US Midterms 2018: How will voters respond to sorry state of disunion at the midterm congressional elections?

It's a crucial time in the first term of the self-declared nationalist 45th President of the United States. His administration has done nothing but divide America. He goads and baits his progressive and even moderate opponents, while egging on the worst of his own supporters.

In Congress, the Republic Party (GOP) is in control, but still somehow presides over stagnation. So far, the most active use of their dominance in Congress has been to use it to back the President and his decisions - against even reasonable criticism - largely by inaction.

While the GOP is held in destructive unity, the Democrats are busily undergoing an internal struggle. The progressive wing of the party - symbolically represented by the Sanders Presidential campaign - is striving for a bigger part in the wider party, still controlled by pro-business moderates.

Midterm Congressional Elections

The midterm elections give voters a chance to take stock of this sorry state of disunion.

On 6th November, voters will go to the polls to vote on members of Congress - one third of seats in the Senate are up for grabs and all of the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are two seats per state. In the House of Representatives, seats represent districts on the basis of state population.

This won't be a vote on the President directly, but it will shape the balance of power in Congress - through which any new bill he wishes to pass must navigate. Right now it is run by Republicans, but as things are at present that could well change tomorrow with a strong result for the Democrats.

So the Democrats will be pleased that so far news seems to be positive for them. It's good news for them that turnouts for early voting have been high. Low turnout tends to favour the GOP, because it is older, whiter, more affluent voters - conservative bread and butter - that are a reliable turnout.

On other fronts, there's good news for the Democrats too. Small donations tot he Democrats have come in at double of those to the GOP. Presidential approval, sitting at a twelve year midterms low of 40% - the lowest since, and second only too, George W Bush who sat on 37% at the 2006 midterms.

Democrats are also polling well. They sit at a 49% to 41% margin, wide enough to tip the election towards a landslide and rebalance Congress towards the Democrats. There are even indications that youth turnout, which as elsewhere leans heavily progressive, may also be high this time around.

But general polling can't tell us all we need to know about the individual races. In the House of Representatives there are plenty of Republcian seats up for grabs. However, in the House of Representatives there are just 35 seats up for re-election, of which just 9 are Republican - limiting how deeply inroads can be made. But taking five of those seats would be enough to tilt the balance towards the Democrats.

High water mark in Texas: Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke

So which seats are the ones to watch to see if Congress will swing heavily to the Democrats?

To look at one example: the most high profile Senate seat being defended is that of Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Texas. A deeply controversial figure who has wielded the backing of the Evangelical Christian movement.

He is facing a surprisingly tough race against the Democrat challenger Beto O'Rourke, who has served three terms in Congress as a Representative for El Paso. In stark contrast to Ted Cruz, O'Rourke is pro-LGBT rights, supports efforts to tackle climate change, women's right to an abortion and a meaningful reform of healthcare in America.

Contrasting the big money PAC support that Ted Cruz enjoys, O'Rourke focused on raising money from small donations from individuals - a stance that makes him stand out against a backdrop of big money lobbying in politics and appears to have served him well with impressive campign funding.

Even with an impressively run campaign and the signs of a strong turnout, it has to be said that it will be a major upset if Beto O'Rourke wins this seat.

But it is an important benchmark for Democrats across the country - in fact, likely to be the high water mark of a Democrat 'wave' (landslide electoral victory). If O'Rourke looks like getting even close to taking this Senate seat for Texas from Cruz, that could herald a strong night for the Democrats.

Restore a little hope

For two years, this President - a self-proclaimed nationalist and obvious narcissist with a hardcore following of white nationalists - has had nearly free rein in Washington thanks to Republican control of Congress enabling him. It's time to restore some of the checks and balances. It is time that he faced some meaningful opposition - faced some possibility of being held to account.

For that role, the Democrats will do. They're far from the progressive ideal, but right now they represent a better, more inclusive vision of America - and they are engaged in internal reform that is pushing them to be something more. In that, there is hope. America could do with a little of that right now. All progressives, everywhere, could do with a little of that right now.

Around the World: The Trump Insurgency

Donald Trump chose the Republican Elephant as the mount for his insurgent populist campaign that has ridden the divisive politics of the far-right deep into the American political system.

With the two main parties having settled - which might be an almost too painfully apt expression - on their respective candidates, it is now established who will stand, and for what they will stand, in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Hillary Clinton will face Donald Trump - but only on the surface will it be a contest between Democrat and Republican. Beneath the party façade the Presidential race reflects a struggle that is a clear pattern emerging across the Western world, seen clearly in most of the recent elections in Europe, between the mistrusted mainstream and a Far Right insurgency.

Whether it was the Brexit referendum or the French regional elections, in this time of crisis progressives have found themselves having to wrestle with a difficult proposition: whether to oppose an imperfect mainstream at the risk of inviting in the Far Right, or to stand with the hated establishment, itself struggling for legitimacy against authoritarianism and sectarianism.

In the US, Bernie Sanders and his supporters tried to capture control of the mainstream Democrats so that the Left might lead from the front. Having failed, they're now left struggling with what to do in the face of Trump's mirrored insurgency succeeding in its capture of the rival Republicans. Despite Sanders' endorsement of Hillary, many of his supporters remain unconvinced.

Trump's insurgency has increased the sense of urgency, if not yet panic, across the Centre and Left. With no hint of irony, despite the hyperbole, even moderate commentators are expressing genuine fears for the future of American democracy (Finchelstein, 2016; Noah, 2016; Collier, 2016) - perhaps a part of which is an attempt to motivate the Left to fall in behind Hillary by stressing the seriousness of the fight ahead.

Political sensibility suggests that moderacy will ultimately win out - that Trump will eventually, whatever his rhetoric, have to bow to political realism. But that sensibility is cold comfort.

The most dangerous thing Trump has done is to force the coalescence of a constituency, previously scattered and with no common identity, that is persuaded by and supportive of authoritarian values (Taub, 2016). Trump himself, whatever his reactionary verbiage, is less of a concern than what this organised political movement, given common identity, might yet be used to accomplish.

The Republicans, the Grand Old Party (GOP), had already been through the long slow process, from Lincoln's time onwards, of coming under conservative control. But since the 1960s, conservatives have decisively consolidated their control over the party - including inviting the influx of Southern Democrats spurned by the embrace of the civil rights movement by the Democrats.

The consolidation definitively moved the GOP away from the Republicanism of Lincoln toward something more resembling the Republicanism of Jefferson - a parochial populist anti-establishment, or rather anti-elite, politics, with a strict and restrictive adherence to the constitution. Recent decades saw that combined with a sectarian Nativism and a politicised Evangelism.

What Trump has now rallied about the Republican Party is support for a popular authoritarianism able to cut across the distinctions, separating members of the coalition headed 'Republican', with a methodology: signified by a language that is brash, abrasive and often violent.

It is not surprising in the face of Trump's rhetoric that people have drawn connections between him and fascism. The theme of violence against others, against opponents, violence and conflict as decisive social positives, was a crucial tenet of fascism and has been inherited by its more 'democratic' successor populism (Finchelstein, 2016).

The Left and Centre getting behind the mainstream to oppose the rise of these violent ideologies is only the first step. Defeating it at one election is not the end of the matter. It does not address the reasons why people would seek out an abrasive, anti-establishment, anti-elite, strongman leader in the first place. The concerns of those voters must be understood, contextualised and addressed with positive solutions.

The angry, authoritarian-supporting, voters who would back a man like Donald Trump are not the enemies of progressives. For the most part they're victims of economic conditions, looking with misguided hope to strength and might for deliverance. The job of progressives is to extend a hand, show a better way to build a society and to expose the Far-Right programme for the fraud it is.

Response by Blair to the Chilcot report illustrates why we need a progressive alliance and the pluralism it is supports

Tony Blair in his final year as PM and leader of Labour, even as the US planned a troop surge in Iraq, four years after the initial invasion. Photograph: Blair in 2007 by Matthew Yglesias (License) (Cropped)

Last night's progressive alliance event, hosted by the Compass think tank, began with a call for progressives to take ownership of the concepts of love and hope. From all sides there was a sentiment that building a progressive future depends on reaching across boundaries and cooperating.

This could not be in starker contrast from Tony Blair's response to the release of the Chilcot Inquiry's report. Following John Chilcot's statement, introducing the report, former Prime Minister Tony Blair spent two hours giving a response and answering questions.

After apologising and accepting full responsibility, Blair sought to justify his actions. At the centre of Blair's explanation is the portrait he paints of a singular leader whose job it is to make the decisions. That is an attitude that underlines the Blair legacy.

Particularly in the Labour Party, that attitude has opened a drastic separation between the establishment and the people who support a candidate like Jeremy Corbyn. People, active political actors, feeling separated from the decision making reserved to an elite heavily embedded within the establishment and the media.

In his report Chilcot criticised the centralisation of decision making that alienated even the cabinet from the necessary information in a political system that is not, but has become increasingly, presidential. A singular leader was able to take a momentous decision, on his own authority, overruling rules and proper process on the way.

Beneath the idea of a progressive alliance is the principle of pluralism - that decisions should be made with broad consent. It is a poignant criticism of the direction of Blair and New Labour's thinking.

