Connect with us

News

Why political leaders are so unpopular now

Published

on

Why political leaders are so unpopular now

Stay informed with free updates

The writer is chair of Rockefeller International

Joe Biden’s record low popularity ratings get a lot of attention, yet leaders across the developed world are in a similar predicament to the US president — they have rarely been this unpopular.

I track leaders’ approval ratings in 20 major democracies, using leading pollsters such as Morning Consult, Gallup and Compolítica. In the developed world, no leader has a rating above 50 per cent. Only one country (Italy) has seen its leader gain approval in the 2020s. At 37 per cent, Biden’s rating is at a record low for a US president late in his first term — but above average for his peers.

Advertisement

Signs of old age may be hurting the 81-year-old Biden’s ratings but this does not explain the wider trend. Between 1950 and 2020, the average age of presidents and prime ministers in developed countries fell from above 60 to around 54. The leaders of Britain, Germany, France and Japan are far younger than Biden — but even less popular. All four have ratings below 30 per cent.

The debate about Biden centres on why he gets such low marks despite relatively strong recent economic data, including lower inflation. Yet approval ratings have been trending down for first term US presidents since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Biden supporters hope the improving economy will eventually lift his ratings, but he is up against deeply entrenched trends.

Leaders across the developed world are, at least in part, victims of a long-term decay in national morale. Slower economic growth, rising inequality and a growing feeling that the system is rigged against the average person — all these factors are magnified by the polarising impact of social media.

In the US, Democrats have grown less likely to vote for a Republican, much less marry one, and vice versa. Polarisation is personal, bitter. Similar splits are widening in Europe, where voters have more parties to choose from and are turning on the established ones. Between the early 1990s and 2020 the vote share of extreme parties in Europe increased from near zero to 25 per cent. This was led by gains on the far right, which casts itself as a defender of the common people against outsiders and a pampered, global elite.

Social media appears to intensify partisan rancour. A solid majority in most developed economies — and nearly 80 per cent in the US — believe these platforms are widening political divisions. It may also be that the public is becoming increasingly alienated from democratic leaders because fewer talented people are entering politics, put off by the ploys required for survival in a digitised arena.

Advertisement

In the developing world, however, while social media can be just as widespread and as hostile in tenor, it seems to be inflicting less damage on incumbents. In my poll tracker for 10 of the largest developing nations, the majority of leaders still have a rating above 50 per cent. The sense of disappointment that shadows leaders of developed countries has yet to overwhelm their peers in the developing world.

One possible reason is that while globalisation and digitisation have helped lift the fortunes of many in the developing world, the developed nations have in recent decades seen slower growth. This is particularly true for the middle classes. From highs of at least 3 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s, growth in average per capita income has slowed in the US to 1.5 per cent, and in the large European countries and Japan to around one per cent or less. Perhaps not coincidentally, Japan has suffered the sharpest long-term decline in per capita income, and today has the least popular prime minister, Fumio Kishida, with an approval rating of 21 per cent.

Polls show that voters in advanced economies are losing faith that the modern capitalist system can generate opportunities for everyone, and are increasingly inclined to believe that “people can only get rich at the expense of others”. Most see themselves as “others”. In 2023, the number of people who expect to be “better off in five years” hit record lows below 50 per cent in all 14 of the developed countries surveyed by the Edelman Trust Barometer. Optimists were a minority everywhere. Even the positive vibes emanating from a rising stock market aren’t cheering people outside the financial world.

This bodes ill for incumbents, with national elections in many of the leading democracies this year. As recently as the early 2000s, incumbents were winning 70 per cent of their re-election bids; lately they have won just 30 per cent. To restore their traditional advantage, incumbents need to recognise that the connection between headline economic data and political support has broken. Voters are reacting to long-term decline, and are looking for fresh fixes.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending