Stidmatt

At-will employment, which requires employees to go to the office, relocate away from home, and usually to states with limited workers rights is inherently broken. Employers are able to layoff employees at any time for any reason, with a very imbalanced relationship.

Best part is that if the company is big enough and the economy collapses under bad investments made by the same large companies, the government will bail them out. The employee on the other hand has to fight tooth and nail for the unemployment insurance scraps which we pay direct taxes for. The company of course doesn’t have to pay taxes because that will “kill jobs” even though they are the ones doing the layoffs. Voters are then convinced to vote for politicians who will slash unemployment benefits and ramp up more subsidies for the businesses which are laying people off and consolidating industries, reducing employment opportunities, making it so companies which do random layoffs have less competition, driving down wages for even more insecure positions.

It’s infuriating and someday we need to wake up and vote for politicians who will support a competitive capitalist economy, not this rigged system which we have now.

In order to keep this system employers push for political candidates who will manage the economy so it doesn’t get too good. They do this through idiotic policies like tariffs which slow down the economy in a way which hurts people who don’t have millions of dollars in the bank.

When the economy finally collapses under the strain the government ensures the big businesses who are doing the random layoffs will get an enormous amount of government money to keep them afloat to “save jobs” while everyone else gets scraps, if anything at all.

I do not believe that market cycles are natural. I think they are inherently political. The last recession under a democratic president was in 1980 under President Carter. That recession was caused due to monetary tightening by Paul Volcker.

The recession before that under a Democrat was in 1948 under President Truman. Just like in 1980 it was not due to any policy of the president, but due to the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates during an election year. It didn’t work in 1948 however since Truman defeated Dewey.

The 1945 recession was due to an influx of former soldiers coming home after Hitler committed suicide.

The 1937 recession was caused due to an attempt to quickly balance the budget before the economy was ready, and a tight monetary policy.

Are you noticing a trend yet?

The Democratic Party before 1932 was significantly different from how it has been since.

All but one recession under a democratic president is due to an overly zealous Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy during a presidential election year!

Every other recession since has happened under a Republican president. We have had 10 recessions under Republican presidents and 4 recessions under Democratic presidents since 1929.

Republicans engineer recessions to remove competition in the market. This drives wages down and profits up for the largest corporations.

They use Russian propaganda against their democratic opponents to win elections. The use of the internet by Russian bot farms are designed to elect meek and conservative leadership across the democratic world. These leaders are inherently fearful and weak. They hesitate to criticize Russia or send Ukraine enough aid to win. By preventing a Ukrainian victory they maintain their support of the Russian bot farms. They push up extreme politicians which prevents progressives from getting enough support to win.

The politicians who would fight to unrig the system, the heads I win, tails you lose system we have today becomes entrenched. Entrenched businesses make our jobs less secure. Our wages are lower than they would be otherwise. Even union jobs have little protection.

I’ve been looking for work for 3 months now. I’m tired. I’m hungry. The game is rigged. Visa restrictions mean that simply moving to another country for work is not an options. Russian propaganda has propped up right wing governments around the world. The economic impact of the Invasion of Ukraine is everywhere. It makes everything so much more difficult. We have it easy, we are not being killed in our homes by rockets at 2 in the morning.

Our politicians are weak and slow. We have the power to stop this. Our governments are corrupt.

Support Ukraine. Defeat Russia.

The Democratic Party has been split between two major caucuses for the last 55 years, the Progressives, and the New Democrats. New Democrats were founded in the 1970s with the belief that the failure of Democrats to win in 1972 was because they were too liberal under Johnson, so they moved the party in a more conservative direction. They are reactionary conservatives.

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were undeniably more liberal than most of their succeeding presidents. While some basic democratic ideas stayed with the party, namely the importance of government involvement in health care, you saw a weaker approach towards education spending. But even still, Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama all worked to increase access to health care for everyday Americans.

One important piece of progress the New Democrats brought to the table was bringing in modern economic research for trade to the platform and the signing of free trade deals. But this was already a part of President Johnson’s platform in 1964, so the New Democrats merely continued this to the present day.

The main issues progressive democrats bring to the table are:

• Strong support for trust-busting
• Support for nationalizing natural monopolies
• Universal health care
• Tuition free or debt-free college (varies by progressive)

Many progressive democrats have unfortunately swallowed the fair trade poison like President Biden did. This is clearly a mistake when looking at the impacts of countries which have tried this approach. It makes sense to have basic health and safety standards, but attacking free trade is a mistake. We don’t find this same thread of politics in non-Anglo developed countries to the same extent. Britain has it to the extreme, as we have seen with the consequences of Brexit.

If progressive democrats truly cared about the environment there are better methods than supporting tariffs. We should start with a carbon tax, which will be far more effective.

So, moving down the list from 1972 to present, using Keys to the White House as our guide, let’s see how we can get America on the right track.

1972

In 1972 Democrats put forward George McGovern, an opponent of the Vietnam War. However, Richard Nixon had only 4 negative keys so it would have taken a miracle for a Democrat to win.

1976

Gerald Ford had 8 negative keys, so Democrats would have won with basically anyone and President Carter fit the bill.

1980

President Carter had 8 false keys. In order to win we would have needed:

• No primary contest
• More charisma from Carter
• Deal with the Iran hostage crisis better
• Pass a major law

So there was basically no democrat who would have won the 1980 election.

1984

With only two false keys, Reagan was a shoe in. It didn’t matter who we ran.

1988

With only 3 false keys, George H.W. Bush was all but certain to win reelection.

1992-1996

President Bush had 6 false keys so the election was a toss-up and it turned out to be so in the election. Bush lost because of a spoiler effect from Ross Perot. The same thing happened in 1996 for Bob Dole.

I do not think Clinton would have won either election if Bob Dole had not run. Since Clinton had 5 false keys, a charismatic Republican candidate in 1996 would have won the presidency.

2000

Al Gore ran a good campaign, and he probably won the election based on how the Supreme Court stopped the count before it was finished.

2004

Bush had only 4 false keys, so its not surprising that he beat John Kerry. I argue he actually had only 3 false keys because the PATRIOT ACT was a major policy change. It would have been very difficult to beat him in 2004.

2008-2012

Obama ran a fantastic campaign and Bush was extremely unpopular with 9 false keys. Obama governed extremely well in his first term and had only three false keys (arguably two, I am not convinced he was uncharismatic in 2012) so its not surprising he won in 2012. Obama had the fewest false keys of any Democrat since 1964.

2016

This is where we hit a problem… up until this year the election would have been an extremely uphill battle or Democrats won. But Hillary Clinton was an extremely uncharismatic candidate, with a flawed strategy. With 6 false keys it is not surprising she lost. Arguably she had 7 false keys because of the handling of the initial Invasion of Ukraine.

Perhaps the biggest reason Clinton lost was when she said single-payer health care will never-ever happen. What type of voter does this attract to her who would ever consider voting for her in the first place? She focused on opposing a proposal similar to what she and her husband worked on. This is why she was uncharismatic.

The other problem was the handling of the Invasion of Ukraine. This gave Clinton a false key (arguably bringing her up to 7 false keys) and prevented an easy military success during Obama’s second term. I believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine successfully set the presidency up for Donald Trump to win.

Clinton still won the popular vote despite this however, which shows just how terrible a person Donald Trump is.

2020

Joe Biden was not just running against Donald Trump, he was running against the plague. The lack of CDC monitoring in China helping track COVID was a major foreign policy failure. If the PATRIOT ACT is not a major policy change I do not see how a single tax bill is, bringing Trump up to 9 false keys.

There was no way the Democrats could have lost the 2020 election.

2024

2024 however is where I think there have been some major miscalculations and showed some issues with the system.

Even though the economic fundamentals were strong we had a K-shaped recovery after the First Trump recession. This created the feeling of a weak economy for millions of Americans. This brings Harris up to 6 false keys.

Biden had no military or foreign policy success. 7 false keys.

Biden did not pass any major policy change aside from a one time bailout of suburbia. 8 false keys.

This is why I believe if we had been more proactive in supplying Ukraine with better weapons sooner it would have solved the economic keys and foreign policy keys, giving Harris an easy win.

This is why Harris became only the second Democrat to lose the popular vote in the last 30 years.

Thoughts

Whether our nominee is a progressive or a new democrat only impacts the uncharismatic challenger key. Obama was the only charismatic challenger in the last 30 years according to the system, and he was the most relatively progressive candidate of the Democratic Party in this time period. So the whole argument of “we need a candidate who can defeat ___” is nonsense.

What matters however is how the president will lead, whether the president will have enough keys to be reelected. This is where it is obvious that the caucus membership of the president matters a lot.

So this leads us to what Democrats need to do in order to win and why I believe the following platform will lead Democrats to victory, put in terms of the thirteen keys to the presidency:

• Party Mandate: Have a functional party machine and a president who isn’t doing stupid stuff.
• No primary contest: Likely true if the president is doing a good job
• Incumbent seeking re-election: If the president is in good health and has done a good job, they will likely run again.
• No third party: Likely true if the other keys are true.
• Strong short-term economy: Don’t screw up. Do not implement random tariffs like Trump and lead with a steady hand.
• Strong long-term economy: Don’t screw up.
• Major policy change: Pass health care reform to bring America’s uninsured rate to 0 within 4 years.
• No social unrest: Unlikely if other keys are true.
• No scandal: Keep it in your pants.
• Major foreign or military failure: Condition weapons shipments to Israel like every other country.
• Major foreign or military success: Ukraine must win and gain NATO membership.
• Charismatic incumbent: Have good social skills.
• Uncharismatic challenger: Get lucky.

This is the recipe for a president who will likely win reelection.

A president this successful will have no difficulty getting reelected.

I think a democrat who more firmly supports Medicare for all or just focuses on getting health insurance to every American while controlling health care costs will likely win reelection. Combine this with competent and humane foreign policy and the president will be a slam dunk for reelection.

 Why not a centrist?

If we look at potential 2028 presidential democratic candidates, each self-avowed centrist has at least one major issue which I believe will make it very difficult for them to get reelected.

I do not think anyone from Biden’s cabinet will run given the current scandal that they hid his health from the public. Tim Walz will likely fail because he was Harris’ running mate.

Any candidate who is willing to vote for Trump’s laughable nominees is uncharismatic and will likely be trying similar failed approaches to passing policy as president.

Aside from these basic requirements, it more has to do not with winning but what direction we want the country to go? Do we want to live in a country which stands for democracy around the world, believes LGBT folk deserve basic human rights, and that we should guide our decisions based on science and reason? Do we want to have a country not guided by values but by immediately perceived political expediency, damn the consequences? Do we want to live in a country without birth control, where people are rounded up, a restrictive visa policy, and reactionary conservatism?

Any of these are technically capable of winning reelection given that they don’t screw up the economy, do not fund genocide, and uphold America’s treaties.

If one had to be a progressive in order to win there is no way Bush would have won reelection in 2004. Bush was far from centrist, and he won a majority of the popular vote.

So it’s clear that conservative democrats can theoretically win reelection. It has to do with what type of nation do we want to be?

If you believe its fine when UN buildings are bombed, if its fine when Russians kill civilians in their homes, and its not a problem when women are beaten in the streets for not wearing a Burqa, then I suppose you shouldn’t vote for a progressive democrat.

However, if you see these as major violations of international law and human rights, then we should vote for a president who will stand up to bullies.

That’s what it comes down to. Any type of politician can win. That’s not the question.

The question is who do we want to be?

Almost every President in history has run for a second term. This is common knowledge, but there are a few presidents who have not been their party’s nomination in the general election following their term.

3 President have chosen not to run before the nomination

• James Polk – pledged to not run for reelection in 1848
• James Buchanan – pledged to not run for reelection in 1860
• Rutherford Hayes – pledged to not run for reelection in 1880

4 Presidents attempted to run but lost the convention

• Millard Fillmore – 1852
• Franklin Pierce – 1856
• Andrew Johnson – 1868
• Chester Arthur – 1884

1 President was expelled from his party.

• John Tyler – 1844

1 President dropped out between the primaries and the convention

• Joe Biden – 2024

For comparison, we can break down presidents like so to understand this is not normal.

