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

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

Published

on

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.

The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.

The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”

“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.

Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”

Advertisement

 White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.

The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.

The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.

“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”

Advertisement

Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.

“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.

In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Published

on

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. Our reporter Jodi Kantor explains what these documents reveal about the court.

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

News

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

Published

on

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images

Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.

“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”

Advertisement

The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.

Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

Pool/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Pool/AFP via Getty Images

In 2015, patience led to a deal

The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement

“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.

“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”

Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.

“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”

Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”

Advertisement

Distrust but verify

Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.

“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.

“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.

Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”

Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.

Advertisement

Negotiations have a leveling effect

Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.

Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.

In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending