InFocus United States of America 2017/2 by Antall József Tudásközpont

WELCOMING WORDS

United States of America Course Correction?

B3 All rights reserved. Articles to be found in this publication are the intellectual property of the Antall Jรณzsef Knowledge Centre. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

WELCOMING WORDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5 -

8–11 -

Welcoming Words

Introduction Dr Géza Jeszenszky: Is Pax Americana Over? – How Will the World Change under a Trump Presidency?

WELCOMING WORDS

50 51 52 53 54–55

56–57 -

14–17 18–21 22–23 24–27 28–31 32–35 36–41 -

Home Affairs John O’Sullivan: Yes, We Can. Really? Both of Us? JD Gordon: How the White House Was Won How Do Americans Living in Budapest Feel about the Election? Elizabeth Wahl: Trump’s Domestic Policy in a Divided America Migration in the USA Máté Kaló: Social Media in the 2016 Presidential Campaign: How to Win Ugly Zsolt Pálmai: The People’s Voice: Donald Trump and Trade The Trump Victory in Numbers

2016’s 10 Biggest Music Albums in the US The Biggest American Brands 2016 in Movies 2016 in Television The US’s Top 10 Universities

Book Review Anna Stumpf: Bill Gertz: iWar – War and Peace in the Information Age

Lectori Salutem!

Introduction

Four months have passed since the inauguration of

If 2016 is anything to go by, the most recent census

his election victory, the first 100 days of his presidency

around the world. Certainly, at the many events that

Donald Trump, and it is safe to say that, in addition to were also full of surprises. Despite the seeming inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s triumph, in the end,

the billionaire real estate tycoon was elected the 45th

President of the United States, thereby forcing us to

rethink things we believed to be fundamental truths of

58–59 60–61 62–63 -

Antall József Knowledge Centre Introduction Past and Future Events New Releases of the Publishing Office

campaigning. Observers and analysts have offered

multiple approaches to understanding and explaining what exactly happened in the 2016 race and what kind of politics a Trump administration will pursue.

The field of international relations has also been

expanded with a new term thanks to Donald Trump: golf diplomacy. The new President has elevated his favorite hobby—as well as his favorite golf courses— into the world of diplomacy, and today the affairs of the

66 -

Next Issue

world appear to be decided on the Trump National Golf Club in Mar-a-Lago. Not to mention those handshakes… To better understand the Trump phenomenon, the

current issue introduces not just the new President

and his politics, but also the country that elected him. In this effort, we are aided by several guest authors, the colleagues of the Knowledge Centre, as well as the

46–47 48–49 -

Culture 5 TV Series You Need to See if You’re Into US Politics 2016’s Top 10 Best-selling Books in the US

head of our Transatlantic Relations Office and editor of this publication, Zsolt Pálmai.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my

gratitude to them and invite the reader to have a look

WELCOMING WORDS

we at the Knowledge Centre did last year, we had people—both in the crowds and around the many

roundtables of different shapes and sizes—who voiced opinions so strong, who displayed such great interest in and, often, knowledge of the great US

political circus that they appeared as invested in the process of electing a new President as any American I talked to. This should come as no surprise, of course: In the post-Cold War world, we are all affected by the

goings-on in and around the world’s still-number-one superpower to some degree. Its foreign policy has

strong bearing on our own sense of security, shifts in its economy have the power to thrust the world into

a financial crisis, and the way it organizes the lives of its people informs social trends well beyond its

borders. Its musicians and filmmakers continue to

dominate charts and box offices around the globe. The present issue of In Focus takes elements from all

of these areas of contemporary Americana to provide

a snapshot of where the United States was at the end of 2016—and of course, looming large over it is the man

who has the potential to drastically alter the course of each of them. Once again, within the modest confines of this publication, he manages to hog the spotlight.

at their work.

Ádám Kégler – Editor-in-Chief

Zsolt Pálmai – Head of office

Antall József Knowledge Centre

Deputy Director

grossly underestimated the number of Americans

Transatlantic Relations office

WELCOMING WORDS

Dr Géza Jeszenszky

John O’Sullivan

JD Gordon

Elizabeth Wahl

Máté Kaló

Anna Stumpf

Dr Géza Jeszenszky

John O’Sullivan, BCE,

JD Gordon is a Senior

Elizabeth Wahl is

Máté Kaló is an

Anna Stumpf Smith

Affairs of Hungary under

Danube Institute, as

for a Secure Free

appeared on CNN,

analyst and a regular

Director of the

was Minister of Foreign the Antall Government,

and Ambassador to the United Sates (19982002), Norway, and

Iceland (2011-2014).

OUR GUESTS

IS PAX AMERICANA OVER? HOW WILL THE WORLD CHANGE UNDER A TRUMP PRESIDENCY? page 8 –11

is the President of the well as an editor and columnist who has

held senior editorial

positions on the London Times, National Review magazine, and Radio Free Europe/Radio

Liberty. He was a special advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

and the author of The

President, the Pope and the Prime Minister.

YES, WE CAN. REALLY? BOTH OF US? page 14 –17

Fellow at the Center

Society (SFS), based

in Washington, DC. He is a former Pentagon spokesman who

served from 2005-2009 and is a retired Navy

Commander. He was the Director, National Security Advisory

Committee to Donald J

Trump for President, Inc. and previously served

as Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to Republican

Presidential Candidates former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Corporate CEO,

Mr Herman Cain. HOW THE WHITE HOUSE HAS WON?

a journalist who has MSNBC, Fox News,

Bloomberg, and several

international news outlets and documentaries.

From 2011 to 2014, she was a correspondent

and anchor for the US branch of RT TV and made international

headlines following

her resignation from

the channel, publicly

denouncing its distorted coverage of the conflict in Ukraine and Russian intervention in Crimea.

independent political

contributor to Hungarian weekly magazine 168 Óra.

SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: HOW TO WIN UGLY page 32 –35

Lacey is Executive Washington-based Hungary Initiatives

Foundation and Vice

President of Common Sense Society

Budapest. She is

a regular contributor to the Hungarian weekly

magazine Heti Válasz. BOOK REVIEW: BILL GERTZ: IWAR – WAR AND PEACE IN THE INFORMATION AGE page 56 –57

TRUMP’S DOMESTIC POLICY IN A DIVIDED AMERICA page 24 –27

page 18 –21

WELCOMING WORDS

INTRODUCTION

IS PAX AMERICANA OVER? HOW WILL THE WORLD CHANGE UNDER A TRUMP PRESIDENCY? Dr Géza Jeszenszky Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary

“Political fundamentalism—which can appear not only in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, but may also rear its head in other global cultures, other political cultures—is the greatest threat to our world as the Bolshevism of the 21st century.” (József Antall speaking at the Budapest meeting of the Executive Committee of the International Democrat Union, 1 September 1993.) In the wake of the Cold War, which brought about the victory of democracy and Euro-Atlantic values, the words of President George Bush, welcoming a new and peaceful world order in front of both houses of Congress in 11 September 1990, sounded realistic. “A new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. (…) Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.” 1 The best reaction to his speech that I can offer are a few lines of a Christmas poem from the Hungarian poet Endre Ady ›››››››››››››››››››››››››››

1. Bush, George – Scowcroft, Brent: Átalakított világ. Budapest: Antall József Tudásközpont, 2014. 374. 8

INTRODUCTION

Bush was not talking about a vision of a Pax Americana, but a Pax Democratica. Exactly eleven years later, we were ripped from our dream by the terrorist attacks on New York City. Islamic fundamentalism, the failure of the “War on Terror” to produce results, the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the masses fleeing to Europe, the four recent attacks on European soil and their many victims, and finally, the triumph of Russian weapons in Syria once and for all dissolved the hope which promised “the end of history,” a world peaceful and just. It was no small surprise that, in this modern era of disorder, a septuagenarian businessman, giving up his comfortably luxurious lifestyle and defeating his more experienced and favored rivals, won the highest office of the country that is still the world’s strongest power. This was not a poor boy from the lower rungs of society beating the candidate of the rich elite,

“Were this pretty tale To become man’s true creed Oh, what joy on Earth That miracle would breed.”

as had been the case on several occasions in the history of US elections (most recently with Barack Obama). The victor was not a handsome young face, and he did not win thanks mainly to female voters, as John F Kennedy had in 1960. Neither was he a decorated soldier like several of his predecessors, most recently Eisenhower in 1952, when the former World War II Supreme Commander promised that he would defeat Communism next. This time, it was a filthy-rich, arrogant womanizer, who had been able to avoid military service during the Vietnam War—and he bested the first female presidential nominee in the country of feminism! Trump’s secret was convincing voters who had given up on traditional principles and traditional politics, seen their finances crumble, and grown tired of wartime spending, that he would bring back the good old days of prosperity and American greatness, restoring the country’s global leadership role. There have been many US Presidents who were able to win only narrowly after a very tight race, just as there have been great political and ideological divides on display during campaigns, but never before had so many personal insults, unethical tricks, threats, mutual accusations, and scaremongering been part of a presidential election. There was also precedent for a victory with only the majority of electoral, but not popular votes, with the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W Bush being the previous example. (This is no unique, lopsided phenomenon: There are several countries where winning the majority of electoral districts but losing the popular vote will still result in an overall victory—such is frequently the case in Hungary as well.) However, there may have never been a result that inspired this much desperation in the losing camp, and the rest of the world also seems to look forward to a Trump presidency with concern rather than hope. Why is this the case? In Hungary, government-friendly media outlets tend to emphasize that Trump has turned against the domestic and foreign policy conventions that for decades have been prevalent in the Western World, as well as the so-called liberal elite, the most well-known global newspapers, the role of the US as ideological

“world police” and democracy exporter, and a “political correctness” movement seeking to sideline Christianity and white supremacy, culminating in the establishment of a cult-like status for sexual minorities. The new millennium has indeed produced extreme excesses in the majority of Western democracies: In spite of the financial crisis, the income of the richest higher classes left the living standards of the middle class far behind, there has been an increase in the bureaucracies of governmental and supranational organizations, and the new generation of politicians, while supporting the abandonment of traditional values, has proven incapable of solving the problems of the time. Trump promised to change all of this, but his credibility is called into questions by his personality and personal history. Some of his declared intentions are indeed dangerous and/ or rather unfeasible. He promises to “make America great again,” which he plans to do by, among others, forcing the United States’ military allies (from NATO to Japan and South Korea) to significantly increase their financial contributions, while also increasing his country’s defense spending. (“There are no free rides, you have to pay more for US protection!”) He would not mind seeing new countries acquire nuclear weapons, but also plans to greatly increase the US’s nuclear firepower. “Let it be an arms race! We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,” he assured the public. He will settle foreign policy disputes with Putin’s Russia, end the policy of appeasement with Iran, be a closer ally of Israel in Middle Eastern conflicts, destroy the terrorist organization calling itself the Islamic State without putting American boots on the ground, build a wall on the Mexican border, deport 11 million illegal immigrants (including 100-200 thousand overstaying Hungarian citizens?), ban Muslims from entering the country, take away health insurance from millions of people, fill Supreme Court vacancies with his own people. Are all of these proposals realistic? Would they bring about positive change? Trump’s first, reassuring statements after his victory led me to believe that he might even end up being a good president if he does not keep his campaign INTRODUCTION

promises. However, as the new Cabinet takes shape, doubts keep stacking up. Not even after a successful military coup does a country put as many generals in key positions as Trump has. A rich and successful businessman with friendly ties to Putin will be Secretary of State—will it be enough to ease global political tensions? Trade will take the place of diplomacy, we are told. This one sounds familiar in Hungary, where we have been told the same, but my experience has been that there is a mutual dependence between the two. There is no guarantee that a corporate executive who drives a hard bargain will be more effective at dealing with foreign leaders than a well-mannered and educated diplomat with knowledge of global processes. The President is bound by the constitutional establishment and traditions of the United States. If he cannot unite the American people, he will not be able to conduct successful foreign affairs. The US economy is strong and the employment rate is high. Thus, when seeking the problems currently ailing the country, one should look at the fields of finance, national debt, and the massive income inequality instead. The success of Bernie Sanders and his socialistic program was a clear warning. Ideological tensions should also be eased, and absurd manifestations of “political correctness”—such as when, at a university, a picture of Shakespeare was replaced with a poster of a lesbian African-American woman in the name of diversity—abandoned. Courtship should not be mistaken for “sexual harassment,” and changing one’s gender should not be considered a basic human right. That said, the Christian fundamentalism of the Tea Party is hardly the best antidote for leftist ideological dictatorship. Meanwhile, the future of the world will be greatly affected by Trump’s foreign policy. It was not the new President who first realized it would make sense to make terms with Russia. Many have tried since Franklin Delano Roosevelt—each and every one of his successors, in fact—, and repeated failure was never for a lack of effort on the part of the Americans. Republican George W Bush saw encouragement in Putin’s eyes, while Obama introduced the “Reset” in US-Russia relations. The current psychological moment 10

INTRODUCTION

certainly seems favorable, but was Putin being honest when, in an early December speech, he expressed a desire to turn the Moscow winter into spring? With the intervention in Syria, Russia once again established a foothold in the Middle East—what will Putin do with it? Clearly, Islamic fundamentalism is as much a threat to Russia as it is to the West, but in place of any substantial cooperative action to combat it, so far there has only been talk. There are also long-standing tensions: Beyond the issue of Israel, there is also the need to solve the Sunni-Shiite conflict and find a solution to the Kurdish question, preferably one that is acceptable to all parties involved. With regard to Ukraine, there are multiple rational solutions {guaranteed military neutrality, an internationally monitored referendum in Crimea, genuine federalism, autonomy with strong rights concerning language use, the establishment of a condominium, the recognition of Schutzmacht, (Protecting Power) status, as Austria exercises over Italy-held South Tyrol} but political wounds are difficult to heal, as emotions are not easily overridden with rational thought. 25 years ago, voices of decentralization, regionalism, and autonomy could be heard all over Europe, and then they were all drowned out by the nationalism of majoritarian nations—a process with explosive properties, as evidenced by the events unfolding in Turkey. From the vantage point of Hungarian foreign policy, even the United States seems remote, and I am afraid the Far East only appears as a desired but still-unreachable market. It is a sensible move to tighten relations with China and South Korea, but Japan deserves more attention, and Australia should also be seen as more than just the home of 50 thousand people of Hungarian descent. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore are well worth our attention too, while the latter could also serve as a model. But the Trump Administration’s greatest challenge will be the Far East. The new President’s China policy could easily lead to a trade war, which could get further exacerbated if China continues pursuing its current, confrontative policy in the South China Sea, while at the same time attempting to force out the United States from the Western Pacific

The inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States

region or at least reduce American influence in Taiwan and Japan. In an interesting development, the issue of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan is back on the agenda after 70 years. Could the Sino-Russian friendship be developing cracks? Finally: How will US-Hungary relations evolve under President Trump? That there has not been a meeting between the primary leaders of the United States and Hungary since Bush’s visit to Budapest ten years ago reflects the will of our American partner. Still, there was no reason for, much less a point to, the artificially generated anti-American sentiments here at home. A double standard will not disappear just because a small country does not like it. It never makes much sense to get offended by criticism from abroad, and we should always look at the reasons behind it instead. Even when it comes to the Great Powers, foreign policy successes are built on friendships and alliances—this was also the secret of NATO’s effectiveness. In the relationship between Washington and Budapest, there is also a favorable psychological moment right now, and it would be wise to embrace it. It will cost money: Our military spending will

have to be significantly increased, but it will be a good investment in the service of security. The United States was the first foreign supporter (but not the initiator) of the Visegrad Cooperation. Close relations with the US are a pillar of Polish foreign policy, while the Czech Republic can thank President Wilson for its very existence. Atlanticism is not inherently anti-Russian—only in the minds of some in Russia. A few years ago, regular consultation began between the Visegrad Four, the Baltic States, and the five prosperous northern democracies. This could serve as the groundwork for a new Atlanticism, which would also provide the foundation of a new, better, and lasting era of US-Hungary relations.

INTRODUCTION

HOW PRESIDENTS ARE ELECTED

2. Now, let us tally the popular vote. Democrat: 9+14+40=63 Republican: 11+16+0=27 VOTERS

Zsolt Pálmai Every four years there is a spike in Google searches about the US Electoral College, and it is no surprise: To many people outside the US (and even within it), the system appears complicated and even counterintuitive. The easiest way to understand it is through simplification. Let us assume the country consists of three states only, and that 100% of their populations are eligible to vote: States A, B, and C. The first state has 20 residents/voters, the second has 30, and the third has 40. For every 10 residents, a state is awarded one electoral vote (in reality, one Elector represents around 700 thousand citizens).

ELECTORS

1. To win the election, a candidate needs the majority of electoral votes. Since our model country has 9 Electors altogether, a candidate must win the vote of at least 5 of them (a tie in the US would leave it to Congress to choose the winner).

3. We can see that the Democrat has won the popular vote by a landslide. If this were system where the winner is chosen based on who receives the vote of more people, the Democrat would become president.

The original intent behind the Electoral College was to leave the actual election of a President and his or her Vice President to well-informed representatives chosen by the people, while also ensuring that smaller states also play an important role in the process. However, since the late 19th century, electoral votes have been assigned on a so-called “winner-take-all” basis (with the exception of Nebraska and Maine), whereby whoever wins the majority of the popular vote in a given state gets all of that state’s electoral votes.

But in the US and our model, victory is decided by electoral votes, and “regular” votes do not carry over state lines. Since we are working with a “winner-take-all” system, all electoral votes of States A (2) and B (3) go the Republican for a total of 5 electoral votes, while the Democrat is left with only 4.

Thus, while there are many possible outcomes in the US system, our model presents only four scenarios for the distribution of electoral votes, since winning any two states is enough to win the overall race: 5-4 (the winner takes States A and B), 6-3 (States A and C) 7-2 (B and C), and 9-0 (all three states). The peculiar twist seen in rare cases in the US (2000 and 2016 are such examples) comes when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. (It is actually possible to become President of the United States by securing the majority of the popular vote in as few as 11 states.) Sticking with the two major American parties, let us assume we have a Democrat (blue) and a Republican (red) running for president in our model country. In State A, 11 people vote for the Republican, and 9 for the Democrat, giving the former the smallest possible majority of votes. In State B, the Republican gets 16 votes, while the Democrat gets 14—again, the smallest majority. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate wins all 50 votes in State C.

VOTERS

Democratic Votes (63)

Republican Votes (27)

4. Despite only 27 out of 90 people voting for him or her, the Republican nominee becomes the President Elect by winning the majority of electoral votes. Of course, were there 60 people/voters living in State C, the Democrat would have won by carrying one state only.

ELECTORS

VOTERS

ELECTORS

INTERVIEW

HOME AFFAIRS

YES, WE CAN. REALLY? BOTH OF US? John O’Sullivan President of the Danube Institute

In 2008, Barrack Obama won the presidential election on a program of Hope and Change and with the slogan “Yes! We Can.” Oddly enough, in 2016 Donald J. Trump won the presidential election on more or less the same program, though to be achieved by different policies, and with a slogan, Make America Great Again, that echoed the earlier sentiment while giving it a nationalist more than a populist tone. Maybe all democratic candidates run on such slogans. There, however, the similarities end—at least as regard Trump and Obama. It is too soon to judge the Obama presidency with calm detachment. For those who want a favourable assessment of it, Jonathan Chait provides one in Audacity: “How Barack Obama Defied His Critics And Created A Legacy That Will Prevail,” and Michael D’Antonio does so in “A Consequential President.” Both books, it should be noted, argue the case for Obama as a president who set a new trajectory in American politics mainly against disappointed critics from the Left who feel his presidency achieved few and small “progressive” achievements. Republicans would present a still more hostile case, suggesting that as he leaves office, he also leaves a country more divided racially, weaker in the world, and with too many problems still unsolved, notably immigration law reform. And my own thumbnail sketch would claim that he fulfilled the “ceremonial” or “monarchical” duties of the presidency well-–he is personally very popular—but failed in too many of the “efficient” or “executive” duties to be seen as an overall success. What is at stake here is the notion that a consequential president is one who sets a new 14

HOME AFFAIRS

“trajectory” in American politics that compels his successors to remain within the boundaries of the policies he has entrenched either constitutionally or in the conventional wisdom. Barack Obama had set this test for himself when he was still a candidate by praising Reagan for making conservatism the new governing orthodoxy and by implication downsizing Bill Clinton for failing to overturn it. Obama himself hoped to become a consequential president by making his progressive politics the new orthodoxy. His supporters believe he achieved that. But Trump is now setting out to set his own new trajectory in politics—in effect to do to Obama what Obama did to Reagan—and we will see which of them wins in the next four or eight years. Trump has won the first battle in this contest by defeating Obama’s champion in the November election. Mrs. Clinton was not a good candidate, but she was the representative of the Obama administration in which she had served, and she embraced almost all of its policies. If she failed, then that was a sign that there was widespread discontent with these policies. Most people were convinced she would prevail. Why were they wrong? And what explains the few who got it right? An Australian friend and colleague, Roger Franklin, vacationing in America wrote to me to forecast that Donald Trump would win handily. He described his journey up the East Coast of the US in the final stages of the campaign, in which he detected from conversations along the way that there was a surge of popular opinion likely to produce a Trump victory.

Poster featuring the iconic “Hope” image made famous during the 2008 election

Other reporters saw the same signs but failed to make the same prediction. Among the very few who called it right was the US elections expert, Henry Olsen. Most observers saw that all the late polls had Hillary Clinton ahead by around four points, and concluded that a topsy-turvy race was veering back to a straightforward victory for the establishment’s favourite. Those who differed did so because either, like Roger, they felt the

nation’s pulse in person or, like Henry, could see potential surprises in the tea-leaves such as “shy Trumpers” who had misled pollsters. But did Trump win? Or did Hillary lose? My retrospective judgment is that she lost more than he won. The evidence of polls, which may not be conclusive, is that almost any other Republican would have defeated Hillary still more heavily than Trump did. After all, most GOP candidates lower down the ticket ran ahead of him. And she was undoubtedly a bad candidate, stiff, awkward, dull, appealing to a narrow constituency, and damaged by scandals. Above all, she was the personification of the current politically correct, progressive, social democratic globalist, multicultural, postAmerican regime—which over-regulates lives, devalues citizenship, inverts traditional mores, arbitrarily refuses to enforce laws, criminalises discrimination (but also divides its citizens into groups with different rights), transfers power to global bodies, and maintains a constant barrage of hectoring moral propaganda on everything from obesity to suburban development. Her rejection was therefore a defeat—a narrow defeat in a narrowly divided America—for the politics of progressivism. It was also a defeat, as several commentators have suggested, for Obamaism without the protective carapace of Obama’s personal charm. Other Republicans would have won this election perhaps by larger margins. What is more interesting—and significant—about Trump’s victory is that he won it in a very different way and with different voters and groups of voters. He won over a large slice of the electorate that had been neglected (and worse) by both parties. Media commentary has largely defined this group as “the white working class,” but it is larger than that and it blends into other classes and other ethnic groups. Its members might best be described as the “invisible victims” of identity politics and the policies it requires—high levels of immigration, affirmative action, bilingualism, multiculturalism, gender quotas—that has been progressively imposed since the end of the Cold War. By a malign coincidence, they are also among the victims of the “hollowing out” of US industry in the Rust Belt. So HOME AFFAIRS

they are the people who, if they lose jobs, find it harder than other people to get new ones. Trump won these voters wholesale with a combination of nationalism, protectionism, and a rejection of political correctness, and he did so without losing minority voters. In fact, he marginally improved the Republican share of African-American and Hispanic voters. His largest offsetting loss was of upscale white voters with degrees (I hesitate to describe them as “more educated”) who usually vote Republican but went elsewhere this time—most to the libertarian candidate. Now, as President Obama says, elections have consequences. Consider the post-election strength of the Republican Party: It controls the US presidency, both houses of the US Congress, thirty-three governorships, and sixty-nine of ninety-nine state legislative houses, giving the party full ownership of government in half the states. Newly-elected President Trump will nominate a new candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy which will restore a shaky five-to-four conservative majority in the court. If more Justices retire (or die) in the next four years, as seems likely, he will add to that majority. The GOP’s electoral landscape is also much more encouraging now. The bloc of northern “working-class whites,” including union voters, who were once the mainstay of the Democrats, are now solidly in a new expanded Republican coalition. Unless they are severely disappointed by President Trump, they are likely to stay there. Whites with degrees are similarly likely to return to the GOP in large numbers as the presidency gives Trump greater respectability. And if Trump pursues anything like a sensible immigration policy—one that reduces the overall level of immigration, both legal and illegal, while altering its composition away from “family reunification” to skills and replacing multiculturalism with patriotic assimilation—it will gradually slow down, halt and reverse the electoral balkanisation that has helped the Democrats. Voting Republican was once a gesture of assimilation second only to joining the US Marines. It can be so again if Trump listens to Senator Jeff Sessions, the US Senate’s best-informed member 16

HOME AFFAIRS

on immigration policy and, fortunately, the earliest Trump supporter at the top of the GOP. A “new Americanisation” policy would fill the gap in what is otherwise the GOP’s strong electoral redoubt— and it would also fit very comfortably in Trump’s overall “America First” outlook. But what kind of Republicanism is likely to be the dominant ideology of this GOP, shared as it will be between President Trump (who is a philosophically protean character, to say the least), a business-oriented congressional GOP establishment, and a now divided intellectual “conservative” movement in the country? Each of these three forces will influence the other two. But what will the intellectual conservatives be saying? Many of them are now lamenting the death of the classically liberal American conservatism that has been the loudest philosophical voice in Republican counsels since Ronald Reagan. Are they reading the runes correctly? I do not think so. The debate provoked by Trump’s rise has been portrayed by uncomprehending liberal elements in the media as a wild drift to a racist alt-Right. In reality. this is a fringe phenomenon—indeed, a fringe of a fringe phenomenon. The battle now going on within both conservatism and the Republican Party, which began as a simple for-or-against-Trump skirmish, has developed outwards into a ferment of serious political debate. And it is being carried on by some very clever people on important issues that had been either neglected or pushed to the margins of national politics. A ferment is a ferment and not to be defined too precisely. My take on it, however, is that it is burning down to two general ideas. The first is that, as John Gray has been arguing in Britain’s New Statesman, the free market is ceasing to be the central organising idea of centre-Right politics. That would be regrettable but not surprising since it has been the dominant economic and political institution internationally since Reagan and Thatcher. Whatever goes wrong will therefore be unreasonably blamed on it—as was the 2008 financial crash, for instance— and “corrective” measures such as protectionism will be taken. Those measures will usually be mistaken and reduce economic freedom and efficiency, but they will also probably be very