• 16 Presidents who have won a majority of the vote in their first election
  • 7 Presidents who have won a majority of the vote twice (Jackson, Grant, McKinley, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Obama)
  • 5 Presidents then lost their reelection (Van Buren, Taft, Hoover, Carter, HW Bush)
  • 2 died in office (William Henry Harrison and Harding)
  • Pierce lost his party’s nomination.
  • Joe Biden dropped out after winning his party’s primaries in 2024.
• 11 Presidents won a plurality but not a majority in their first election
  • 2 Presidents won a majority for their reelection (Lincoln, Nixon)
  • 3 Presidents won a plurality but not a majority the second time around (Cleveland, Wilson, Bill Clinton)
  • 2 didn’t run (Polk and Buchanan)
  • 3 died in office (Taylor, Garfield, Kennedy)
  • Grover Cleveland lost in 1888 but won again in 1892.
• 5 Presidents lost the popular vote the first time around.
  • George W Bush then won a majority on his second attempt.
  • 2 Presidents lost reelection (JQ Adams and Benjamin Harrison)
  • Hayes chose not to run again in 1880.
  • Trump then lost his first reelection attempt and won a plurality but not a majority in 2024.
• 5 Presidents did not have a national popular vote (Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison)
• 9 Vice Presidents have become President upon the death or resignation of a president.
  • 3 chose not to run (Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur)
  • 3 then won a majority of the popular vote (T Roosevelt, Coolidge, LBJ)
  • Truman won a plurality but not a majority in 1848.
  • Ford lost in 1976.
  • Andrew Johnson and Chester Arthur lost the nominations for their reelection.

So with that being said, Biden is the only president who dropped out after winning the primary.

He is the oldest president in history. He was having health problems last year, and that’s part of aging. But the problem is that it led the country into an unprecedented situation no matter what he did. Reagan was not feeble when he ran for reelection like Biden was last year. Neither was Trump in 2020. No other president has been president after the age of 71. So there are really no historical examples to go off of for such an elderly man running for reelection.

Did Biden make the right call in running for reelection? I don’t think so given the knowledge which has come out. Democrats have made a horrible mistake by covering up Biden’s health and keeping him out of the spotlight. Journalists are going to figure out who is responsible for this callous mistake.

If Biden had chosen to not run in the primary in light of his health problems he would have been the first President to voluntarily step down after one term since Chester Arthur, who died the following year. Looking back this is now obviously the right choice. But as I wrote in my previous post it is very unlikely that someone from Biden’s caucus would have won the primary. If progressive Democrats had only one major candidate in the primary the progressive would probably have won. AOC is probably the progressive democrat with the most popularity and name recognition to win the primary and the presidency if she had run for the nomination. Biden’s handling of Gaza, Afghanistan, and Ukraine would have been the major issues in the primary if it had occurred, which likely would have sunk the chance of anyone from Biden’s cabinet running again.

The real damage done here by silencing not just Biden’s cabinet but every Democratic politician regarding Biden’s health is that if progressives had been stating their concerns earlier they would have been shut out by the party machine. Accused of being Trumpers, Anti-Semites, you know the drill. But by successfully silencing almost everyone in the party it has made it clear that the Democratic Party’s very core needs to be reformed. This is a major problem with a two-party system. If we had ranked voting instead of an Electoral College and a separate progressive party forming a coalition with the New Democrats we would not have had these problems. We need election reform.

All of this was meant to squeeze out just a little more life from a dying caucus. Harris is favorable now, but she had mostly unfavorable polls through all of Biden’s presidency post-Taliban victory. She would not have won the primary. The next three most popular democrats are Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC.

Tim Walz has seen his popularity and fame increase because he was on a ticket with Harris. Buttigieg and any other member of the cabinet would need to explain his stance about the foreign policy of the Biden administration which would lose all of them votes. Gavin Newsom is too conservative to win the primary or the general election. Cory Booker is too quick to confirm Trump’s nominees. These are serious issues which should sink any campaign.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and while AOC is not a sitting governor or senator, there are very few other politicians under the age of 70 with the fame and popularity she has and lacking the political liabilities of Trump/Biden’s foreign policy. I think she would have won the primary if she had run, and definitely would have won the general election. There isn’t really anyone else to come out of the woodwork and steal the nomination from her.

This is why Biden stayed in the race longer than he should have, which is now obvious. He knew that if he had dropped out it is all but certain that a progressive democrat would have won the nomination last year. Progressives stayed silent fearing retribution from the party machine. New Democrats stayed silent out of loyalty to Biden. The two are not the same.

There is no one else from Biden’s caucus who is going to be able to win a nationwide primary. Before Warren dropped out Biden was polling only around 30-40% of the vote in every state except Alabama and Virginia. Sanders + Warren were beating Biden in every state in the north, and I’m convinced that if it had been a Warren vs Biden primary that Warren would have won the nomination. Biden knew from that that he had no choice but to stay in the race or Harris would lose the nomination to a progressive democrat. She would be forced to defend withholding aid from Ukraine, the situation in Gaza, and the surrender to the Taliban on stage in a debate with a Democrat and Harris would not have won the nomination.

This is why Biden stayed in the race.

As a result, he has completely destroyed all remaining credibility for his caucus.

Monagesque in France

If you are a citizen of Monaco, you have freedom of movement in Metropolitan France, but not the rest of the Schengen Area or EU, where you can travel for 90 days in a 180 day period without a visa. There is basically no way to check that a Monagesque citizen has not violated their visa-free stay in the rest of the Schengen Area because there are of course no border checks between France and any of its Schengen Area member neighbors.

Sammarinese in Italy

Very similar situation to Monaco here. If you are a citizen of San Marino, you have freedom of movement in Italy, but not the rest of the Schengen Area or EU, where you can travel for 90 days in a 180 day period without a visa. There is basically no way to check that a Sammarinese citizen has not violated their visa-free stay in the rest of the Schengen Area because there are of course no border checks between Italy and any of its neighbors.

Vatican City citizen

Vatican City citizens do not have freedom of movement in any other country. So if you are a Vatican citizen you have visa-free access to the Schengen Area, but no freedom of movement. This leads to the kind of insane edge case where if you were a US/Vatican citizen with no EU/EEA nationality (like the Pope for instance) you have the right to freely be in Vatican City for as long as you want, but you can only travel to Italy for 90 days in every 180 day period. So be careful. Vatican City obviously does not have an airport.

Here’s for even more insanity, imagine that a Monagesque citizen worked for the Catholic Church and became a Vatican citizen. Kind of insane visa requirements for that hypothetical individual.

Andorran citizen

Andorra has a unique situation. Like the Vatican, Andorra does not have an airport because it is so mountainous, so to get in and out of Andorra you will need to enter the European Union/Schengen Area. But they are not a member of the European Union or Schengen Area, and do not have freedom of movement outside of their territory. So if you are an Andorran citizen and you were somehow barred from entry from the Schengen Area for whatever reason there would be no way for you to leave your country, making you trapped. Fortunately this rarely happens and Andorra has very good relations with its neighbors.

Now imagine for a second if you were an Andorran/Sammarinese dual citizen. Mwahaha. You have freedom of movement in Italy and San Marino, and in Andorra, but you are limited to 90 days in the rest of the Schengen area. Just… ugh.

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Saint Pierre and Miquelon is a really weird place. It is a tiny French territory off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. It is technically possible to take a boat from Saint Pierre et Miquelon in international waters to the rest of France without going through Canadian waters. Most people don’t do this and transfer in Canada if they are going to Saint Pierre. But… if for whatever reason Canada wouldn’t allow a French citizen into Canada in order to fly to Saint Pierre and Miquelon it would be fine because if you transferred through Montreal you would be staying in the international wing of the terminal, so Canada would have basically no say.

Now, if Canada started to do preclearance in Saint Pierre et Miquelon when flying to Canada that would totally screw over any French citizen trying to get back to Metropolitan France without transferring through Canada. I think this is unlikely, but its an amusing legal edge case to think about.

Summary

The only other country in the world (using the UN definition) without an airport is Liechtenstein, but Liechtensteiners have freedom of movement in the Schengen Area/EEA/European Union through treaty. So there’s no way for a Liechtensteiner to be trapped in their country.

Freedom of movement is a great idea between democracies, and I find these edge cases where someone could inadvertently violate their visa very fascinating. In the case of a Monagesque or Sammarinese citizen who was to violate the terms of their time in the Schengen Area, how could the Sammarinese citizen be effectively punished? If you were to deport the Sammarinese citizen back to San Marino, they would still have freedom of movement in Italy. I suppose that the EU would issue a fine to the Monagesque citizen who was in Italy too long? That’s probably what they would do because simply deporting them is not going to prevent them from reentering Italy, given how Italy is only a 30 minute drive from Monaco.

Is this crazy? Probably.

Is this interesting? It is to me.

How do you think these insane situations would work in practice?

Let me tell you about a man who was moderate in his political views, cared about democracy, proposed breaking up old medieval estates so the former peasants could own their land for the first time in history, and believed strongly in compromise.

Read the section on Hindenburg’s second presidency from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg#Second_presidency

Hindenburg was not a bad man. He preached unity. He believed in institutions and in never making anyone angry. He did care about democracy. He just made some horrible mistakes. That is my impression of studying him as a political figure.

But the problem with Hindenburg is that while his intentions were good, he was not forceful enough to defend German democracy, and led his country into fascism, without being a fascist.

The real lesson of studying President Hindenburg is that when your ideology is to be moderate for the sake of being moderate, an undying belief that if you just position yourself at the center that you will be able to reach everyone, you will fail. The political approach of Hindenburg is called middle ground fallacy.

The problem with centrism is that centrism does not espouse any belief. It does not have any ideology about liberty, economics, justice, or anything of the sort. It is mere political expediency for expediency’s sake. It was Hindenburg’s unbreakable dedication to being a moderate that was just the final stroke leading Germany into Hitler’s bloody hands.

Hindenburg teaches us that passivity, moderation, and seeking unity are to fascism as gasoline is to fire.

This comes back to a fundamental core of politics that anyone with experience working on campaigns will learn quickly. Once you get offline and start talking to people they don’t care about how you are going to bring people together. They care about how you will solve problems. They care about what your end goal is.

Now compare Hindenburg to another German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. Konrad Adenauer was not a “leftist” or even a social democrat. He was a member of the CDU, Germany’s center-right party. He had been a member of the Centre party before the Third Reich, which is the party which formed a coalition with Hitler after the disastrous election bringing that monster to power. There was a real risk that Adenauer could have been like Hindenburg, always leading trying to find the centre, always trying to make everyone happy, which as we found with Hindenburg makes nobody happy.

But Adenauer chose another path. He watched the Soviet Union conquer 9 democracies through military conquest in the few years before he became chancellor and he swore they would not conquer the rest of Germany. To further this aim of protecting his country he was a strong Atlanticist and a founder of NATO. He led the way, he didn’t follow the crowd. He sent reparation money to deported Jews in Israel against the wishes of the majority of Germans. The interesting thing about Adenauer is that while he stopped the prosecution of people who had jobs in the Nazi regime, instead he favored the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community and then the European Economic Community, the earliest foundations for the European Union.

From here we see a difference in approach between President Truman and Chancellor Adenauer. Truman favored a punitive approach against everyone who worked for the Nazi regime. Adenauer realized this was untenable and would not solve the fundamental problems which led to the rise of Nazism in the first place, so he focused on rebuilding the German welfare state and integrating Germany with the rest of what remained of Democratic Europe to make it impossible for a far-right movement to ever succeed in Germany or any other European democracy ever again.

Adenauer teaches us that in order to effectively snuff out fascism you need ethics, clear rules, passionate argument, strong institutions, and a deep understanding of the paradox of tolerance. Democracy can only work when citizens and our leaders fight for it.

Adenauer was proactive while Truman was reactive.

Adenauer was right, Truman was wrong.

So here we have three distinct approaches to protecting democracy.

• Hindenburg thought that the role of the President is to find the center ground to make every equally (un)happy.
• Truman believed in a reactive approach of prosecuting people after the fact.
• Adenauer believed in a proactive approach by building a system which would make it impossible for a fascist regime to start.

History has now made it very clear that of these three leaders, Adenauer was the greatest of the three.

But here’s the thing… Adenauer was not the greatest German chancellor of the 20th century. Adenauer was after all a member of die Zentrum in the Weimar Republic, the absolutely disgusting party which made a coalition with Hitler in 1933.

Willy Brandt was chancellor in the early 1970s and he was instrumental in forming fully functional health and education systems to ensure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all German citizens. His Ostpolitik of talking with countries in Eastern Europe increased awareness in Soviet colonies that life was better in the west. He worked on strengthening and deepening the European Economic Community. Willy Brandt is the only German politician to have ever received the Nobel Peace Prize. Most importantly, his policies worked.

Helmut Schmidt was a great chancellor too who continued to build on the foundations of Adenauer and Brandt which led to the formation of the European Union. He was working in the background growing consensus for expansion during his 8 years in office.

This led to Helmut Kohl who signed the Schengen Agreement in 1985, oversaw the reunification of Germany, signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, at which point the European Union was born.

With Wiedervereinigung and the formation of the European Union in 1993 denazification was finally complete.

I’m sure Italy has a similar history.

The history of Germany from the formation of the Third Reich to the formation of the European Union shows us every type of leader. We have the ineffective Hindenburg with his pleas for unity. We have the totalitarian dictator and professional asshole Adolf Hitler committing genocide. But we also have politicians who learned from their history and built a system which prevents fascism from forming. It’s obvious how each of these worked out.

America needs to learn from the history of Germany in the 20th century when picking our leaders. Compromise and seeking out the center of the extremes does not work in maintaining democracy, which is why it is correctly labeled as a fallacy.

Instead of falling for easy to understand fallacies our leaders need to offer clear benchmarks and outline their end goals of their policy. Make it clear where they are heading toward, like Adenauer, Schmidt, Brandt, and Kohl. Build a strong foundation that can be built on in the future. Do not tempt radical extremist forces to lead you towards their fascist end goals. Build a system which is secure which makes it practically impossible for anti-democratic radicals to destroy your country. Make strong arguments in favor of democracy, stand up for your beliefs, and preach to the world that freedom is for everyone, which is the spirit of Ostpolitik.

German history clearly teaches us it is the only way to defeat fascism.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-cancer-prostate-be18c98abe341cd91277e1d3b75d5cd5?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

So apparently Biden has prostate cancer which has metastasized to his bones. Not only that, but this bombshell hit today too:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/may/18/biden-book-health-original-sin

So not only does Biden have rapidly advancing prostate cancer which I’m guessing he had while he was president and kept a secret from the public while running for president, but many loyal democrats are clear that while Biden was president his memory was failing, and he could not recognize some of the most famous people in the world, who he had met before, that anyone with a basic cultural awareness and full mental cognition would recognize instantly.

I feel sorry for the Biden family that a member of their family has cancer. Cancer is horrible. But I am also furious that they were dishonest with the American people about the health of the president. Millions of people could tell Biden’s health was failing as they pretended that he was extremely healthy. He wasn’t.

Again, I send my condolences to his family that he has a serious form of cancer. No one deserves to go through this.

But I am furious about the lying.

Democrats have a choice. We can defend every last thing Biden did to our deaths or we can learn from our mistakes and win elections. We cannot do both.

To Americans who are inconsistent voters who lean Democrat, seeing that Biden and his entire cabinet lied to the American people about his health is a big fucking deal. Now, based on the polls which I have already written about here on my blog it’s not the first major miscalculation by the New Democrat Caucus.

The Taliban taking over Afghanistan was a big fucking deal and Biden’s approval plummeted 20 points over the month following that horrible day. There was no other major event at that point in time to explain why 20% of Americans went from approving of his job to disapproval. Acknowledge and learn from it or lose elections.

The majority of Democrats and Independents support Ukraine and believed Biden should have done more to support Ukraine.

The majority of Democrats do not support Israel’s onslaught on Gaza.

On every major foreign policy decision, Biden was out of step with his party, and in line with what Donald Trump would have done in his stead. This lost voters. I voted for Harris in November, I do vote for the Democrat every time I can. But many voters don’t, and it is the job of the Democratic Party to run candidates who will do a good job and win elections. They have no other job.

And now this.

Not only was Biden instrumental in three major global human rights catastrophes, but now it turns out his entire team was lying about his health through at least the last year of his presidency while he was running for reelection. This is crass, reprehensible, and irresponsible.

Not only that, but doctors claimed Biden is a superager last year. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-appears-superager-doctors-say-1858473

That was clearly a complete and total lie. It is extremely unlikely that this mestasized in less than 12 months, which means Biden’s doctors lied. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/bone-metastasis

CDC guidelines state clearly that men who are over 70 should not get screened for prostate cancer routinely. Biden had the best health care in the world as president. Perhaps they didn’t screen him once in four years, but when he’s the president, I find this hard to believe.

More importantly, he probably had PSA 9 testing while he president according to this scholar from Harvard. So I find it pretty inconceivable the president would not be getting tested for such things.

Given how far his cancer has mestasized it is possible Biden had early stage prostate cancer back in 2020. I’m just guesssing here, I’m not a doctor, but it sure looks like it based on those numbers. He was definitely getting annual prostate cancer screens as a former Vice President man over the age of 70. But they couldn’t handle having another progressive nominee, so he kept going when he knew he had health problems.

When they go low, we go high.

What happened to that spirit?

The lying from the Biden administration about his health combined with his disastrous foreign policy led right into Trump’s victory last year. That is why Trump won the popular vote.

Of course I’m angry Biden lied. You should be too.

It was so obvious that 70% of Americans when polled stated that they believed Biden did not have the health to serve as President last June. Americans could tell his health was failing, and knew that his entire administration was lying to the world. I was worried about losing a Key to the White House. But it is now obvious he should have chosen not to run for reelection by the middle of 2023, giving us plenty of time for a proper primary.

Here’s the problem for the New Democratic Caucus… they were all in on it and they don’t have any other candidate who will be able to win the presidential election in 2028. This combined with everything else will hopefully remove everyone from Biden’s cabinet from being considered for the presidency in 2028. It’s far too risky. That means AOC is the highest polling Democrat right now in the primary. The second highest is Cory Booker. Gavin Newsom is shooting his campaign in the foot with his transphobic comments. Tim Walz killed his future by running on a ticket with Harris. Josh Shapiro is out of line on foreign policy.

The next president will likely be AOC or Cory Booker, and New Democrats are freaking out about it.

Because if we have a progressive and intelligent president who can quickly clean up Trump’s mess after the multiple foreign policy disasters under Biden’s administration it will be damn near impossible for the New Democrats to gaslight their way out of this one.

Not only that but if either of them win the entire argument that Harris lost because she was black will be proven wrong. On top of that, if AOC wins then the reason Harris lost will clearly not be because she is a woman…

But we already know that it wasn’t because she was a woman because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and President Barack Obama is the only Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote twice since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

So we already know it was a policy and keys issue. The “Americans won’t vote for an African American or a woman” nonsense has been debunked at this point in history.

I hope we will have a strong progressive as president in 2029. But I’m pissed off that this is the way we are going to get there.

I know that Republicans do the same thing all the time. I don’t really care about that.

Biden did some great things on domestic policy and pushed for many important reforms as president. I have a clear track record of praising his domestic policy. If you ever cared about Biden’s domestic policy wins, you need to care that we can keep Democrats elected and don’t feed this easy fodder to Republicans to run against us with.

Coping will not win the presidency in 2028. If coping and suck up to the centrist nominee was going to win elections, Kamala Harris would be president. But she is not. Because the strategy of the New Democrats has lost 4/5 of the last elections where they were the nominee.

Biden’s decisions have destroyed his legacy. His domestic wins will be overshadowed by setting up a situation where Donald Trump could win a second term in the history books.

We need a different strategy. This is not working. We need to be honest, we need to be clear. We need to win elections and pass good policy which improves people’s lives. Lying is not going to get us there.

One of the cardinal rules of politics is don’t hand your opponents easy wins. Play with a clean slate all the time. Don’t feed the animal. This sort of reckless behavior breaks that most important rule.

Democrats need to win. Biden made that significantly more difficult through his reckless behavior.

I’m pissed off.

Vote Blue.

I think this summer is going to be marked by Ukrainian victories, as long as the calls for ceasefires from Moscow end.

Ever since Ukraine took the Kursk region Moscow has been calling for ceasefire after ceasefire, which they consistently break. Moscow does not want a ceasefire, they want Ukraine to cease firing.

But this brings up an important question with a very simple answer… why is Russia calling for a ceasefire now but not when Biden was president?

The first reason is that while Biden was timid on Ukraine he was not on Russia’s side.

The second reason is that, according to Tsar Putin, Russia is running out of weapons.

When Ukraine stops firing into Russia it gives Russia time to maneuver its weapons for the next attack. This is the purpose of a ceasefire. When Russia is on the backfoot, have Ukraine stop firing weapons to restart the endless stalemate.

There were a handful of ceasefires in the war so far, and Russia violated all of them.

So the right strategy is obvious.

1. Send Ukraine everything we can so they can blow up Russian military bases.
2. Do not start any more ceasefires until it is a peace treaty with a complete defeat for Russia.

Otherwise the war will continue forever, as I have outlined in this decision tree I made last year:

I think this war could end this year if Ukraine has the right weapons and the right strategy. This will be followed up by unilateral security guarantees until Ukraine can join both the Common Security and Defence Policy as well as NATO. It will end the same way Assad was defeated, a slow grind until Russia runs out of ammunition leading to a sudden collapse of the front line and Ukraine winning the war.

We saw it in Syria last year. I think the end of the Invasion of Ukraine will end the same way.

This is the true purpose of every cease fire agreement Russia begs for. They must prevent Ukraine from getting an advantage at which point they will break through the Russian front line and win the war.

Ceasefires do not bring peace or safety to Ukrainians, quite the opposite really. Ceasefires are Russian realignments meant to enable their troops to reposition themselves to rape Ukrainian women, murder Ukrainian men, and kidnap Ukrainian children. They are timed when Ukraine gets an advantage.

So the rest of NATO needs to follow Chancellor Merz’s lead and send Ukraine as many weapons as possible, especially unmanned equipment in order to destroy Russia’s military bases in Russian territory.

This is the only way the war can end.

Slava Ukraine.

Start by reading this article: https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/experts/2022/04/7/7137272/

History of the North Caucasus
Eras:
• Pre-historic Iranian and Turkic cultures
• Scythians: 900 BC – 300 BC
• Sarmations: 600 BC – 500 AD
• Huns: 370s-469
• Khazars: 650-969
• Cumania: 900 – 1241
• Mongols: 1238 – 1502
• Ottoman Empire: 1476 – 1774
• Russia: 1557 – present
The North Caucasus has been inhabited for tens of thousands of years, originally by a mixture of Turkic and Mongolic cultures until the arrival of Russi in the 16th century.

Scythian is an Iranic language.

Sarmatian is an Iranic language.

Khazars are a Turkic people, the ancestors of the Ossetians.

Cumans spoke a Turkic language. They are the ancestors of the Crimean Tatars.

The Mongols invaded in 1238 and remained in power until 1502.

The Ottoman Empire ruled Crimea and the area around the Sea of Azov until they were defeated by Russia.

Russia invaded the North Caucasus in 1557 and rule to the present.

The North Caucasus were a primarily Iranian region until the Russians invaded, with some Turkish people as well.

Ukrainians were originally based around Kyiv. Ukrainians moved into what is now Crimea following the victory of the Russian Empire and conquering of Crimea in 1774. To this very day the most densely populated regions of Ukraine are the areas which were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Regarding Ukraine’s demographics, most of them self-identify as ethnic Ukrainians. There are ethnic Russians in Crimea, primarily because they were sent there during the ethnic cleansing of the Tatars in 1944 when all Tatars were sent to Central Asia. Russia has no legitimate claim to Crimea. They can either accept Crimea is Ukrainian or leave.

Crimean Tatars are currently being abused by the Russian government in Crimea. Cases of torture, arbitrary detentions, and forced disappearances are widespread. Russia is a totalitarian fascist state, and it must be forced out of Crimea.

Colonialism is a classic story around the world. All of the Americas were colonized by Europeans. The thing is that while most countries in the Americas today are democratic and everyone has a vote, Russia is not a democracy. This is the fundamental difference between these two heavily colonized regions. Russia’s republics are truly colonies where the people have no voice. This arrangement is purely exploitative and needs to end.

Regarding Krasnodar Krai… 48% of respondents in the 1926 Census of the region reported as being ethnically Ukrainian. In1939 the number was down to 4%. Either they were forced to falsely identify as Russian, or they were killed. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CK%5CR%5CKrasnodarkrai.htm

Stavropol Krai was 35% Ukrainian in 1926 but heavily Russified in the 1930s. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CS%5CT%5CStavropolkrai.htm

I cannot find data on the linguistic demographics of Rostov Oblast before the Great Famine.

Belgorod Oblast was part of Ukraine from 1917-1921.

These Oblasts were taken from Ukraine by Russia and Russified.

The remaining federal subjects of Russia on their southern border with Georgia and Azerbaijan are not majority Russian. They should all be independent.

The key question remaining is what to do with Russia. It cannot be acceptable for a state like Russia to remain militarized. That would be unacceptable.

Russia is a mafia state. It is ruled by oligarchs, there is little to no social mobility and the average person lives in poverty. I do not know how to keep Russia pacified if Russia remains as a unified state. It would require constant monitoring by the European Union to ensure they don’t build a military. Given the immense size of Russia I do not believe it is possible to do this.

This leaves only one option which is that Russia needs to be divided in order to prevent them from being a threat to global stability. Every federal administrative area in Russia needs to become independent. Their foreign relations will be managed by the European Union which will manage their necessary democratization.

I agree with Juray Mesik. The world needs to be prepared for Russia’s disintegration. I believe it is not a matter of if, but when. Russia has never seen such a decline in military equipment as it is seeing now. As they run out of weapons their ability to respond to rebellions by Russian peasants will be minimal. If there are protests across Russia to undo the corrupt mafia state there is nothing the oligarchs will be able to do now that they are running out of weapons.

The best thing to do now is to arm Ukraine to the teeth, destroy Russia’s military, and let the state collapse. Ukraine regains all of their territory and Russia will collapse.

The future of Königsberg is simple, turn it into a Freistadt like Danzig was from 1920-1939. Russians will be deported and it will receive immediate EU/Schengen membership under a special arrangement.

Karelia will be returned to Finland, and all occupied historically Ukrainian territories will be returned to Ukraine.

Given how Chukotka is primarily inhabited by ethnic groups closely related to the Inuit, Chukotka could either be an independent republic or join Alaska. It’s up for them to decide.

Time will tell, but I do believe that by the end of the decade we will see monumental change in Russia. Will it be the division of Russia into many different states or the formation of a democratic Russia with all of its current territory? I don’t know for sure, but I do not think Russia will have the same borders it has today in 5 years.

I’m thinking about why I focus so much on Europe, since there are so many other parts of the world to explore, but I always come back to reading about the politics of Europe. But why? Why not Africa? Why not South America?

Let’s explore the world by looking at regions. I will use the 9 regions of the world as defined by the fantastic website Objective Lists, which, as a nerdy political scientist turned data scientist, is one of my favorite websites. The regions can be grouped as follows:

• The World
  • East Asia
  • Everywhere else
    • Abrahamic World
      • Muslim World
        • Middle East & North Africa
        • Central Asia
      • The West
        • The North & Australasia
        • Central & South America
    • Everywhere Else:
      • Southeast Asia and Oceania
        • South Pacific
        • Buddhist World
          • South Asia
          • Southeast Asia
      • Africa
        • Sub-Saharan Africa
        • Southeast Asia

The North & Australasia

This is the region of the world I live in. It is divided into three regions.

• Anglo World: British Isles, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
• Europe
• North Eurasia: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia

I’m not sure why Georgia and Armenia are put in with North Eurasia even though they are closer to Bulgaria than Russia.

I focus on this region because I live here, simple as that. The foreign relations of the European Union are truly fascinating. Given how the Anglo World is grouped with Europe in one category, it makes sense to look first at the region we are part of compared to others. It intrigues me that the US and especially Canada share most of the attributes of the European Union, so an expansion of the European Economic Area and Schengen Area to include North America is not out of the question.

This is not just my opinion, it’s based on fact. If you look at the world from the perspective of the Arctic, Canada is a natural extension of the European political system and the United States through Canada. Australia and New Zealand are on the other side of the world, but merging the Trans-Tasman agreement and the Schengen Area seems like a good idea.

Regarding North Eurasia, I find it interesting that Ukraine is listed in the top ten similar countries to Georgia but not Russia. I believe the gap between Ukraine and Russia will widen over time.

The expansion of democracy in Eastern Europe and expansion of European institutions has been gradual over the last 25 years, with something exciting happening almost every year. It is the region in the world which is most likely to change over the next few years. The economic power of Europe makes it important for everyone on Earth. This is why I follow European politics closely.

Central & South America

Latin America is the most similar region to the North based on the calculations I have made with this dataset. Most of these countries are democratic. They are so similar that most of them are grouped under one subcategory. Venezuela and Nicaraguan democracy are under threat, but the rest of them are democratically strong. Brazil is separate because it speaks Portuguese instead of Spanish, but it is definitely a Latin American country.

With democratic systems, the main distinguishing factor between Latin America and the North is their economic well-being. They have a lower average years of schooling compared to countries in the North, and this reverberates across their economy. In time, as their mean years of schooling increase and corruption is rooted out, expect the line between Latin America and the North to become very small. They will probably be statistically one region within 50 years.

Latin America is fascinating politically. Several free trade and free movement agreements exist in the region with the Andean Community, Mercosur, and CA4. I predict Mercosur and the Andean Community will merge into one free movement organization. Chile will be the last to join since it is the wealthiest country in Latin America.

Foreign relations are very stable in Latin America. Bolivia is the only country that joined Mercosur since it was formed and has stayed a member. It joined in 2024. The Andean Community has not changed since 1969. So once you understand the relationship there isn’t too much to follow. The region will continue to develop economically and corruption will continue to be reduced over the next few decades. It is an exciting time for the region, and the biggest change that is likely to happen is a full merger of the Andean Community and Mercosur into one free travel bloc.

In the rplot of the world, Latin America is the region most similar to the North.

Middle East & North Africa

I find this region to be the least interesting. These countries suffer from institutional rot. They are not democracies. The problems are myriad and complex, with systems rooted in corruption and exploitation. The countries that are moving towards democracy have undergone serious conflicts, which have destroyed their economies. Terrorism is widespread and uncontrolled, further undermining institutions. Oil has been a plague to the region, increasing corruption and graft. The rich have gotten richer and use their riches to cement their authoritarian power. Ethnic conflicts exist in every country in the region. Even when Tunisia started to break out, its current president has consolidated power, with extreme democratic backsliding.

There is not much else to say from a political angle. It’s a depressing region. It will take over a century for the tyrants of the region to be finally be fully defeated. The democratization of the Middle East will not happen in my lifetime.

Syria is the country right now with the best shot at developing. I hope they succeed.

The Middle East is the region of the world which is most similar to the North and Latin America.

Sub-Saharan Africa

This is a very diverse region. Some countries are extremely poor, some are moving in the right direction. Ghana is a standout on the Gold Coast with the least corrupt most democratic system, and the most prosperous economy in the Gold Coast. There is hope for the Gold Coast.

The Congos suffer from extreme poverty, low levels of education, and extreme corruption. Rwanda has suffered from extreme backsliding. Without removing their dictators, they can’t develop. The same can be said about many other countries.

The former British colonies in East Africa have the cleanest governments and most democratic systems, along with South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho, and Botswana. Their economies are the most developed, and regional integration is growing. Angola, Zimbabwe, and Eswatini stand out as they struggle with extreme poverty and institutional rot.

Mauritius is so developed and unique that it is calculated not to be part of Africa, but instead Latin America.

Southern Africa can be viewed as two distinct regions.

Some are democratic and moving in the right direction.

Some are extremely poor, extremely corrupt, and this corruption goes back before the colonial era. These countries were ruled by the kings who sold slaves to European slave traders, taking the wealth from the Europeans to further enrich their authoritarian rule. This created extreme rot which was continued through the colonial era, and even into the post-colonial era. It did not start with colonialism, the colonial powers just took advantage of the already existing political situation which continues to this day. Slavery systems are very difficult to undo. But as we saw with Europe and the development of capitalism, it is not impossible.

I do not believe Sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to poverty. Many countries in the region prove my point. But the ones which have not developed yet need to change their ancient institutions in order to improve their quality of life. Other regions have done this very thing and have benefited.

I don’t study this region much because I find it depressing, the lessons are pretty much the same once you learn them, and things don’t change frequently. Studying developmental economics showed the answers countries have used to develop can be applied elsewhere, but they threaten the powers in charge of the region, leaving only revolution as a way for many countries in the region to change. Revolution is never a guarantee.

Sub-Saharan Africa is closest to Oceania and South East Asia. These three regions form a sibling branch with the North, Latin America, and the Middle East.

South Asia

South Asia is fascinating to me. Comprising of only 5 democracies, it is stable. Corruption is rife which keeps the countries in the region poor. Education is lacking, and child labor remains a problem. But they are democratic so there is hope and I believe every country in this region will develop over my lifetime. India shares an open border with Bhutan and Nepal.

South Asia is most similar to Southeast Asia. These two branches form what I call the Buddhist World.

Central Asia

Turkey is an American ally and quickly developing. They are a member of the European Customs Union. If they can keep their democracy and implement necessary reforms they will join the European Union in my lifetime.

Mongolia is a sparsely populated democracy squeezed between the two most powerful authoritarian regimes in the world. If they were invaded there would be next to nothing they can do.

The remaining countries are authoritarian to various levels. Kyrgyzstan is experiencing democratic backsliding and the remaining countries are depressing dictatorships.

I don’t study this region much, things don’t change a lot and most of them are depressing.

Unsurprisingly, Central Asia is a sibling branch to the Middle East.

East Asia

PRC, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are stable democracies. They are highly developed and their first world problems can be solved.

The People’s Republic of China is in a period of transition. The question remains… can a dictatorship become wealthy on manufacturing without a change of government? It’s never happened before. We will see.

North Korea is the worst country in the world.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are the most likely region outside of the North to form a free travel agreement given their clean governments, well educated populations, and prosperous economies. The 5th most similar country to Japan according to Objective Lists is Italy. If the Schengen Area were to expand outside of the region known as the North, it would expand to these three countries in East Asia first. The only major differences are demographic and culture.

In the rplot of the world provided by Objective Lists East Asia stands separate from all other regions of the world. I find that interesting.

Southeast Asia

I want to travel to Southeast Asia. Burma, Laos, and Vietnam are dictatorships, but the remaining countries are very interesting politically and economically. Corruption is an issue which harms their economies and education levels are lower than they should be… but I believe if they make the right investments they will develop into high income countries over the next few decades. They are all members of ASEAN, which is unnikely to grow.

I have a lot of hope for the region.

Southeast Asia is a sibling branch to South Asia, forming the Buddhist World.

Oceania

Most countries in Oceania are very small, but they are all democratic. The biggest issue facing these countries is the size of their population and their extreme isolation, but this is not insurmountable. Many people in Papua New Guinea remain uncontacted to this day.

They tend to have lower incomes, but they are all free. This is the least populated region defined by Objective Lists.

Oceania is a sibling branch to the Buddhist World.

Comparing regions to Europe

When analyzing all the regions of the world, Europe stands out with several main characteristics.

• All but two countries in Europe are democratic.
• Most countries in Europe have strong economies.
• Europe has the largest economy in the world, regardless if the country in question had colonies or not.
• You can travel by land to most countries in the region.

There is no larger bloc of developed democracies which share land borders with each other than the European Union.

When analyzing countries which struggle with issues, whether they are from education systems, economics, or just plain old corruption, its pretty easy to find good answers on how to solve these problems.

Europe is different because it is unique in how it is highly developed, highly democratic, and highly integrated. It is the only place in the world with these three characteristics, and there is no other region in the world which is going to be like Europe in the next 30 years. The one place which I believe could be similar to the European Union in the next 50 years is Latin America.

Every other region has clear issues which distinguish them from Europe.

• Latin America: Middle income, low mean years of schooling.
• Middle East: corruption and authoritarianism.
• Sub-Saharan Africa: corruption, authoritarianism, and poverty.
• South Asia: corruption and poverty.
• Central Asia: Corruption, authoritarianism, and poverty.
• East Asia: Very democratic and wealthy in some, very authoritarian in others. Only a few countries.
• Southeast Asia: Corruption remains an issue, but democracy exists and economies are developing.
• Oceania: Very small population, very poor, but democratic.

So that’s how I am viewing the world right now.

World Governance Indicators

I have been frequently using the World Governance Indicators in a way to filter out countries to study. They are very useful because they include every UN member state except the Vatican with indicators which allows an efficient and accurate way to understand how a country is doing on social issues.

If we filter out all countries which score positively on these six indicators outside of the North, Latin America, and Oceania, along with a GDP per capita of at least $10,000, we end up with only Japan, Seychelles, South Korea, and Taiwan. Every other country misses at least one of these indicators.

If we remove our $10,000 indicator we find Botswana, Malaysia, and the Seychelles. The Seychelles is not included in Objective Lists. Malaysia will surpass my arbitrary GDP per capita mark soon.

Many countries in the Americas and most countries in Europe pass these 6 indicators from WGI.

Conclusion

That’s basically why I write more about Europe than other regions. I like development economics but as I said earlier, many of the issues faced by the other regions have solutions which are basically solved problems. Honestly, writing one article after another about countries facing the same issues gets boring.

It’s important, but when writing and doing analysis on an issue I like to be at the cutting edge.

I like to look at more cutting edge and more rapidly changing situations and Europe is very much at the cutting edge of diplomacy and changes more often than other regions of the world.

That is why I write more about Europe than any other topic on my blog.