policy had to deal with numerous violent international conflicts. e Clinton administration sought to actively intervene in these conflicts on humanitarian grounds, and did so with varying degrees of success. While acting within the multilateral framework set by the UN and international law, it was

The foreign policy of Clinton was very much a continuation of the course set by Bush Sr.

dead. However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its inability to project power abroad quickly led observers to conclude that the new world order was in fact unipolar, with the US standing unchallenged as the world’s sole superpower.1 e new world order was starting to look suspiciously like a Pax Americana.

ultimately America’s overwhelming military might that made these interventions possible. In this regard, the foreign policy of the Clinton presidency was very much a continuation of the course set by the Bush Sr. administration, in spite of the fact that the two presidents came from

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




US Foreign Policy

opposing political parties. Both presidents were committed to upholding international law, protecting human rights and protecting democracy, and both presidents used the United States’ unique position as the world’s only superpower to achieve this goal. Bush Sr. oversaw the transition to a new world order, but it only came to full fruition under Clinton.

Democrat Barack Obama, who was elected in 2008. e expectations placed in his presidency were high, especially in the area of foreign policy. Important foreign policy themes in his elections campaign were the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a return to multilateralism. Obama’s foreign policy thus promised to correct the mistakes of the Bush Jr. years.

THE BUSH DOCTRINE e elections into office of George W. Bush Jr. in 2000 promised a reduction in US military engagements around the world. While this was a departure from the foreign policy of his predecessor, the drastic changes the Bush Jr. Presidency would ultimately bring could not yet be predicted immediately after his elections. is was because the foreign policy of the Bush Jr. administration would be profoundly shaped by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that shocked his country in the first year of his

After two terms in office, the conclusion has to be that President Obama has largely succeeded in this goal. Although the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has s George H.W. Bush Sr. and Mikhail Gorbachev at the Helsinki Summit in 1990.

but it abandoned the idea of multilateral action pursued by both George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, instead favouring unilateral action by the US against its enemies; the US under Bush Jr. no longer considered a UN mandate a

The Bush Doctrine was a radical break with the foreign policy of his predecessors

presidency. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Doctrine was formulated. is foreign policy doctrine, which held that the US had the right to pre-emptively defend itself against terrorist organizations and countries that harboured or supported these organizations, was a radical break with the foreign policy of his predecessors. Not only did the Bush Doctrine contradict international law,

problems of pre-emptive military engagement and ignoring the framework of international law, but American foreign policy experts also lamented the sudden dissipation of international goodwill that resulted from the US’ unilateral action. In terms of ethics as well as interests, the foreign policy of the two Bush Jr. administrations was widely considered a disaster.2 CHANGE DUE If there ever was a US President that promised change, it had to be the

necessary prerequisite to military engagement. Moreover, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the first time since the end of the Cold War that the US went to war not on humanitarian grounds, but purely out of perceived geopolitical interests. Bush Jr.’s foreign policy was widely criticised, domestically as well as abroad. Criticism focused mostly on the ethical

t Barack Obama, George Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton conversing in the White House Oval Office.


JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

The Bush Doctrine was as divisive among academics in International Relations as it was among the general public. It was heavily criticised by the so-called realist school, proponents of which went on the offensive against neoconservative ideology during the war in Iraq. Well-known realist John Mearsheimer characterized neoconservatism as “Wilsonianism with teeth”6, in other words: idealism supported by military power. The idealism is found in the neocons’ conviction that the international domain can be divided into “good” democratic states and “evil” non-democratic states, and that the former had a moral obligation to destroy the latter. Realists do not believe in this distinction: in their view, all states strive for power and are liable to do ruthless things pursuing it. Moreover, the belief of neoconservatives that overwhelming military power can scare countries into submission is deemed plainly wrong by realists, who state that countries tend to balance against military power.

Biography Daniël Stuke is editor-in-chief of JASon Magazine and has a Bachelor’s degree in political Science. he specializes in issues relating to international relations and security, but likes to write about any topic as long as it provides food for thought.

A STEADY COURSE? is is an important point. Several foreign policy analysts have placed significant emphasis on the general continuity of US foreign policy across different presidencies.3 In this reading, US foreign policy is decided through a mix of idealism and calculating realism. e latter is the more important factor, and this holds true for the presidency of Obama as much as for those of Bush Sr. and Clinton: his foreign policy was determined by alliances of convenience in pursuit of national interests more so

US foreign policy is usually decided through a mix of idealism and calculating realism

been a disaster and withdrawal from Afghanistan remains problematic, Obama has not engaged in any new illadvised conflicts, and he has managed to restore a bit of the international goodwill Bush Jr. had managed to squander. Looking at the bigger picture though, his presidency seems more like a return to the foreign policy style of Bush Sr. and Clinton than a wholly new course.

than by anything else.4 In that sense, the two Bush Jr. administrations might be considered an anomaly, in that they abandoned calculating realism in favour of an ideologically determined foreign policy5, which was the combined result of the political climate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the sudden preponderance of neocon ideology among Republicans.

t American soldiers on patrol in Iraq during the second Bush Jr. Administration.

In sum, the elections of a new President of the United States more often than not has had an underwhelming effect on the foreign policy course of the country, and only in unusual circumstances have Presidents deviated from this course. Does this mean we should expect more of the same with the next President? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. With Hillary Clinton, this is of course a fairly safe bet. Not only is she from the same political party as President Obama, but she was also secretary of state in his first administration and she shares many of his views. She would likely continue on a course similar to those of George Bush Sr., her husband Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Donald Trump on the other hand, is a wildcard. His ideas are less than coherent, and he does tend to represent himself as a challenge to the status quo, which could herald another course change in American foreign policy if he is elected. You can read about the foreign policy agendas of both presidential candidates as well as predictions regarding their presidency in the other articles in this magazine.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


Een Democratie zonder Kiezers?



Amerikaanse politiek

Waarom Amerika zo’n lage verkiezingsopkomst kent en wat dit betekent voor de democratische legitimiteit. MARK lEon DE VRIES



Het is natuurlijk makkelijk om dergelijke borstklopperij af te doen als een evidente cirkelredenering en een staaltje ideologische propaganda. Er zijn talloze facetten van het Amerikaanse politieke bestel die zich immers moeizaam verhouden tot breed gedeelde idealen van democratie - zoals de

probleem is echter de schijnbare politieke desinteresse van de kiezers, die zich weerspiegelt in de lage opkomstcijfers bij verkiezingen. Hoe democratisch is een land waar grote delen van het electoraat niet de moeite nemen op te komen dagen om te stemmen? En waarom zijn zoveel

het onwrikbare geloof dat Amerika van een fundamenteel andere – en bovendien superieure – orde is

disproportionele invloed van grote geldschieters, of het strategisch indelen van kiesdistricten om de herverkiezing van zittende politici veilig te stellen. Dergelijke kritiek raakt vooral de rol van gevestigde elites, die hun macht en invloed gebruiken om de eigen positie veilig te stellen. Een minstens zo groot

mensen eigenlijk niet bereid of gemotiveerd om gebruik te maken van een politiek voorrecht waar in de geschiedenis zo hard om is gestreden? Het is verleidelijk de lage opkomst te analyseren als het gevolg van diepgewortelde politieke attitudes onder de

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

Alvorens wij kijken naar de oorzaken van de lage opkomst in de VS kijken, is het goed om eerst de schaal van het probleem te definiëren.1 Wat zijn de opkomstcijfers in de VS en hoe verhouden deze zich tot wat wij in Nederland gewend zijn? Voor de vierjaarlijkse presidentverkiezingen schommelt de opkomst sinds het begin van de twintigste eeuw tussen de 50% en de 65% (met een absoluut dieptepunt van nog geen 49% in 1924). Hoewel er in de jaren 80 en 90 sprake leek van een neerwaartse trend, is deze sinds de eeuwwisseling gekeerd en was de opkomst in 2004 en 2008 (ruim 60%) de hoogste in decennia. Bij de tussentijdse Congresverkiezingen is de opkomst zelfs lager – de 40% wordt vaak niet gehaald en voor een opkomst van meer dan 50% moeten wij terug naar 1912. De opkomst in Nederland ligt, ter vergelijking, stukken hoger. Bij verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer komt die zelden onder de 75% en bij verkiezingen voor de gemeenteraden ligt die nog altijd boven de 50%, vergelijkbaar dus met een matige opkomst bij Amerikaanse presidentsverkiezingen. Om de lage opkomst te verklaren, dienen wij stemmen niet alleen te beschouwen als een abstracte, politieke daad, maar ook als een praktische Rij voor het stembureau in Brooklyn in 2008.


n zijn tweede inaugurele rede uit 1997 bestempelde Bill Clinton de Verenigde Staten als “the world’s greatest democracy”. Sindsdien is deze frase tot het standaardrepertoire gaan behoren van Amerikaanse politici en commentatoren. Europeanen kijken wellicht raar op bij deze Amerikaanse behoefte om van democratie een competitieve sport te maken. ‘Democratie’ is immers niet iets wat je eenvoudig kunt meten en tussen landen die algemeen als (relatief ) democratisch bekend staan, zijn er grote verschillen in institutionele regels die deze vorm geven. De tendens om het eigen politieke systeem als het allerbeste te bestempelen, past echter naadloos in de Amerikaanse ideologie van ‘exceptionalisme’, het onwrikbare geloof dat Amerika niet alleen anders is dan andere landen, maar van een fundamenteel andere – en bovendien superieure – orde. Bezien vanuit dit perspectief is het land niet de ‘greatest democracy’ omdat Amerika zo bijzonder democratisch is, maar simpelweg omdat hun democratie zo bijzonder Amerikaans is.

bevolking. Zo interpreteren sommige optimistische politicologen de lage opkomst als een vorm van impliciete instemming met het bestaande stelsel en beleid. Burgers realiseren zich dat zij de mogelijkheid hebben om andere machthebbers te kiezen, maar doen dit niet omdat ze grosso modo tevreden zijn met de status quo. Veel vaker gehoord, is de conclusie dat de lage opkomst het gevolg is van politieke apathie bij kiezers die de bestaande instituties en partijen wantrouwen en dus weinig heil zien in het nastreven van verandering binnen de regels van het bestel. Ongetwijfeld dragen dergelijke principiële overwegingen bij aan het stemgedrag. In de Amerikaanse context spelen echter vooral ook veel meer pragmatische en alledaagse factoren een belangrijke rol bij het bepalen van de opkomst. Sommige van deze oorzaken zijn intrinsiek verweven met de geldende regels van de democratie in de VS, maar andere zijn doelbewuste pogingen van politici en belangengroepen om bepaalde groepen stemmers te ontmoedigen.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




Amerikaanse politiek

handeling, die concurreert met de vele andere activiteiten waar mensen hun tijd en aandacht aan kunnen besteden. Zo bezien is de keuze om te gaan stemmen een – deels onbewuste – afweging die wordt gemaakt tussen de ‘kosten’ die de activiteit met zich meebrengt en de verwachte ‘opbrengst’ die het oplevert. Wat zijn, om met dat laatste te beginnen, de ‘opbrengsten’ die een individuele stemmer kan verwachten? Allereerst is dat natuurlijk een bijdrage in de politieke besluitvorming, in meest letterlijke zin een kans om je ‘stem’ te laten gelden. Hier, echter, doet zich in Amerika al de eerste moeilijkheid voor. Als gevolg van het ‘winner-takes-all’ principe hebben veel mensen het gevoel dat hun stem helemaal niet meetelt. Met name in staten (of kiesdistricten) die niet of nauwelijks competitief zijn, zien veel mensen stemmen als verspilde moeite.

vriendenkring politiek geëngageerd is en naar de stembus gaat, dan is de sociale druk om ook te stemmen relatief groot. Dit is één van de belangrijkste verklaringen voor de vaak extreem lage opkomstcijfers onder recente migrantenpopulaties en hun kinderen. Zij hebben niet van huis uit gewoonte om te stemmen en anderen in hun sociale omgeving veelal ook niet. Waar tweede en derde generatie migrantenkinderen in het verleden via burgerschapslessen op de middelbare school gesocialiseerd werden in de gangbare democratische normen, zijn deze lessen sinds de jaren zeventig op grote schaal wegbezuinigd, waardoor met name onder Latino’s en Aziatische migranten de opkomst sterk achterblijft. Deze bevolkingsgroepen zijn ook nog eens geconcentreerd in staten die weinig competitief zijn, waardoor het alleen nog maar lastiger wordt om hen te mobiliseren.

Staten waar de twee grote partijen relatief dicht bij elkaar liggen kennen een hoge opkomst

In ‘diepblauwe’ of ‘donkerrode’ staten en districten, staat de winnaar immers op voorhand al vast. Ook voeren de kandidaten nauwelijks campagne in dergelijke staten, waardoor de kiezers ook niet geactiveerd worden. Dit ontmoedigende effect blijkt bovendien sterker te zijn bij diegenen die als ze zouden stemmen, zouden kiezen voor de verliezende partij, waardoor de uitslag in deze staten alleen maar nog eenzijdiger wordt. Dit verklaart waarom de opkomst in de grote staten New York, Texas en Californië – samen goed voor bijna een kwart van de kiesgerechtigden in Amerika - ruim onder het landelijke gemiddelde ligt. Staten waar de twee grote partijen relatief dicht bij elkaar liggen, zoals Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia en Colorado kennen daarentegen juist een opkomst die ruim boven het landelijke gemiddelde zit. Stemmen is natuurlijk geen primair instinct, maar is, zoals alle sociaal gedrag, aangeleerd. Daarom is de sociale context waarin iemand is opgegroeid en leeft van grote invloed op de bereidheid om naar de stembus te gaan. Eén van de belangrijkste voorspellers of iemand regelmatig stemt is of diegene ouders heeft die stemmen en hun kinderen ook meenamen naar de stembus. Naast opvoeding speelt ook de huidige sociale Umwelt bovendien een belangrijke rol. Als jouw directe familie- en 120

Minstens zo belangrijk als de motivatie om überhaupt te willen stemmen, zijn de obstakels die men treft om de intentie om te zetten in actie. Voor Nederlanders is stemmen een haast moeiteloze – en daarom ook veelal vanzelfsprekende – onderneming. De stemkaart valt enkele weken voor de verkiezing in de bus en op de verkiezingsdag zelf zijn er talloze stembureaus waar meestal in een mum van tijd gestemd kan worden. In Amerika daarentegen, moet de kiezer door een flink aantal hoepels springen voordat hij of zij een stem kan uitbrengen. Zo is het uitbrengen van de stem een administratieve tweetrapsraket, waarbij niet alleen op de verkiezingsdag zelf gestemd moet worden, maar potentiële kiezers zichzelf ook vooraf als kiezer moeten registreren. Zoals veel regelgeving rondom de verkiezingen, verschillen de regels voor registratie sterk per staat. In sommige staten is het Summary American politicians are keen to claim that they represent the ‘greatest democracy on earth’. But these claims of greatness do not live up to the everyday reality of its voting system. Most importantly, many Americans feel obstructed by the current system which leads to political discontent.

mogelijk om via een eenvoudig online formulier te registreren, maar in anderen moet dit via de post of in persoon. Soms kan registratie plaatsvinden tot op de verkiezingsdag, maar elders moet het soms tot 30 dagen van tevoren al gebeuren. Het zal niet verbazen dat hoe strenger de regels, hoe groter het aantal mensen dat zich niet of niet op tijd laat registreren, ook al zouden zij in principe graag stemmen. Ook de regelgeving en organisatie omtrent verkiezingen zelf verschilt sterk per staat. Zo mag in sommige staten ook ruim voor de officiële verkiezingen gestemd worden, waar dat elders uitsluitend op de dag zelf is toegestaan. Ook het aantal beschikbare stembureaus kan sterk per staat verschillen en soms zelfs per kiesdistrict binnen een staat. Districten zijn vaak afhankelijk van lokale financiering en in armere districten zijn er dan veel minder stembureaus beschikbaar, waardoor mensen langer moeten reizen en soms uren in de rij moeten staan om te kunnen stemmen. Deze administratieve en praktische hobbels zijn bovendien niet politiek neutraal. Lager opgeleide en armere burgers zullen zich eerder laten weerhouden, omdat ze de regelgeving niet goed snappen of eenvoudigweg niet de tijd en middelen hebben die nodig is om alle stappen te doorlopen. Hetzelfde geldt voor recente migrantengroepen, met name Latino’s en Aziaten, die per definitie nog niet geregistreerd zijn en niet kunnen rekenen op de ervaring van ouders of familie om de regelgeving uit te leggen. Dit zijn nu juist de groepen die in overgrote meerderheid op de Democratische partij stemmen, terwijl Republikeinen vooral steun genieten bij groepen voor wie deze hobbels veel minder onoverkomelijk zijn.

In sommige staten geven lokale parlementsleden toe dat de maatregelen bedoeld zijn om minderheden bij de stembus weg te houden lokale parlementsleden expliciet toegegeven dat de maatregelen bedoeld zijn om minderheden bij de stembus weg te houden en federale rechtbanken hebben dergelijke regelgeving in veel gevallen ongedaan gemaakt. Zo bezien is het niet zo verwonderlijk dat maar een krappe meerderheid van de potentiële kiezers de moeite neemt om op te komen dagen voor misschien wel de belangrijkste verkiezingen ter wereld en bij tussentijdse verkiezingen nog een stuk minder. Registratie en kiezen kunnen behoorlijk tijdrovende klussen zijn en als de uitkomst in jouw district of staat toch eigenlijk al vast staat, lijkt dat al snel overbodige moeite. Daarmee is de lage opkomst niet zozeer het gevolg van een diepgeworteld wantrouwen in het huidige politieke bestel, maar eerder één van de oorzaken ervan. Veel kiezers

hebben terecht het gevoel dat nar de stembus gaan hen bewust moeilijk wordt gemaakt en dat hun keuze er uiteindelijk toch weinig toe zal doen. De politisering van de kiesregels door met name de Republikeinen versterkt het gevoel dat stemmen niet zozeer een basisrecht is, maar een privilege. In plaats van om het hardst te roepen dat Amerika de geweldigste democratie op aarde is, zouden politici van beide partijen zich moeten buigen over hervormingen die participatie eenvoudiger maken en alle stemmen ook daadwerkelijk even zwaar laten tellen. Daarvoor zal de huidige polarisatie echter overwonnen moeten worden, en laat het huidige bestel dat nu juist onwaarschijnlijk maken.

Biography Dr. Mark leon de Vries is a postdoctoral researcher and Assistant professor at the history Department of Universiteit leiden. he has taught on a wide variety of topics including contemporary European history, the American Civil War Era, and American politics.

t Cartoon over barrières om te kunnen stemmen.

De politieke partijen, die rechtstreeks of via de lokale politiek, in de meeste staten verantwoordelijk zijn voor de organisatie en regelgeving rond verkiezingen maken hier handig gebruik van. In staten en districten waar Republikeinen een meerderheid hebben, worden de regels rondom registratie en stemmen steeds verder aangescherpt en wel zo dat juist sociaal zwakkere groepen hier de dupe van zijn. Zo worden openingstijden van registratiekantoren en stembureaus beperkt, de legitimatie-eisen aangescherpt en eerder geregistreerde kiezers om onduidelijke redenen uit de boeken geschrapt. Republikeinen beweren dat dit noodzakelijk is om fraude tegen te gaan, maar voor het bestaan van dergelijk fraude ontbreekt ieder bewijs. In sommige staten hebben

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


The ‘Clintonr Effect’ on the nATo-US R elationship



Hillary Clinton and NATO

The US elections of November 8th will undoubtedly be closely watched. The consequences of the elections will not only be felt by the inhabitants of the US itself, but also by countries, organizations and people from all over the globe. One organization which could experience enormous consequences from the elections is NATO. This article will highlight the consequences the possible elections of Hillary Clinton could have on NATO. What would her elections mean for the capabilities of NATO and for NATO’s already agitated relationship with Russia? KEVIn BEnnInG AnD nIElS VAn DE VEn


rump’s remarks on possibly abandoning NATO members in the event of an attack shocked people and press from all around the globe. Since then, Trump’s vision on NATO has been

highlighted intensively and his view on the organisation has changed an equal number of times. Clinton’s view on NATO has however been far less highlighted, while she could also make a huge impact on NATO. e US is, by

t Then-Secretary of State Clinton in discussion with President Obama in 2009.

far, NATO’s most important contributor, both financially as well as in terms of (man)power. erefore, a change in leadership could have far-reaching consequences for the strength and leverage of NATO and its members. Assuming Hillary Clinton is elected as the next US president how would this affect NATO? To answer that question, we must first look at the relationship between NATO and the USA during the Obama administrations. e

Clinton labels her foreign policy as a hybrid between realism and idealism

relationship between NATO and the Obama administrations saw some small struggles, especially when Obama decided not to meet secretary general Volker when Russia was trying to destabilize the Baltic States by moving troops along the border. is led to suggestions that Obama didn’t find NATO as important as his predecessor, 140

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

s Flag of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

George W. Bush. In a response, Obama ensured his allies that NATO, and therefore America’s allies in Europe, can always count on the US if necessary. Obama fulfilled his promise by strengthening Europe’s defence with American troops in Poland and multinational NATO-troops in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Stoltenberg stated that it was ‘the biggest reinforcement to our collective defence in a generation.’ RUSSIAN TENSIONS e main issue at this moment is the relationship between NATO and the Russian Federation. During Obama’s presidency the relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation has drastically declined. e same goes for the relationship between Russia and NATO. During the NATO

summit in Warsaw in July, several plans were revealed that could anger Europe’s largest eastern neighbour. Some important decisions of the summit were1: – NATO will deploy military forces in the Baltic states and eastern Poland to deter Russia; – NATO will help Kiev in modernizing its armed forces; – NATO reaffirmed commitment to a mixture of convention of nuclear forces, indirectly warning Russia; – NATO took command of a US-built missile shield in Europe against Iranian missiles; – NATO and the European Union signed a cooperation pact aimed to

Another Cold war is, according to Clinton, up to Putin4. Moreover, the call for a tougher response to Russia’s actions in not only Ukraine, but also for example Syria, is likely to upset Russia5. erefore, the elections of Clinton could possibly lead to a bigger show of force with for example exercises in the Eastern European states by NATO forces. A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP? is would be an asset for the European NATO members as Clinton, in contrast to Trump, is willing to invest time, finances and armed forces. Trump has said many times that it is time for the European members to invest and ‘split

The main issue at this moment is the relationship between nATo and the Russian Federation

work together in areas ranging from maritime patrols to preventing possible Russian cyber attacks e relationship between NATO and Russia will likely further decline if Hillary Clinton becomes the next USPresident. Clinton has a highly negative opinion about the Russian Federation and its Leader, Vladimir Putin2. She has verbally attacked Russia and Vladimir Putin several times; in 2014 she compared Putin’s actions to those of Hitler, after Russia invaded Crimea3.

hillary Clinton’s view on nATo is very much in line with that of her husband, Bill. During his presidency (1993-2001) Clinton proved himself to be a strong patron of nATo as well as of nATo’s eastern enlargement, to “advance the security of everyone,” also stating that that the expansion cannot be made “on the cheap.” he added to this: “Enlargement will mean extending the most solemn security guarantees to our allies – a new commitment to treat an attack on one as an attack on all”9. Just as his wife, Bill Clinton’s views on nATo made him clash with Russia, as he clearly stated that Russia had no say in whether or not nATo would expand into the former USSR.

the bill’6. In a speech at Stanford University on March 23, Clinton stated that NATO is one of the best investments America has ever made; from the Balkans to Afghanistan and beyond, NATO allies have fought alongside the United States, sharing the burdens and the sacrifices7. Mrs. Clinton has said that leaving NATO would only embolden Moscow. She has praised the existence of the alliance and said the US should do more to strengthen allies, particularly against Russian aggression. She has said the US’ involvement with NATO serves US interests by enhancing relationships with European countries and creating a large block of opposition to Russian expansion. She has said that NATO allies rallied to the US’ assistance after the 9/11 terror attacks, and that the US should be prepared to do the same, aiming at the shared common interests. Although many experts agree that NATO is over-reliant on the United States when it comes to the provision of

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016



Hillary Clinton and NATO Summary hillary Clinton and Donald Trump go head to head in polls as the United States presidential elections reach their climax. What will be the consequences for nATo if hillary Clinton is elected? What are her views and opinions on nATo, how does she view international relations and what is her opinion about nATo’s current antagonist, Vladimir putin? What would her elections mean for the capabilities of nATo and for nATo’s already agitated relationship with Russia?

essential capabilities such as surveillance, intelligence and defensive capabilities, it would be better for the European NATO-members to have this discussion under a Clinton presidency than under a Trump presidency. Clinton is more willing to invest than Trump is and possibly more patient with balancing the financial burden of indirect costs of NATO operations. e costs of running NATO as an organization are evenly spread, as every member state is required to pay 2 percent of its GDP. But the over-reliance of NATO on the US for conducting missions results in higher indirect costs. Looking at NATOexpenditures including these indirect costs the United States pays 73%, while looking at direct funding the US ‘only’ pays 22%. REALISM AND IDEALISM When it comes to International

Biography Kevin Benning is currently a final-year BSc political Science student at the VU University in Amsterdam. niels van de Ven is studying a MSc in International Relations & Diplomacy at the University of Antwerp.

Relations theory, Clinton labels her foreign policy as a hybrid between realism and idealism. She states that the United States should operate from a position of strength. is implies that the US should have the lead in difficult cases such as Syria; ‘If the United States does not lead, there is not another leader. ere is a vacuum. And we have to lead, if we’re going to be successful.’8 On the other hand she advocates human rights, as she stated in her book ‘Hard Choices’: ‘No one should have any illusions about the gravity of the security threats America faces, and as Secretary I had no higher responsibility than to protect our citizens and our country. But at the same time, upholding universal values and human rights is at the core of what it means to be American. If we sacrifice those values or let our policies diverge too far from our ideals, our influence will wane.’

The elections of Clinton could possibly lead to a bigger show of force

CONCLUSION From a NATO perspective, the elections of Hillary Clinton would be one of great significance. While her current political opponent mostly flourishes on oneliners, changing his opinion and ruining

diplomatic relationships, she values the cooperation between the many members, has a lot of experience and knowledge about foreign affairs and is also willing to invest in it. is means that the current over-reliance of NATO on the United States as the most important member state will not change very rapidly. Clinton is likely to have more patience with balancing the NATO-budget and will show more commitment in taking a leading role than her predecessor Barack Obama.

t US Army Europe conducting exercises.

Een Kijkje bij de Democratische partij Amerikaanse campagne

Een verloren gewaande e-mail hier, een nog hogere muur daar. De presidentschapsverkiezingen van 2016 lijken in het teken van schandalen te staan. Donald J. Trump is de meest absurde Amerikaan sinds de eerste kolonisten voet aan wal zetten. Hillary Clinton lijkt de prinses die eindelijk een kroon op haar levenswerk kan zetten. Vanuit Nederland hebben we veel aandacht voor deze karikaturen die ook bij de Amerikanen weerklank vinden. Volgens peilingen zijn beide kandidaten de minst geliefde kandidaten ooit. De weerzin om te stemmen lijkt nog nooit zo hoog te zijn geweest. Dat weerhoudt het politieke circus er echter niet van om op volle toeren te draaien, want achter deze karikaturen gaat veel meer schuil. VICToR pAK


p 8 november kiest Amerika niet alleen een nieuwe president, maar ook nieuwe senatoren en een geheel nieuw huis van afgevaardigden. Daarnaast staan ook nog eens een aantal lokale referenda op het stembiljet, de keuze voor nieuwe openbare aanklagers en de volksvertegenwoordiging op statelijk niveau. Zo’n massale verkiezingen zou in Nederland vergelijkbaar zijn met het tegelijkertijd kiezen van een nieuwe Koning, Tweede Kamer, Eerste Kamer, Provinciale Staten, Waterschapsraden, het Oekraïnereferendum plus de verversing van de gehele rechterlijke macht. Toch hebben de meeste Amerikanen weinig zin om hun stem te laten horen. Sinds 1916 was de opkomst nooit hoger dan bij de verkiezing van John F. Kennedy. 63,8 procent van de kiezers was


JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


enthousiast genoeg om zijn stem te uiten. Het lage opkomstpercentage bij verkiezingen in de Verenigde Staten kent vele oorzaken. Kiezers zijn onder andere niet overal automatisch geregistreerd en één op de tien Amerikanen zou het geen zier kunnen schelen wie het land bestuurt. Een minder voor de hand liggende

van die vrijwilligers ben ik er één. Sinds begin juli werk ik in Denver, Colorado, bij de Democratische Partij. Als net afgestudeerd politicoloog geeft het een geweldig inkijkje in een totaal andere wereld van politiek.

verklaring is dat de gemiddelde Amerikaan langzamerhand gek wordt van het politieke circus. Al maanden worden ze lastiggevallen door vrijwilligers in parken, bij de ingang van de supermarkt of aan de telefoon. En

De bekende Swing States. Dit zijn de staten die iedere presidentsverkiezing wisselen, oftewel swingen, tussen de twee partijen. Colorado is een van de nieuwste Swing States. In 1992 stemde Colorado voor de Democraat

Om de presidentsverkiezingen te winnen zijn slechts een aantal staten belangrijk.

Er is geen baan waar je vaker op een dag wordt afgewezen, maar iedere geregistreerde kiezer telt mee

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




Amerikaanse campagne om potentiele kiezers te spreken en uit te nodigen voor het evenement. VRIJWILLIGERS ZIJN GOUD WAARD De gecoördineerde campagne bepaalt wie wij bellen en wanneer Hillary de staat bezoekt. Die beslissingen worden genomen in het campagne hoofdkantoor in Brooklyn, New York. Whizzkids die in datateams de demografische gegevens van iedere vierkant meter in het land kennen proberen zo goed mogelijk te bepalen wie een goed doelwit is om een belletje te geven of welke tactiek in welke Swing State het beste werkt. In het hoofdkantoor vindt de hogere politicologische wiskunde plaats.

s Hillary Clinton op campagne in Colorado.

Bill Clinton, daarna zou het tot 2008 duren voor een andere Democraat, Barack Obama, de staat won. Colorado is in zekere zin een soort Amerika in het klein. De grote stad Denver is overweldigend Democratisch,

de grond gestampt met ruim 700 personeelsleden. Hillary voert een ‘gecoör-dineerde’ campagne in tegenstelling tot Donald Trump. Dat houdt in dat zij probeert Democraten van boven tot onder op het stembiljet verkozen te krijgen. In Colorado houdt

Zo’n massale verkiezingen zou in nederland vergelijkbaar zijn met het tegelijkertijd kiezen van een nieuwe Koning, Tweede Kamer, Eerste Kamer, provinciale Staten, Waterschapsraden, het oekraïnereferendum plus de verversing van de gehele rechterlijke macht

de rurale gebieden zijn juist Republikeins. De negen kiesmannen die Colorado waard is lijkt een kleine buit – Californië is met 55 kiesmannen de grootste buit – maar deze negen kiesmannen tilden Obama zowel in 2008 als 2012 over de kiesdrempel van 270 kiesmannen die nodig zijn om in het Witte Huis te belanden. Voor de Democraten is er dus veel aangelegen om Colorado zijn blauwe kleur te laten behouden. Om dat voor elkaar te krijgen is er de afgelopen maanden een, voor Nederlandse begrippen, gigantische organisatie uit 180

dat in dat er ook voor senator Michael Bennet en de betreffende congresleden campagne wordt gevoerd, tegelijkertijd met de campagne voor Hillary.

Voor Colorado houdt dat in dat er een grote drang is om kiezers te regristeren. Dat gebeurt in deze staat niet automatisch. Gebleken is dat nieuw geregisterde kiezers of kiezers die hun registratie verversen vaker democraten blijken te zijn. Een correcte registratie voor een kiezer is van levensbelang, vandaar de druk om zoveel mogelijk kiezers te registeren of hun registratie te laten updaten. Stemmen in Colorado gaat niet alleen via het stemhokje op 8 november. Al vanaf 17 oktober worden de stembiljetten naar kiezers per post verstuurd. Vanaf dan kunnen kiezers het ingevulde stembiljet ook weer terugsturen per post en zijn de stembussen als het ware geopend. Tot 17 oktober loop je rond in parken, sta je voor supermarkten of bij grote evenementen en stel je iedereen een simpele vraag: “Ben je geregistreerd als kiezer?” Er is geen baan waar je vaker op een dag wordt afgewezen, maar iedere geregistreerde kiezer telt mee. Om al die kiezers te registreren en Hillary van de winst te verzekeren is er die gigantische organisatie. Sinds de voorverkiezingen is daaraan gebouwd en met de nominatie op zak is de organisatie verder

Hillary blijft natuurlijk het klapstuk van de campagne. Dat is te merken als zij de staat bezoekt. Een week voor het moment daar is proberen wij als organisatie zoveel mogelijk mensen uit te nodigen. Honderden belletjes per dag per persoon, de zaal moet natuurlijk wel gevuld zijn straks. Tot negen uur ’s avonds is het toegestaan mensen te bellen. Tot die tijd draai je razendsnel nieuwe telefoonnummers JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

uitgebreid. Door de gehele staat zijn kleine kantoortjes van de campagne te vinden. Zelfs leegstaande huizen worden afgehuurd om als kantoor te fungeren. Binnen in die kantoortjes vindt het ‘grassroots-organizing’ plaats. Ongeveer vijf tot tien man betaalde staf per kantoor organiseert het gebied waar dat kantoor voor verantwoordelijk is zo goed mogelijk. Ieder staflid is verantwoordelijk voor een gebied met ongeveer 50.000 inwoners. Soms wonen die in een gebied van een paar woonwijken, maar dat kunnen ook gehele steden zijn afhankelijk van het aantal inwoners. Om die gebieden in je eentje te organiseren lijkt een haast ondoenlijke taak en daar komt de hulp van de

Zonder die data is het onmogelijk om vrijwilligers te werven, en zonder vrijwilligers is het onmogelijk de verkiezingen te winnen. Amerikanen zijn een stuk gemakkelijker bereidt om één a twee uur, maar soms ook hele dagen per week te besteden aan de campagne. Veel meer dan kiezers registreren en helpen te bellen om meer vrijwilligers te rekruteren is er niet te doen qua inhoudelijk werk. De belangrijkste strategische beslissingen worden namelijk in Brooklyn of hoofdkantoren in iedere staat, maar vrijwilligers zijn de sleutel tot de overwinning. Zij voeren namelijk het

Vrijwilligers zijn de sleutel tot de overwinning. Zij voeren namelijk het echte werk uit; de talloze telefoontjes om mensen om hun voorkeur te peilen en te vragen of ze ook willen meehelpen aan de campagne en zij gaan op pad om kiezers te registreren

whizzkids bij kijken. Zij bepalen welke huishoudens het gemakkelijkst overgehaald kunnen worden om als vrijwilliger aan de slag te gaan voor de campagne. Dankzij die data kunnen wij iedere dag de talloze mensen bestoken met onze verzoeken. Onze taak is dus

Biography Victor pak is a recently graduated political science major from the Universiteit leiden and has a keen interest in US politics.

slechts het uitvoeren wat hogerop in de organisatie wordt bedacht.

echte werk uit; de talloze telefoontjes om mensen om hun voorkeur te peilen en te vragen of ze ook willen meehelpen aan de campagne en zij gaan op pad om kiezers te registreren. Daarnaast stellen zij soms letterlijk hun huis open om stafleden op te vangen die van Alabama

tot Californië naar Colorado zijn gekomen om te werken voor de campagne, of om gezamenlijk naar een speech van Hillary te kijken. CONCLUSIE Het is een bereidwilligheid en gemeenschapszin die in Nederland ongekend is. Stel je voor iedere week een partij aan de lijn te hebben of je alsjeblieft kan meehelpen bij de campagnes van Mark Rutte, Jesse Klaver of Alexander Pechtold zodat hun partijen in maart 2017 de grootste worden bij de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen. In Nederland denken we dat het alleen maar weerzin oproept. In Amerika weten ze dat het de opkomst met minimaal een procent verhoogt in het voordeel van de eigen kandidaat. En dat kan zomaar eens het verschil tussen winst en verlies kunnen zijn op 8 november.

t Vrijwilligers voor de Hillary Clinton campagne in Colorado.

Summary Victor pak, a recently graduated student of political science at leiden University, worked as a volunteer for the hillary Clinton campaign this summer. For JASon he provides us with insights on campaigning in the United States, political strategy and his own experiences.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


The Myth of t he Impending Decliner of the US as the Globa l Superpower



The US and China

Ever since the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the international political system has been characterized by the United States (US) as the singular global superpower. But is its position coming to a termination? It is a commonly held view that the answer to this question is yes, seeing an expanding China ready to catch up or even overtake the US in a not too distant future, the question therefore being not if China will become a superpower but rather when1. However, the picture is more nuanced and the answer to the question is not as forthright as many would argue. EMAnUEl SKooG


superpower is a nation which is able to exert enough military, political and economic influence to persuade nations in all parts of the globe to do things which they would otherwise not do2. e US has enjoyed that role since the end of the Cold War, but is China ready to join that exclusive club? China has used its growing economic clout it in order to attract friendly nations, dissuade enemies, launch a military modernization program and commence asserting its sovereignty claims in its neighborhood3. However, economic growth does no longer translate as directly into military power as it used to, which means that it is presently harder than ever for a rising power to rise and already established ones to collapse4. In projections regarding China’s future power position, emphasis has been placed on the country’s slowing economy, prevalent corruption, polluted environment, 200

rapidly aging population and a middle class restive for political influence5. However, China faces an even more overwhelming challenge on the global stage: its low level of technological expertise in comparison with the US In

is meant that these rising economic powers could soon commence a serious military challenge of the leading power. China’s comparative technological backwardness means that even if its economy continues to expand it will be a challenge to catch up militarily and

Does the US have the long-term leadership and commitment to deal with a rising China?

relation to historical rising powers, China has a wider technological gap to bridge6. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the US did not trail that far behind the United Kingdom in technological terms, nor did Germany lag that far behind the erstwhile Allies during the interwar period, nor was the USSR backward technologically in relation to the US during the early stages of the Cold War7

become a truly global actor like the US as opposed to solely a major actor in its own backyard8. THE RESILIENT SUPERPOWER At the commencement of the 21st century most observers spoke not of the decline of the US rather than about its persistent primacy9. e historian Paul Kennedy argued in 2002 that there had never in the history been such a great

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

s U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, 10 July 2014.

“disparity of power” as between the US and the rest of the world and the international relations pundit Fareed Zakaria claimed in 2004 that the US enjoyed a “comprehensive unipolarity” unlike anything witnessed since Rome. However, a couple of years later, Zakaria wrote about the “post-American world” and Kennedy discussed the unavoidable

decline of the US. ese statements solicit the question whether the underlying fundamentals pertaining to US relative power and its role as the global superpower really changed that dramatically over a couple of years? e answer to the question is no. What makes the US a superpower is its ability to operate on a truly global scale.

Translated into power politics this means having “command of the commons”, that is control over the air, space and the open sea together with the essential infrastructure for managing the aforementioned domains10. In order to develop the essential infrastructure needed to command the commons, any military would require a lot of time11,

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




The US and China

Summary China’s rise onto the international scene during the last couple of decades has been unprecedented both in its speed and scale and it is therefore not uncommon to hear voices expressing that the role of the US as the singular global superpower is coming to an end. however, the current global power transition is different than previous ones and the position of the US as a superpower is more secure for the foreseeable future than many would argue.

projecting this power on a global basis, which is a time-consuming and difficult process17.

s The U.S. enjoys “command of the commons”, that is control over the air, space and the open sea together with the essential infrastructure for managing the aforementioned domains globally.

highlighting the difficulties trying to overtake the overarching command of the commons from the US. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2008 many people questioned the reputation of the US as the world’s leading economic power. However, if one examines its share of the globe’s GDP over the last couple of decades the

US has the oldest working national constitution in the world, resilient institutions and the rule of law to accompany it15. A DIFFERENT POWER TRANSITION Power transitions within the global political domain are initiated by the rise of a previously underdeveloped large

having the world’s largest economy will not automatically translate into China becoming the world’s second superpower

picture emerging is one of consistency; in 1969 the US produced approximately a quarter of the globe’s economic output and today the figure is roughly the same12. e American economy still remains the bedrock of the international financial system; over 80% of all financial transactions globally are conducted in dollars, as are 87% of foreign currency market transactions13. Furthermore, 30% of all research and development dollars are spent in the US and 17 of the top 20 universities are found in the country14. ese factors provide a strong foundation for continuing economic supremacy. In order to project power abroad a nation first needs to have stability at home. e 220

nation which is not content with the present global system and the actors setting the agenda. As the power of the rising nation grows and expands, historically the rising nation has had the

impulse to make changes either intentionally or compulsively to the present rules of the systems which allegedly works against its national interests16. In the 1930s, Japan and Germany transformed themselves into nations capable of challenging the international order, and the Soviet Union recovered from World War II to become a formidable power challenging the US for global supremacy during the Cold War. However, there are a number of factors which makes the current power transition different to previous ones.

China’s pursuit of superpower status is undermined by weak incentives to make the sacrifices required. e US owes its large-scale military capabilities to the existential threat it faced from the Soviet

Taking these barriers to China’s attainment of superpower status into consideration, the future of the global system underpinned by the US has to a large degree to do with whether the nation will continue to bear the burden associated with sustaining the present world order through its leadership and commitment. Great powers rise and fall, the sole question is when. And when it happens does matter. e US is well placed to preserve its fundamental military abilities, global alliances and a competitive economy for the coming decades, making it possible to continue shouldering the burden of global leadership.

The superpower status of the US is anchored in fundamentally strong underlying factors

Union, and it is inconceivable to imagine the country bearing the burden it did during the Cold War had it not been for that perceived threat18. Beijing is today not facing anything like the Cold War pressure which motivated Washington to pursue the policy it did.

Biography Emanuel Skoog works at the Swedish Trade and Invest Council in Brussels and The hague, assisting Swedish companies in their business internationalization development. Furthermore, he has worked and studied in Australia, Spain, Sweden, the Benelux and the United Kingdom.

In addition, the US has few incentives to give up power due to the web of global alliances made up by many of the world’s largest economies and powerful countries constituting the present liberal global order it has long cultivated. Furthermore, these partners have lowered the price of maintaining US superpower status19.

CONCLUSION Even though the rise of China has been meteoric, the superpower position of the US is one which is anchored in fundamentally strong underlying factors such as a large and innovative economy, a stable democratic political system,

military pre-eminence and a global web of alliances. Rather than expecting a power transition within the international domain the US will continue to be the global superpower for decades to come. However, as the proverb goes: with great power comes great responsibility, and navigating the changing global landscape with a rising and more assertive China will require prudent long-term leadership and commitment in order to sustain the role of the US as the global superpower and with it the current liberal global order.

t The Group of Two (G2) is a proposed informal special relationship between China and the U.S.

Having a massive economy will not directly translate into China becoming the second global superpower, nor will overcoming the next large hurdle of obtaining vital technological capabilities. e next challenge would then be to transform its power into an allencompassing system capable of

The idea of the Group of Two (G2) was first outlined by the economist C. Fred Bergsten in his 2005 book The United States and the World Economy as a suggested informal relationship between the leader of the world’s high-income economies – the US – and the leader of the emerging market economies – China, with the two nations accounting for approximately half of the total global economic productivity20. Initially it was introduced as a predominantly economic relationship; but it began to gain influence among foreign policy scholars as a terminology to recognize the centrality of the China – US relationship in order to find solutions to international issues such as global trade, pollution and security related matters.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


What the Up coming Elections Me ans for Women’sr Rights



US Presidential Elections and Gender

From economics to foreign policy and from health care to education, the Republican and Democratic nominee for president of the United States share little common ground. Women’s rights and opportunities is one of Clinton’s main election issues. Her official website promises she will “work to close the pay gap,” “confront violence against women” and “promote women’s rights around the globe.” Trump, on the other hand, is mostly in the news for his outrageous sexist and racist remarks, and for calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals … who bleed out of their wherever.” DAnA CohEn


he current race for presidency of the United States of America is arguably one of the most divisive ones to date. Ideological and strategic differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are undeniable on virtually every issue. One particularly interesting topic this elections is women’s rights. For the first time in the history of the country, the presidential hopeful of one of the two big political parties is in fact a

the world at large with regards to gender issues? ABORTION Consistent with the Democratic platform, Clinton strongly supports nationwide access to legal abortion; in line with Republican policy, Trump opposes most cases of abortion. In some ways he is less extreme than many of his Republican colleagues, for example in agreeing to exceptions for pregnancies

woman. In contrast, the other nominee is often criticized for his disrespectful remarks directed against women. Speeches aside, what real differences will there be between a President Trump and a President Clinton for the country and

resulting from rape or incest. On the other hand, in comments criticized by supporters and opponents of legalized abortion alike, Trump suggested that women choosing to terminate pregnancies should face punishment.

“For the first time in the history of the country, the presidential hopeful of one of the two big political parties is a woman”


Abortion has been a hot-topic in American politics ever since 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled existing laws restricting abortion rights unconstitutional. e labels ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ started being used in an increasingly polarized debate.

women and women belonging to minority groups. Moreover, experience has shown that illegalization does not end abortions, it merely makes them less safe and greatly increases the number of women who suffer complications or even die from the procedure. An estimated 21.6 million women undergo illegal abortions worldwide yearly, and 47.000 women die as a result.2 FAMILY LEAVE ere are ways to decrease abortion rates that are not only more humane but also more effective: paid family leave and

child support. Clinton recognizes this and has been advocating for both her entire career. A mere two months before the elections take place, Trump, who once said that pregnant women are “an inconvenience” for business, introduced a policy proposal on maternity leave which is seen as insufficient and improvident by many critics. Paid leave restricted to the mother rather than including the father is seen as outdated and sexist. Not only does it exclude male gay parents, it automatically assumes a situation in which the woman takes on the grosser part of parenting. is is not

only bad for the woman, but also for the child, the father and for gender equality in the workforce. As opposed to Clinton, Trump is against government aid for child care, preferring to leave the responsibility with employers. Naturally, this forces many parents whose employers cannot or will not provide this service to pay the full amount of child care themselves or, if they are unable to, to stay at home. Not only does this affect the family in question, it also hampers women’s

“paid leave restricted to the mother rather than including the father is seen as outdated and sexist”

integration into the workforce. It keeps many families from having a (second) child, adding to the nation’s low fertility rate, which is at an all-time low of 1.88. Admittedly, aging populations are common in most developed countries. However, countries with better parental

t Then-first Lady Hillary Clinton during her well-known speech on women’s rights in Beijing, China.

In recent years, pro-life supporters have started gaining ground in political office, leading to numerous laws restricting access to abortion services. Clinics are shut down or see their funding retracted, patients are refused help or even information from their health providers, forced to see echoes of the fetus or subjected to long waiting periods. More than just an ethical disagreement, restricted access to safe and legal abortion violates the human rights of women seeking them. In the words of the American Public Health Association, it “can coerce women to carry unintended pregnancies to term, elevating their risk of poverty and violating their human rights and rights as citizens.”1 Most measures disproportionately hit lower-income

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




US Presidential Elections and Gender

leave and child care policies tend to have slightly higher fertility rates, fueling the economy. GLASS CEILING Trump and Clinton also differ in their views on pay equality. Where Clinton has made closing the wage gap a priority in her campaign, Trump simply denies its existence. According to him: “You’re gonna make the same if you do as good a job,” even though many studies disprove this claim. Notably, Trump himself has employed shady hiring practices at his offices. A video dating back to 2007 sees him talking about hiring an unexperienced – and possibly underage – female worker because she was “hot”. Equally alarming are the numerous statements from (former) employees that came to light after a lawsuit was filed against the Trump t Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Summary The upcoming presidential elections has America, and the world, holding their breathe. Trump and Clinton differ like night and day on almost every issue imaginable. This article explores the policies both candidates would pursue if elected president with regard to women’s rights. The outcome is not surprising.

National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes. Trump allegedly ordered “lessattractive” employees fired, because he did not want to look at them. Another lawsuit against him alleges that he discriminated against a former campaign field organizer, Elizabeth Mae Davidson, based on her gender. She claims he made constant remarks on her looks,

Meanwhile, Clinton works to get more women in higher positions and to ensure they are paid the same as their male counterparts. When women are sitting in high office, more women are elected to positions of power, thus encouraging a more representative distribution of political power. Furthermore, Clinton argues in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Since women make up the overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers, this would help millions of women – and children – out of poverty. HEALTH CARE Clinton supports national health care reform, including affordable contraception and preventive care. She also notes the importance of maternal and child health in developing nations: “If you help a woman, she helps her family. And then the family and the children are better off.” She also lobbied to end China’s one-child policy, which caused sex-selective abortion and willful neglect of newly born baby girls. She cites not just the discrimination, but its consequences for the entire Chinese population: “an imbalance between men and women of 100 million… ink of what that’s going to mean … when you have a very large population of young men who can’t find wives. A kind of potential social instability that that breeds.”3 Trump, meanwhile, pledges to repeal Obamacare if elected president. He believes the government should have a minimum amount of influence on national health care. is will likely leave many poorer families without any health insurance. Most packages will not include contraceptives, placing an extra financial burden on women. Moreover, Trump strongly opposes Clinton’s plan to offer affordable health care to people regardless of their immigration status. is raises strong ethical concerns; all human beings have the right to medical attention when needed, regardless of nationality. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Another one of Clinton’s elections issues is to end violence against women, with an emphasis on sexual assault on college


Biography Dana Cohen is a graduate of the University of Utrecht, where she studied Gender Studies during her BA and Conflict Studies and human Rights during her MA. She is currently looking for a job in a relevant field.

systematically paid male workers more than female workers and fired her when she started inquiring into the differences in pay. Trump also tried to discredit Carly Fiorina, his then-opponent in the Republican race for nominee, based on her physical appearance: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

violence prevention education projects will continue to be implemented and gun control regulations introduced, although likely not accepted.

s Democrat nominee Hillary R. Clinton.

campuses and gun violence. To combat the first, she advocates sexual violence prevention education programs, which have shown mixed results in studies. To end gun violence against women, Clinton supports gun control laws. Of the 1000 women who are killed by an intimate partner in the US yearly, two thirds are murdered with a gun.4 Yet even men with past convictions of domestic violence and/or a standing restraining order are allowed to purchase fire arms. Although any gun legislation is extremely hard to pass in the US, it is important enough to try. Trump, meanwhile, does not make any references to violence against women on his campaign website at all. He has, however, argued that sexual violence against women in the US army is a natural consequence: “What did these geniuses expect when they put men and

women together?” He is also on record saying: “Women, you have to treat them like shit,” and has, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not, hinted at Clinton’s assassination on several occasions. CONCLUSION Under a Clinton presidency, abortion rights are protected for all women who seek them. New mothers and fathers will both be granted paid leave and child care, ensuring stronger family bonds and financial stability. Programs that encourage women in high positions will be put forward, while an increase in national minimum wage will lift millions of women and their children out of poverty. Obamacare will be improved and expanded, for instance to include people awaiting their legal immigration status. e health of women and children in developing countries will be on the agenda. Sexual

Under a Trump presidency, abortion rights are further restricted, leading to an increase in unsafe abortions and child abandonment. New fathers go back to work the day after their child is born, while women, specifically middle to upper class, will receive six weeks of leave. Many lower-income families will not be able to afford child care, causing many to lose their jobs. Equal wages and sexual harassment in the workplace will not be prioritized. Obamacare will be repealed, leaving many Americans and migrants without access to affordable health care. Violence against women, including sexual assault on campuses and in the military, are not addressed. Men known to be abusive can still buy guns online or at gun shows without so much as a background check. After the purchase, they can turn on the television and get inspired by watching their President demean and objectify women on his reality shows, talk about how women have to be treated like “shit,” how they are worth nothing but their physical appearance, and joke about having political opponents murdered. Make America Great Again.

t Official logo of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


Elections and Journalism in a Divided America



American Politics and the Media

that has set in the minds of people. And there is no denying that in some parts in the US, such as the Rust Belt and Coal Country 1 are in very bad shape economically and where many people lean towards Donald Trump, certainly on his economic perspective. And he has a point, there is a part of America that feels neglected. Not only because of 2008 economic meltdown, in which president Obama had no role, but also because of the War on Coal and Oil which he definitely started. And Hillary Clinton who in a campaign speech propagating renewable energy clumsily stated “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business/” 2 Of course these people are not against NAFTA or TPP, many are not even interested in those deals but they are scared of losing their jobs and that is being used by politicians.

An Interview with NOS Correspondent Wouter Zwart

In an exclusive interview for our American Elections Special, journalist and NOS correspondent in the United States Wouter Zwart was kind enough to enlighten us with his views on the presidential campaign and the role of the US media in the polarization of American society. Also we touched upon the changing role of journalists in the social media era and its effect on politics. RIK VAn DIJK

To start off, what did you think of the first debate? Four years ago I experienced my first presidential debate here in the United States right before I took over from my colleague Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal. e contrasts with 2016 are enormous. Not only because the two candidates are completely different and not only because these are probably the most hated politicians in the country but also because the times have changed rapidly. We live in a time of 140 characters, of lightning-fast communication. Debates have become awkward, an anomaly, in this age. We no longer take the time to listen to each other, to talk for 90 minutes about the most the subjects that are important to us. It was not really a debate. While one candidate tried to explain problems and tackle them through proposed policy ideas, the other spewed short one-liners without any clarification. It was entertaining but also awkward to watch. 280

I became a correspondent to provide the public with analyses on events, to explain the how and why of a phenomenon, to explain the reasons behind a development. However, journalism in this age has shifted more and more towards being only a messenger of fastspewed rhetoric and sensationalism, which is a dangerous development. Luckily the NOS still gives us the room to analyze the why but we also notice this shift in our work. Journalists are trapped in an almost paparazzi kind of style of reporting, being expected to report on every juicy detail? People ask us to report the situation to them but also to explain it. And we have to compete with Twitter. When bombs go off in New York maybe you’ll know about it faster than I through social media. is is how fast news goes these days. We are then expected to give an explanation on the bombing on the

moment it happens, preferably even before it happens, this is difficult. Because you’re a correspondent you have a wide social circle here. How do people perceive the shift fact-free politics? Are they concerned or also enticed by such rhetoric? Yes, but there is a divide. In the more educated communities of America there is a concern that they are losing their grip on politics. at their analyses of more than five paragraphs are no longer being read. On the hand, and we have to be honest about that too, a large portion, also in the Netherlands, who felt they could not participate in the debate because it was either too complicated or too elite, now feel that they do have a voice through internet, through Twitter. Sometimes it is not always not as nuanced but it is a way for them to express themselves. We can be negative about that but it gives them the opportunity to voice their opinion.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

s Correspondent Wouter Zwart at the Republican Convention.

ese people play a large role with the rise of Donald Trump and the strategy of the Republican Party, their Convention was filled with nightmarish portrayals of the collapse of America. How are these disaffected people being used in the politics of the Republican Party? ey are being used but that is not something new in politics. is dissatisfaction is being used right now. Let’s not forget that fear is the most important tool to force people to the voting booth and there is now an opportunity to exploit that fear. But the Republican leadership is very uncomfortable with Donald Trump because he stampedes on some traditional Republican values. He is not really a conservative, he has some very leftish ideas, much like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. However, since Trump draws so many voters to him, Republicans are being opportunistic. ey fear that they stand to lose not only the presidency but also the Senate, which is important since it decides the successor of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was a conservative. ey feel that their values are being further undermined if they lose. On the NOS website you said in China you experienced the rise of a

world power. Do you see the opposite in the US, a world power in decline? I think there are two realities. One, America is not doing bad at all. e economy is growing again and crime is going down as well. Incomes have risen for the first time and poverty is declining, even if many people don’t see it. But then there is the reality of sentiment and people are still scared of what happened during the economic collapse in 2008 and of the growing inequality. But also about what America’s position in the world should be against a more aggressive Russia. Republicans saw Obama’s more cautionary foreign policy as something they could exploit, portraying him as weak and indecisive, an image that resonated with people. and there are people, even though it is not entirely true, who wonder if America’s best days are behind it. “America is always losing” is Trump favorite sentence when talking about international trade deals. and recently also Clinton is no longer in favor of the new TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). Globalism as something that squeezes America, where does that idea come from? e economic crisis, that is almost a one-on-one connection. it is something

A lot of the manufacturing industry have left the Mid-West and cities like Chicago and Detroit are shrinking and are poorer. ose people feel left behind. Yes, and that is something politicians should do something about. However, journalists, we are sometimes also guilty of doing it, romanticize the idea of desolate cities in the Mid-West as the symbol of America’s downfall. While in Silicon Valley an even larger economic power is stronger than ever. I certainly do not wish to play down the problems in the Rust Belt but we tend to romanticize the image. the auto-industry is largely saved. But those optics are heartily being used by politicians and the media. e media and politics in America have become more interwoven. Trump has Fox News and Clinton CNN. Is the polarization in the US so deeply rooted that people no longer meet each other even on cable news? Well, Fox News in a number of programs has appointed Clinton as winner of the debate. Also because Fox is quite harsh on Trump, especially the editors. But what we constantly notice when we interview people is that they almost never watch the ‘other side’s’ news. It’s unbelievable, on both sides, how badly informed they are about the other side. People are no longer interested to be broadly informed and are unwilling to empathize with people from the other side of the political spectrum. ere is only a small group that can still be swayed and they are undecided about voting at all. ey have to energized to

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016



American Politics and the media

come out and vote and in that regard Trump hurt himself by being so disruptive in that first debate. e American media is no longer interested in giving their viewers an objective analysis but are searching for conflict. Is that also why there are so many controversial people in politics, because they do well on TV? Yes, it is all interwoven. Firstly, all major American news outlets are owned by large companies which have high political and financial stakes. e best example may not be political but when MH370 suddenly disappeared CNN reported non-stop on the tragedy. Ratings soared and the board demanded that the network only cover the lost plane, forbidding reporting on other topics, driving its journalists mad. Politicians know how to work this system. Moreover, a whole industry has been built around it. ey don’t make traditional reports anymore. When was the last time you saw CNN make a report on a black neighborhood in Chicago or from the countryside? Instead they make a news item and conjure up a statement and let surrogates, not even independent experts but political hacks, fight it out. What do you accomplish with something like that? Nothing. It’s pure political porn on TV and only strengthens the polarization. One more thing about the media. e fact that so few Americans are actually

After completing the School voor Journalistiek in Utrecht Wouter Zwart started his career as a reporter. In 1999 he joined the foreign department of the NOS and in 2006 became known to the wider public as the NOS correspondent in China. In 2012 he succeeded Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal as the NOS correspondent in the United States, where he works together with Arjen van de Horst.

interviewed through journalist’ reports is ultimate proof that the media is no longer interested to inform its people but to represent political and business and interests. It is repulsive. And European media is slowly moving in that direction. More and more we focus on conflict and opinions. I find it astonishing that an average Dutch newspaper has seven or eight columns. Its opinion journalism, one thing happens and every media outlet want to vent its opinion. It’s completely unnecessary. Turning to foreign policy, this elections NATO and America’s bases in allied countries are suddenly being drawn into the debate. How does the public perceive these topics, do they resonate? American do not pay a lot of attention to these subjects actually. e whole idea of NATO is not really an issue since it

De Grote Flip-Flop van de Amerikaanse partijen Amerikaanse politiek

perceived as an organization that is led by the US. It also the way Trump talks about it. America decides what the organization should do and no one else. It is not really an issue because there are no large military operations with American soldiers. is could change if an Article 5 clause should into play or if the crisis in Syria expands any further. But at the moment it is not a big issue among Americans. Do you think that Clinton, who is an expert on the Middle East, will put her focus on the region or try to follow Obama’s Pacific Pivot? As the former correspondent in China, I dare to say that the Pacific Pivot is a failure. e strategy to form a bloc against China with the Asian partners died in political struggle. China can expand its power in relative peace, such as its navy bases in the South Chinese Sea while America’s Asian partners feel neglected. With the revival of the Islamic terrorist threat, China has disappeared from the minds for most Americans and doesn’t play a role in politics anymore. Which is worrisome. e military but also economical developments of China and Russia should play a large role in the debate in the United States but they do not. We should be more concerned of the future role this region is going to play in global politics and the United States should be ready for that.

t Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.



eg het maar eens uit. De Republikein Abraham Lincoln schafte de slavernij af en gaf het Noorden in de Burgeroorlog de overwinning. In de decennia daarna installeerden de verliezende Democraten in het Zuiden een systeem van racistische segregatie. Lange tijd stemde het blanke Zuiden, voor zover het mocht stemmen, zonder na te denken Democratisch. Men had het over ‘the solid South’ en beschreef de kiezers daar als Yellow Dog Democrats: ze zouden nog eerder op een gele hond stemmen dan op een Republikein. Flash-forward naar 2016. De Republikeinen, de partij van Lincoln, is nu lelieblank, sterk in voorsteden en op het platteland, uiterst gelovig en dominant in het Zuiden. Racisme suddert onder de oppervlakte. Sterker, de partij heeft een populist en xenofobe racist genomineerd. De Democratische Partij is nu de partij van de minderheden, van zwarten en van Hispanics, van de grote steden en de oostelijke en westelijke kuststaten. In het oude Zuiden van de Confederatie stemmen alle staten nu in



JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

meerderheid Republikeins. Er zijn rode (Republikeinse) en blauwe (Democratische) staten, maar wie een dergelijke kaart een eeuw geleden had gemaakt, zou precies de omgekeerde kleurstelling krijgen. In de loop van de twintigste eeuw hebben de politieke partijen een gedaanteverwisseling ondergaan, zijn geflipflopt, haasje over gesprongen of hoe je het ook maar noemt. In elk geval zijn ze uitgekomen op diametraal tegenovergestelde punten van waar ze ooit waren. Hoe heeft zich dat afgespeeld? Hoe is het mogelijk dat de partij van Trump, kleine Bush en Mitch McConnell, de leider van de Senaat, ooit werd geleid door Abraham Lincoln en eodore Roosevelt of zelfs de kleuren ideologieloze Dwight Eisenhower? Hoe bestaat het dat de partij van Obama ooit in de houdgreep zat van zuidelijke racisten? IT’S COMPLICATED De Democratische Partij was na de Burgeroorlog de dominante partij in het Zuiden, de partij van de segregatie, de

Amerikaanse apartheid, die zwarten wegzette als tweederangsburgers. De partij bleef wel aanwezig in de grote steden in het Noorden, waar ze de corrupte politieke machines runde, maar had tussen 1865 en 1932 slechts tweemaal het presidentschap met Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 en 1893-1897) en Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921). De Republikeinen werden aan het einde van de negentiende eeuw de partij van de zakenbelangen, de kleine burger maar ook, onder de Republikeinse president eodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) de partij van de progressieve hervormingen. Als iemand vraagtekens zette bij de segregatie dan was dat altijd een Republikein, zoals Roosevelt en de verder mislukte president Warren Harding (1921-1923). De grote depressie vanaf 1929 en de déconfiture van de Republikein Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) als vertegenwoordiger van de zakenwereld zorgden ervoor dat de middenklasse en de arbeiders massaal Democratisch gingen stemmen. In 1932 stapten zwarten voor zover ze mochten stemmen over naar

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




Amerikaanse politiek

Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), ook al werkte die in het Congres noodgedwongen nauw samen met zijn racistische partijgenoten uit het Zuiden. Het was een coalitie van opportunisten: FDR de macht, het Zuiden de voordelen daarvan zonder dat hun segregatie werd bedreigd. Het onderwerp werd genegeerd. Pas toen na de Tweede Wereldoorlog de burgerrechtenbeweging tractie kreeg, viel de grote coalitie van progressieve noorderlingen en racistische zuiderlingen van uiteen. President Truman (1945-1953) had het leger gedesegregeerd, wat al leidde tot de eerste racistische Democraten die afhaakten en een eigen pro-segregatie kandidaat voordroegen, de rabiate racist Strom urmond uit South Carolina. Na de uitspraak van het Supreme Court in 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education, waarbij werd uitgesproken dat gelijke voorzieningen voor blank en zwart geen excuus waren voor segregatie, kwam de burgerrechtenbeweging pas echt op stoom en moest de politiek keuzes maken.

presidentschap een nieuwe coalitie tussen progressieve noorderlingen en racistische zuiderlingen tot stand te brengen. Maar president Kennedy (1961-1963) had steeds meer moeite om zwarte leiders als Martin Luther King in zijn kamp te houden en tegelijkertijd de racistische Democraten te lijmen die hij nodig had in het congres niet te verliezen. Kennedy wilde bijvoorbeeld liever niet dat King de Mars op Washington organiseerde. NA KENNEDY’S DOOD De moord op Kennedy in 1963 bracht de doorbraak en ook de grote politieke ommekeer. President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), als Texaanse Democraat zelf gepokt en gemazeld in de machtsstructuren van het Congres, gebruikte de na de moord geërfde goodwill en zijn eigen overwinning in 1964 om het Congres zover te te krijgen burgerrechtenwetgeving aan te nemen. Progressieve noordelijke Democraten werkten samen met de Republikeinen om in 1964 de Civil Rights Act aan te nemen en in 1965 de Voting Rights Act. President Johnson wist heel goed wat dat

Men had het over ‘the solid South’ en beschreef de kiezers daar als Yellow Dog Democrats: ze zouden nog eerder op een gele hond stemmen dan op een Republikein

In het Congres lag de macht bij de Democraten en niet de progressieve noorderlingen van die partij maar bij de conservatieven uit het Diepe Zuiden. In het toen geldende systeem van senioriteit hadden decennia zittende afgevaardigden en senatoren de macht om wetgeving te traineren. Die macht gebruikten ze zonder schroom. Dat gold ook voor de zuidelijke gouverneurs, allemaal Democraten, allemaal racisten, soms van het meest wrede soort, en uiteraard allemaal voor segregatie, zelfs relatief verlichte types als de bekende senator William Fulbright van Arkansas. Als noordelijke Democraat (en nog katholiek ook, geen aanbeveling in het Diepe Zuiden van evangelische fundamentalisten) had John F. Kennedy in 1960 kunnen winnen, door met hulp van de zuidelijke Texaan Lyndon Johnson als kandidaat voor het vice320

betekende: ‘ere goes the solid south’, zei hij toen de wet werd aangenomen. Hij had gelijk. Dit was de definitieve doorbraak: vanaf nu zouden blanke zuiderlingen niet meer vanzelfsprekend Democratisch stemmen. Sterker nog, ze zouden zich bijna even vanzelfsprekend afwenden van de partij die hen verraden had en waarin zwarte kiezers nu belangrijk werden. De gouverneur van Alabama George Wallace werd de voorman van Trump-achtige conservatieve anti-kiezers, vol ressentiment over een wereld die verloren ging. Wallace was nadrukkelijk aanwezig met het thema ‘segregation now, segregation forever’ en haalde als presidentskandidaat in 1968 kiesmannen in vijf zuidelijke staten. Ondertussen vond in de staten van het Midden Westen een paradoxale ontwikkeling plaats. Progressief beleid en

vakbondsmacht hadden ervoor gezorgd dat georganiseerde arbeiders deel waren geworden van de middenklasse. Ze hadden een huis en auto’s, hun kinderen volgden hogere opleidingen dan zij hadden gedaan en kregen betere banen. Arbeiders hadden veilige banen, pensioenen en gezondheidszorg. Ze werden er conservatief van. Wat hen uiteindelijk wegjoeg bij de Democraten was dat het progressieve beleid dat hen ooit had geholpen nu werd ervaren als niet voor hen bedoeld: het hielp minderheden, armen, werklozen, zieken en ouderen. Maar zij moesten er nu voor betalen. Ze ergerden zich ook aan de als onpatriottisch ervaren demonstraties tegen de oorlog in Vietnam, ook al was die begonnen en geëscaleerd door Democraten. De Republikein Richard Nixon (president van 1969 tot 1974) profiteerde ervan. Nixon was een ervaren politicus zonder scrupules, met een fijn gevoel voor de richting van de politieke wind. Hij zag het land veranderen en zijn ‘Southern Strategy’ buitte dat sluw uit. Hij koos een running mate uit een zuidelijke border state, Spiro Agnew, gouverneur van Maryland, en werkte nauw samen met racistische Democraten die inmiddels naar de Republikeinen waren overgestapt, wat veel zuidelijke senatoren deden. Nixon voerde actief campagne in het Zuiden en adverteerde er geducht. Hij gebruikte het thema ‘law and order’, goed aanvoelend wat de zuidelijke kiezer zou aanspreken. De silent majority werd een politiek begrip, eerst in 1968 toen Richard Nixon met een minimale voorsprong kon winnen, in 1972 definitief toen onder een te progressieve kandidaat bij de Democraten, George McGovern, de scheiding der geesten beklijfde. Vanaf de jaren zeventig werden al deze ontwikkelingen nog versterkt door een verschuiving van het demografisch en economisch middelpunt van het land naar het zuidwesten. De zuidelijke staten maakten eindelijk, voor het eerst sinds de burgeroorlog, de sprong naar industrialisatie die lang voorspeld was. Paradoxaal genoeg maakte de desegregatie het Zuiden als het ware ‘normaler’ voor nieuwkomers uit het Midden Westen, die nu voor groei en banen naar het Zuiden kwamen en de Rust Belt vaarwel zegden. Bedrijven verplaatsten hun productie, hetzij naar het buitenland, hetzij naar het Zuiden waar de regulering beperkt was en de kosten van arbeid lager dan in het Noorden. Zo tekenden de blue collar kiezers, die hun middenklasse status juist

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

aan progressief beleid in het Noorden hadden te danken, hun eigen ondergang. Ze stemden in 1980 massaal voor de Republikein Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) die hen een goed gevoel gaf maar niets zou doen om het industriële maanlandschap in het Midden Westen te verbeteren. In het Zuiden groeide de bevolking, in het Noorden en Noordoosten daalde hij. Bij de volkstellingen die iedere tien jaar plaatsvinden en die leiden tot een herverdeling van de zetels in het Huis van Afgevaardigden, en daardoor ook

geworden. Tegenwoordig is de meest conservatieve Democraat progressiever dan de meest progressieve Republikein. Vroeger dronken ze samen een whiskey, tegenwoordig spreken ze nauwelijks meer met elkaar. Het is een recept voor tweedeling. Het verklaart waarom Obama geen enkele Republikeinse stem kon krijgen voor Obamacare of de deal met Iran. De Republikeinse Partij die traditioneel moeite heeft constructief te denken als ze zelf niet aan de macht is, werd de anti-Obama partij. Zes jaar lang lagen ze

Vroeger dronken ze samen een whiskey, tegenwoordig spreken ze nauwelijks meer met elkaar. het is een recept voor tweedeling

van de kiesmannen, wonnen de zuidelijke staten en verloor de rest. Het was geen toeval dat tussen 1964 en 2009 alle presidenten uit het Zuiden of Californië kwamen (de Bushfamilie claimde wortels in Texas). Dat Zuiden was en bleef conservatief, de nieuwkomers brachten geen nieuwe politiek. Integendeel, het daar heersende conservatisme was een van de redenen waarom ze kwamen en ze versterkten zo de trend. TWEEDELING Ziedaar in vogelvlucht de redenen waarom de Democraten tegenwoordig de progressieven zijn en de Republikeinen de conservatieven, en waarom het Diepe Zuiden nu diep Republikeins is (red states) en de oost- en westkust onwrikbaar Democratisch (blue states). Het grote verschil met vroeger is dat er geen vleugels meer zijn bínnen de partijen. Er zijn nauwelijks noordelijke Republikeinen meer en geen zuidelijk Democraten. De Republikeinse meerderheid in het Huis van Afgevaardigden is zuidelijk en uitzonderlijk disfunctioneel omdat ze gesplitst is tussen extreem conservatieven en gewoon conservatieven, niet omdat ze dichtbij het midden van het spectrum komen. Ooit waren partijen zelf al brede coalities die in het midden overlapten en waar coalities werden gesmeed. Nu is het midden verdwenen waardoor stagnatie en obstructie de orde van de dag is

Biography Mr. Dr. F. Verhagen MIA is journalist en specialist in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis. Zijn meest recente boek is Founding Fathers (Kok, 2016). hij werkt nu aan een algemene geschiedenis van de Verenigde Staten.

dwars zonder enig constructief voorstel, en met een flinke dosis racisme. De birther-campagne van Donald Trump – dat Obama niet in Amerika was geboren en daarom niet alleen geen legitiem president was maar ook niet kon denken als een echte Amerikaan – werd door de Republikeinse leiding niet weersproken of bekritiseerd. Dat ze Trump nu als presidentskandidaat hebben gekregen, is hun verdiende loon maar onderstreept de crisis op rechts. Of de Republikeinen de al eerder zichtbare scheuren in hun partij overleven, is maar zeer de vraag. De polariserende onderwerpen als abortus, homohuwelijk, schoolgebed, wapens en andere heilige huisjes kon de Republikeinse top decennia lang uitbuiten om een economisch beleid uit te voeren van lage belastingen voor de rijken, globalisering en een kleine overheid waar de meeste van hun kiezers niets aan hadden. De afgelopen honderd jaar maakten beide partijen een grote oversteek. Racisten van toen zijn de partij van de minderheden, progressieven van toen zijn nu onvermurwbaar kleingeestig en cultureel conservatief. Het grote verschil met vroeger is dat er binnen de partijen geen breed denken meer is, geen bruggen meer bestaan tussen de diverse samenstellende delen. Laat staan dat er, zoals Barack Obama naïef dacht in 2009, bruggen tussen beide partijen gebouwd kunnen worden, zeker niet nu een van de twee grote partijen zichzelf buitenspel heeft gezet. JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


Terror is Winning


How the Politics of Fear are destabilizing democracies Every other week, the editors of JASON Magazine bring you an exclusive article on the JASON Institute website at www.stichtingjason.nl. Below you can read one selection from the many excellent articles that we offer exclusively online. Please be sure to check them all out. GIlES lonGlEY-CooK


he politics of Fear and urgency have been utilized by governments to override laws and make quick, often dubious decisions as well as to undermine the power of resistance. Recent atrocities in Europe and America display how this mentality is coming full circle, where the demonization of opposition as inherently violent has created an atmosphere in which lone wolf killers thrive. Acting on impulse with no longterm political plans, they reflect their own governments’ behavior. e result will be even more social breakdown.

No matter how much they intend their actions to reject the political system they live in, most rebels end up reflecting the culture they fight against, in the style with which they fight it. Half a century ago, Martin Luther King observed that if young black men resisted the US government with aimless violence, one reason for them to believe it would be effective was because that same government was itself practicing this policy in Vietnam, with far more deadly futility. e civil rights movement’s triumph was to take a situation in which blacks and (predominantly) whites, lashed out at one another in lieu of either political discourse or planned movement to bring about change, whilst thousands of miles away, their leaders 340

waged a similar brutal war based on fear of a mystified threat of communist expansion, a demonized enemy1. Western engagement in the Middle East ideologically matches its Vietnamese ancestor. Devoid of concrete war aims, let alone allies, US and European military policy has become reliant on the utter demonization of its opponents. Stripped of any real idea of a reasonable

defined by vague principles rather than real aims, so the two major candidates are defined not so much by any realistic policy than by an intense and hysterical fear of the evil alternative. e vehemence and poison of Trumpian rhetoric against Hillary Clinton and her supporters rests on a vision of apocalyptic decline, and the opposing side are no better, seeing in Trump’s supporters not so much political

JASON MAGAZINE e same can be said for the recent murder of Birstall MP Jo Cox by the farright inspired loner omas Mair. Mair, citing the supposed treason of his proEU victim, uttered the ravings of a politically insecure fool, but worryingly,

Most rebels end up reflecting the culture they fight against

they were actually in tune with the political climate within which the crime occurred. e Brexit debate in the UK has been conspicuous by its use of fantastical fear tactics on both sides, each predicting ridiculous and frighteningly cataclysmic results should they lose5. Killing people to gain political ends has always been evil, but it was not always this idiotic. Carefully coordinated terrorist campaigns could bring down governments because they formed a pattern that made it clear what could bring them to an end, i.e. a political settlement favorable to the terrorist. A strong characteristic of the political violence experienced recently is just how lacking it is in any cold coherence. Killing for and against abstract concepts,

Biography Giles longley-Cook is a Masters student currently studying political Theory at Radboud University, nijmegen. he previously achieved a BA in political Science & philosophy at University of Birmingham.

the murderers of Bataclan, Pulse and Birstall are conspicuous in their absence of any concrete goals or platforms. Just as our governments lash out with drones and air strikes, or at home with words and scare tactics, these outbursts are thoroughly reactive. Another striking resemblance between governmental policy and the lone wolf attacks, is that their logic is not just one of short-term solutions to abstract problems, but of obsession with individual, dislocated actors rather than political movements. Writers such as Andrew Cockburn have noted that the truly novel feature of modern counterterrorism is not its technological focus but its ideological belief that taking out individual ‘bad guys’ is the key to stemming threats6. As ‘Evil’ cannot be combated in itself, the next best thing is to take out figures who appear to embody it. In a culture in which eliminating single terrorist leaders is seen as equal to nullifying their entire movement, is it any wonder that unhinged individuals will see attacking random representatives of rival subcultures as equal to political victory? Crucial to the functioning of democracy is the belief in loyal opposition and that compromise and change are necessary and non-fatal. e War on Terror has eroded these concepts in our society to

the point where dissent against that society has appropriated that form as well. If we are to regain a sense of reality at home, we must first do so in our foreign policy. By waging war on ‘Terror’ we engaged an enemy that was definitively a part of us, terror being a feeling inspired in victims. It was only a matter of time before that selfdestructive terror became personified in this way.

t Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden.

Killing people to gain political ends has always been evil, but it was not always this idiotic

outcome, this enemy is free to take on contradictory forms. Arab dictators were once objects of terror, now it is their radical Islamists enemies. us as our armies make war on pure terror abroad, so the inevitable blowback comes, when citizens begin seeing domestic issues through the same Manichean lens at home. It is no coincidence that the most negative US presidential elections campaign in recent history comes at a time when the USA is engaged in a ubiquitous, indefinable war not for anything, but solely against ‘Terror’. Just as the conflicts America engages in overseas are increasingly

opponents but the monstrous Mr. Hyde of American culture. Out of this toxic, irrational atmosphere emerged the violence against Trump supporters outside his rallies2, as did the violence against protestors themselves from the right3. Indirectly though, it is also possible to see the link between the breakdown of reasoned political disagreement and attacks on the system as a whole. Even those who reject the culture utterly, such as the recent Pulse nightclub mass-murderer, cannot help reflecting the social system they reject in their aimless, uncompromising desperation4.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




What is JASon Institute? In 1975 JASON Institute (Jong Atlantisch Samenwerkings orgaan nederland) was founded by a group of young professionals interested in international relations and peace-and security issues, looking to inform and interest a younger audience in these sorts of questions. In the beginning JASon focused mainly on peace-and security issues within transatlantic relations, especially on the role of nATo. With age, JASon expanded its horizon, organizing lectures and publishing articles about a growing number of topics in the spectrum of international relations and security issues. JASon is a neutral observer and not bound to any political conviction, religion or worldview. This is to ensure objectivity and provide our audience with a broad scale of views.

We seek to inform our audience through two instruments. First we publish our magazine, the one you are reading right now, 3 to 4 times a year. In each number we strive to cover a broad number of topical subjects tied to the broad spectrum of international relations. Secondly the JASon team organizes a number of activities each year, ranging from debates and lectures to conferences and field trips. You don’t have to be a member of JASon to sign up as they are open to everyone.

Also the magazine and most of the activities are free of cost. All those interested can sign up easily either through our Facebook or our website www.stichtingjason.nl


JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

RECEIVE JASON MAGAZINE FREE DIGITALLy! JASon magazine is free for students, young professionals and all those interested in international relations and international security. To subscribe the magazine, go to our site stichtingjason.nl. If you want the magazine in printed form please contact our editorial board at redactie@stichtingjason.nl and we will contact you as soon as possible about the possibilities. STAy UP TO DATE ABOUT OUR ACTIVITIES? JASon Institute announces its activities through a bi-monthly newsletter (go to stichingjason.nl/contact/). Also we post our upcoming activities on our website and on Facebook. To stay up to date about our interesting lectures and inspiring field trips, please visit our site or like our Facebook

WORKING FOR JASON? JASon Magazine is always looking for new writers to join the board of editors. Are you a student or young professional who likes to write articles on international relations or security issues? please contact us at redactie@stichtingjason.nl (editors work on voluntary basis). Want to help organize lectures wit interesting speakers or set up field trips to nATo or the European parliament? please contact us at coordinator@stichtingjason.nl

DONATE JASon Institute is made possible by hardworking volunteers who see it as their mission to inform their audience on international peace- and security issues, defense issues and engage in debate on the subject of international relations. In order to keep our activities and magazine free and openly available, we would like to ask you to please donate to our organization. our account number is nl10 InGB 0667 3158 02. For more information please contact us at (www.stichtingjason.nl/contact/). (JASon has an AnBI-status which makes it easier to deduct donations from taxes) JASON INSTITUTE ONLINE Facebook: JASon Institute Twitter: @stichtingjason Website: www.stichtingjason.nl

JASON MAGAZINE ONLINE The new and previous issues of JASon Magazine can be accessed free online at www.stichtingjason.nl/magazine. like us on Facebook to receive a new articles every two weeks!

ONTVANG GRATIS JASON MAGAZINE! JASon Magazine is gratis verkrijgbaar voor studenten, young professionals en andere geïnteresseerden. om u kosteloos te abonneren, geef uw naam, (post)adres en e-mailadres door aan redactie@stichtingjason.nl of via het contactformulier op onze website (www.stichtingjason.nl/contact/).

OP DE HOOGTE BLIJVEN VAN ONZE ACTIVITEITEN? Stichting JASon kondigt zijn activiteiten aan via de activiteitenkalender in JASon Magazine, via zijn Facebook-pagina (JASon Institute), website (www.stichtingjason.nl/activiteiten/) en een tweeweekse nieuwsbrief. U kunt zich voor onze nieuwsbrief aanmelden via het contactformulier op onze website (www.stichtingjason.nl/contact/).

VACATURES JASon Magazine is op zoek naar vrijwillige redacteurs (studenten of afgestudeerd) die graag artikelen voor het magazine willen schrijven en geïnteresseerd in internationale betrekkingen zijn. Interesse of meer informatie? Mail ons op redactie@stichtingjason.nl.

ADVERTEREN? Voor bedrijven, universiteiten, instituten en andere organisaties is het mogelijk om te adverteren in JASon Magazine, op de website of activiteiten van stichting JASon. De doelgroep van stichting JASon en JASon Magazine zijn politicologie-, bestuurskunde- en rechtenstudenten, maar ook studenten die los van hun studie geïnteresseerd zijn in internationale betrekkingen en meer specifiek in internationale defensievraagstukken. neem voor meer informatie contact met ons op via het contactformulier op onze website (www.stichtingjason.nl/contact/).

DONEREN JASon wordt mogelijk gemaakt door hardwerkende vrijwilligers die het hun missie zien om de maatschappij te informeren over internationale vredes- en veiligheidsvraagstukken. De activiteiten van JASon kosten geld en daarom willen wij u vragen om bij te dragen aan onze missie. JASon heeft de AnBI-status, waardoor u uw giften aan de stichting mogelijk mag aftrekken van uw belastingen. het rekeningnummer van de stichting is nl10 InGB 0667 3158 02. Voor meer informatie kunt u contact met ons opnemen via het contactformulier op onze website (www.stichtingjason.nl/contact/). JASON MAGAZINE ONLINE het huidige en voorgaande nummers van JASon Magazine zijn online terug te vinden op www.stichtingjason.nl/magazine. het huidige nummer is online in kleur verkrijgbaar.

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016




Elections for Dummies 1 2


2 3 4 5 6


Krauthammer, C. (1990). The Unipolar Moment, in Foreign Affairs, 70-1. Mearsheimer, J. (2005). hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism, in Open Democracy. Consulted at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp Jones, T. (2008). Change and continuity in US foreign policy, in Policy Options, consulted at http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/obama-and-clinton/change-and-continuity-in-us-foreign-policy/ Guerlain, p. (2015). obama’s Foreign policy: Continuity Rather Than Contradictions, in Huffington Post. Consulted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierre-guerlain/obamas-foreign-policy-con_b_6977980.html Mearsheimer, J. (2005). hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism, in Open Democracy. Consulted at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp Idem.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


De geciteerde cijfers zijn alle afkomstig van het United States Elections project (http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data) en zijn gebaseerd op daadwerkelijk stemgerechtigden. De opkomstcijfers zijn daarom vaak iets hoger dan de vaak geciteerde opkomstcijfers op basis van alle 18-plussers (inclusief niet-staatsburgers en veroordeelden die hun stemrecht verloren zijn).

- pag. 14

Reuters. (2016, June 09). Factbox: Main decisions of nATo’s Warsaw summit. Retrieved from http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-decisions-factbox-idUKKCn0Zp0MX CnBC. (2016, September 20). Skeptical of Russia, Clinton seen going toe-to-toe with putin. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20/skeptical-of-russia-clinton-seen-going-toe-to-toe-with-putin.html The Guardian. (2014, March 06). hillary Clinton says Vladimir putin’s Crimea occupation echoes hitler. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/hillary-clinton-says-vladimir-putins-crimea-occupation-echoes-hitler Cnn. (2014, March 18). hillary Clinton: It’s up to putin whether there’s ‘another Cold War’. Retrieved from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/18/hillary-clinton-its-up-to-putin-whether-theres-another-cold-war/ Eckel, M. (2015, September 09). Clinton Calls For Tougher Response To Russia on Ukraine, Syria. Retrieved from http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-us-clinton-calls-for-tougher-response-on-ukraine-syria/27235800.html The Washington post. (2016, March 30). Trump’s claim that the U.S. pays the ‘lion’s share’ for nATo. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/ Wall Street Journal. (n.d.). Where They Stand on Foreign policy Issues. Retrieved from http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy/ onTheIssues. (n.d.). hillary Clinton on Foreign policy. Retrieved from http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/hillary_Clinton_Foreign_policy.htm new York Times. (1996, october 23). Clinton Urges nATo Expansion in 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/23/us/clinton-urges-nato-expansion-in-1999.html?_r=0

See: note 1 See: note 1 See: note 1 and 9 Bergsten, C. Fred (2009) “Two’s Company” Foreign Affairs, Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2009-09-01/twos-company

What the Upcoming Elections Means for Woman’s Rights 2 3 4



3 4 5 6

- pag. 28

The Rust Belt is the term for the region of the upper north-Eastern United States, the Greatlakes, and the Midwest States. Full Rush Transcript hillary Clinton part//Cnn TV one Democratic presidential Town hall 13 March 2016 http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com.

Terror is Winning 1

- pag. 24

American public health Association, ‘Restricted Access to Abortion Violates human Rights, precludes Reproductive Justice, and Demands public health Intervention,’ www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2016/01/04/11/24/ restricted-access-to-abortion-violates-human-rights World health organization, ‘Sexual and reproductive health’, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/magnitude/en Mitchell, Andrea. (2013) ‘Clinton on women’s rights, Middle East peace,’ www.nbcnews.com/id/35877287/ns/msnbc-andrea_mitchell_reports/t/clinton-womens-rights-middle-east-peace Imhoff, Emily. (2016) ‘let’s Get Real About Gun Violence and Women,’ http://now.org/blog/lets-get-real-about-gun-violence-and-women

Elections and Jounalism in a Divided America 2

- pag. 10

The ‘Clinton Effect’ on the NATO-US Relationship 1



- pag. 7

Een Democratie zonder Kiezers? 1


The estimate was done by Ballot Access news in october 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/elections-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0 These numbers are from an estimate done on 15 September 2016. This elections will resemble that of 2012 in the total amount of funds raised, which was more than two billion in total. There are 11 in total: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, nevada, new hampshire, north Carolina, ohio, pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin (source: politico)

Straight and Steady? 1

- pag. 4

- pag. 34

King. M.l (1967) Beyond Vietnam, http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/ Sullivan. S & Miller. M (2016) Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally, The Washington post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supportersoutside-rally/ Graham. D (2015) The 5 Black Lives Matter Protestors Shot in Minneapolis, the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/11/minneapolis-shooting-black-lives-matter-jamar-clark/417462/ Feffer. J (2016) Was Orlando ‘Terrorism’? , Counterpunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/was-orlando-terrorism/ BBC news (2016) Jo Cox MP death: Thomas Mair in court on murder charge http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36567005 Cockburn. A (2015) Andrew Cockburn: Modern War, The laura Flanders Show, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhVUMRlV0X0

The Myth of the Impending Decline of the US as the Global Superpower - pag. 20 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


G. Brooks, Stephen and C. Wohlforth, William (2016) “The once and Future Superpower” Foreign Affairs, Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-04-13/once-and-future-superpower Bremmer, Ian (2015) “These Are the 5 Reasons Why the U.S. Remains the World’s only Superpower” TIME Retrieved from: http://time.com/3899972/us-superpower-status-military/ See: note 1, Rachman, Gideon (2015) “China’s money magnet pulls in US allies” The Financial Times, Retrieved from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd466ddc-cbc7-11e4-aeb5-00144feab7de.html#axzz4GeDWnW2u and page, Jeremy (2016) “Ailing economy slows China’s military expansion” The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-raise-defense-spending-by-7-8-1457071436 See: note 1 Adelman, Jonathan (2014) “China’s long Road to Superpower Status” U.S. News, Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/11/10/china-is-not-the-next-global-superpower See: note 1 See: note 1 See: note 1 Kagan, Robert (2012) “not Fade Away” new Republic, Retrieved from: https://newrepublic.com/article/99521/america-world-power-declinism posen, Barry R (2003) “Command of the Commons” The MIT Press Journals, Retrieved from: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/posen_summer_2003.pdf See: note 1 See: note 9 See: note 2 See: note 2 and Adelman, Jonathan (2013) “Why The U.S. Remains The World’s Unchallenged Superpower” Forbes, Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/24/why-the-u-s-remains-the-worlds-unchallenged-superpower/#54f560ac1fd8 See: note 2 lai, David (2016) “The US-China power Transition: Stage II” The Diplomat, Retrieved from: http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/the-us-china-power-transition-stage-ii/ and Allison, Graham (2015) “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China headed for War?” The Atlantic, Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/united-states-china-war-thucydides-trap/406756/

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016

JASon Magazine * Volume 41 * Issue 3 * 2016


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.