From John Harris - cautioning the audience that it is a priority to speak to those in the most desperate situations and address the inequalities resting upon them and feeding a hopeless view of the future - to Amina Gichinga - calling out politicians for not facing the people, not just for accountability but to build a vision of the future that includes them - the Compass event emphasised the way in which centralisation and majoritarian thinking had alienated people and left them feeling helpless.

Rebuilding trust in politics cannot be done from the top down, without reinforcing an idea of politics being something that is done by elites while the rest wait with ears pressed to the door. The progressive alliance event was adamant on that point - connecting working across party lines with the need for electoral reform and proportional representation.

What Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Vince Cable accepted in their contributions is that the divisions, caused by the ambitions of singular parties to chase majorities, were damaging to the overall aims shared by progressives of all stripes.

As centralising power on the mythical decision-making leader alienates people, so might pluralism empower and energise them. If there are lessons to be learned from the Blair leadership, the Iraq War and Chilcot, it is that decisions must not be made in isolation within the corridors of power. Progressives have to expect a better, broader and more inclusive process and start living up to it.

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union

One of the most controversial elements of the UK's membership of the European Union, at present, is the TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - trade deal. Between the United States and the European Union, it is intended to break down trade barriers limiting free trade.

The prospective deal has been controversial from the start - being assembled in negotiations deemed secret, under a cloud of fear that business is being given legal rights to seek recompense from governments for profit-hurting policy, reduce Europe's regulatory standards and open protected domestic institutions to aggressive corporate competition.

I: The EU is only what you make of it

The misconception here is that the EU is a distinct, abstract institution, pursuing its own agenda - thus imagining the deal to be the work of the EU alone, with exit a simple blocking measure. But the EU doesn't work like that. It is driven by a council of the governments of the member states, including the UK.

Right now, Britain's representative are David Cameron's government and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully in favour of TTIP. Leaving the EU is not going to stop the UK's Conservative government seeking the pass TTIP-type trade agreement.

The basic reality is that the opposition to TTIP is to be found in Europe, not out of it. In Germany, 250,000 people have marched against the treaty. In France, the government is opposing the treaty for the way it threatens its protection policy covering certain of its own domestic interests. The movements are right in step with the major concerns over the treaty in Britain.

II: Remember ACTA?

As ever, the problem persists of national governments hiding behind the EU - using it as an excuse or a way to pass policies where the public aren't watching, when it is simply a system whose strings they are pulling.

Consider the controversial ACTA treaty. ACTA, which was intended to ensure an international 'harmonisation' of copyright enforcement, was criticised as potentially allowing private companies to violate basic personal liberties like privacy and even threatening generic medicines to protect the financial interests big pharmaceutical companies.

While many national governments around the world and across Europe signed, including the UK, the treaty was ultimately blocked in a vote by the directly and proportionally elected EU Parliament, following massive public protests across the EU.

III: What is the point of free trade?

On TTIP, Prime Minister Cameron has tried to make out that there are stark lines over the deal. From his perspective, on his side - supporting TTIP - are all those who want free trade and the benefits it brings, and on the other are people who are 'against free trade and wanting to see an expansion of trade and investment and jobs' (Mason, 2016).

It is not unfair to suggest free trade is a worthy principle, but why can't we have it on ethical terms?

In its more idealistic form, the EU is all about constructing an ethical free trade area. In its origins, it was conceived of as a way to end war in Europe by stopping national governments getting into strife with each other over control of the natural resources with which to construct to materiel of war.

Going further back, into the 19th century, the campaign for free trade was about breaking open cartels. Under the system of trade formed by the competing systems of national protection, the basic necessities were made prohibitively expensive by the stranglehold over them of powerful and unaccountable landlords and bosses whose interests where served by national government protection.

The Anti-Corn Law League, the early radical liberal campaign in the UK for free trade, sought to break up these cartels to reduce the cost of basic food and goods, so that the poorest could afford a decent and healthy life. The campaign for free trade was in service to the public against the protected interests of the rich landowners.

IV: What does EU trade look like?

What the EU has attempted, but not completed, is to ensure that the free trade it promotes takes place on a fair and ethical playing field. Basic standards, enforced by regulation (the mythical beast the Right love to talk of slaying), protect workers' rights, prevent animal testing and in a host of other important areas ensure a basic minimum expected of business practice in Europe.

Internally, this comes hand-in-hand with policies like the Regional Development Fund. The fund is intended to invest in the poorest, sub-national, regions of the EU to raise the standard of living up, so no country can look to undercut another on basic standards or be cut out left unfairly behind.

Externally the protections, of standards and rights, require trading partners to meet certain conditions for access to Europe's common market - like those of Norway and Switzerland that have been much publicised as alternatives in for the UK during this EU referendum campaign.

All of these ideals depend, however, on who is in charge of policy and negotiation at the EU. Right now, it is the conservatives of many EU member states who are in the ascendency and control policy and decision making at the European level. As a result, the EU's actions have been tinged with conservatism.

Within that system, it has been the Right, and the far right, who have been the ones pushing most aggressively for the UK to do away with the EU's standards - though it has faced resistance. The solution for the Right has become doing away with the EU, but keeping the market intact, as they still want to trade with Europe, but want to be undercut everyone else and help big business pad its profits by doing away with concern for the environment or workers' rights.

What do progressives want from trade?

Exiting the EU will require new trade deals to be negotiated. The conservative Right is unlikely to make those standards and regulations any kind of priority in its negotiations. Maybe, of course, those who want a 'left exit', unrestricted by the European system, will get a government of the Left before too long, to set about forming a new progressive trade policy.

But what are progressives in Britain going to negotiate for, if not an ethical trade area? An ethical trade area underscored by democratic accountability and cooperation?

Even a progressive exit would mean the dismantling of systems of cooperation, decades in the making, that have supported advances in rights, in a move that could only make the Far Right happy - only to have to then try to rebuild it all over again.

Right now for progressives, fighting corporate power and ensuring trade is conducted ethically and with appropriate standards and rights protections, remaining in the EU - not idly, but campaigning for progressive, democratic reforms - is still the best option.

This is Part 2 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

Still opposition even as Italy on verge of completing historic year for LGBT rights, but progressives must maintain their optimism

The Catholic Church stands in the way of Italy extending legal recognition to same-sex couples. Photograph: St Peter's Basilica from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Later this week, the Senate in Italy will be deciding how to respond to condemnation for the lack of legal recognition of same-sex couples (BBC, 2016). The government of Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister and leader of the Partito Democratico, has put legislation on same-sex unions before the Senate to introduce civil partnerships after criticism from the European Court of Human Rights.

Italy was ruled by the ECHR in the summer as being in breach of human rights by not allowing same-sex unions (Kirchgaessner, 2015). That ruling seems to have inspired fresh hope of progress, with campaigners out in numbers over the weekend to call for a change in the law (Kirchgaessner, 2016).

The road to change in Italy, though, is still filled with obstacles. There are deeply ingrained attitudes to overcome (Scammell, 2016) and the power of the Catholic Church is behind the conservative opposition (The Guardian, 2016).

However, the public campaigns for same-sex unions show that there is a possibility of change. The successes of other civil rights campaigns around the world also highlight what can be accomplished. Big steps forward where made last year, on a number of fronts - even when just considering the fight for LGBT rights.

In the US there were reassuring steps, with a Supreme Court ruling establishing that equal marriage was a constitutional right (Roberts & Siddiqui, 2015). Barack Obama celebrated the decision as making the 'union a little more perfect', marking a rare win for the Democrat President in an extremely partisan time in the White House (Jacobs, 2015).

Meanwhile Ireland became the first country in the world to secure the passage of equal marriage by a popular referendum, with an emphatic 62% voting in favour (The Irish Times, 2015). That vote had the additional significance of leaving Italy as the last Western country to not have some form of civic union for same-sex couples (Duncan, 2016).

Later this week in the UK, the Commons will be considering an amendment to the Civil Partnerships Bill that aims to extend civil unions - originally intended as a same-sex alternative to marriage - to opposite-sex couples (Bowcott, 2016).

Though it may seem like a sideshow, at a time when these matters are being debated, it would be a positive and signal step to make all forms of civil union equal, whether marriage or partnership, regardless of gender pairing. For those who are socially excluded, the aim is to be treated as equals.

A chance to take some steps towards that parity approaches in Italy. Yet the outcome of the Senate vote is far from certain. Italy has had a difficult history with liberalising reforms. Campaigns have long been left to parties on the fringe, such as the Radicals, who have campaigned for everything from the separation of church and state to the rights to divorces and abortions (Moliterno, 2000).

And over everything, the Catholic Church casts a long shadow (The Guardian, 2016). The Pope, weighing in on the upcoming vote, declared that god wanted only one type of family union, procreative and insoluble, and no other.

It can be demotivating as a progressive to have a year filled with conservatism, populist nationalism and neoliberal austerity, with discrimination still protected by powerful institutions. To discover in the news that, in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, those most in need of help face segregation - in the most recent case, refugees being forced to wear red wristbands as distinctive markers used to distinguish them (Taylor & Johnston, 2016).

But 2015 also served as a reminder of how much that is positive might be achieved, even under a conservative stranglehold. Progressives must draw upon these accomplishments for strength as they move forward, in order to, as Yanis Varoufakis argues (Varoufakis & Pisarello, 2016), maintain the optimism needed in the continued struggle against discrimination and the hegemony that protects it.