Barack Obama and Donald Trump in the Oval Office

limited since most policy-makers have a much better general grounding in market logic than they had in the 1960s. The second is that other issues are now emerging as more central to conservatism in response to events such as the refugee crisis, the growth of supranational institutions, terrorism, Brexit, the euro, Islamist radicalism, and indeed Donald Trump, that divide elites (including centre-Right elites) from most voters. They are a national conservative version of identity politics that stresses community, patriotism, democracy, sovereignty and security (both economic and national) over global governance, multiculturalism, open borders, and the rest. In Hungary these ideas are pretty recognizable as being the politics of Viktor Orban and Fidesz. And with elites openly resisting democratic decisions they dislike, as we can see in Britain over Brexit and in Europe over refugee and migrant policy, this is an increasingly popular conservative cause. Where the United States is concerned, there is a third consequence. As both National Review’s Charles W. Cooke and I (both English expatriates) independently concluded during an early stage of

Trump’s rise, if the GOP were to adopt these kinds of ideas, it would come to resemble the old preThatcher One Nation Tory Party—a broad church conservative party, keeping social conservatives, economic conservatives, religious conservatives, business conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives all within the same large tolerant tent. That party would have an occasional infuriating (to me) aversion to economic logic; it would make regular amiable gestures of social harmony in welfare and economics; it would be patriotic but relaxed about it; it would be (slightly) populist and (slightly more) nationalist than the present Republican Party; it would talk less about entrepreneurs and more about engineers and for all these reasons it would crowd out more logical rival parties from office and occupy power more or less permanently. It would be, in short, the natural party of government in the United States. If Trump is able to establish that party (naturally, called the GOP), he will cancel out Obama’s legacy and set a new political trajectory for the United States. If not, then Obama’s legacy will prevail and he will remain the consequential president of Jonathan Chait’s imaginings. Yes, they cannot both do it. HOME AFFAIRS

“HOW THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WON” JD Gordon Senior Fellow at the Center for a Secure Free Society (SFS), based in Washington, DC.

On November 8 th, 2016, America shocked the world. It was for all intents and purposes, an electoral coup. The political establishment, Republican and Democrat alike, was toppled by American voters alarmed by $20 trillion in public debt, the disappearance of millions of jobs overseas, a weakened role in global affairs, compounded by racial division and related riots worse than at any time in 50 years. In the words of Donald J. Trump, one of America’s most famous businessmen and reality TV stars, it was time to “Make America Great Again.” Emerging from a two-year long campaign, crowded with two dozen Republican, Democrat and Independent presidential candidates including state Governors and U.S. Senators, past and present, the multi-billionaire entrepreneur swept away the Bush and Clinton political dynasties which had governed America for 20 of the past 28 years. The elites from Washington to Brussels to Berlin said it could not happen. At one point in the Summer of 2015, some prominent media, like the left-leaning Huffington Post, decided they would only cover Mr. Trump in the “entertainment news,” not politics.1 Countless establishment politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, plus media and think tanks practically inaugurated the Democrat Party’s Nominee, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton even before the first vote was cast. How wrong they were! Yet as the Director of the National Security Advisory Committee to the Trump Campaign, and previously Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to former Presidential candidates former 1. Byrnes, Jesse. Huffington Post to cover Trump as entertainment news, not politics. The Hill. July 15, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/248314-huffington-post-to-cover-trump-as-entertainment-news-not 18

HOME AFFAIRS

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in 2015 and Corporate CEO Mr. Herman Cain in 2011, I always knew an anti-establishment candidate could win. Americans have long been desperate for change in Washington, despite what people see and hear in the mainstream media which generally supports the status quo. Yes, even though the national polls consistently placed Mrs. Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, several percentage points above Mr. Trump, the national popular vote does not elect the president. States do, via the Electoral College, where a total of 538 men and women representing the state populations cast their ballots to reflect how individual states vote. So even though Mrs. Clinton won the national popular vote by 48.2% to 46.1%, equating to nearly 2.9 million votes, she lost the Electoral College vote 304 to 227. In the final, tally Mrs. Clinton received 65.8 million votes while Mr. Trump finished with 62.9 million.2 Though to better understand how Republicans won the White House while losing the popular vote by such a large margin, it is also helpful to understand the U.S. electoral map and trends over the past several decades. National elections between Republicans and Democrats have become much closer since Ronald Reagan left office in 1988. The widely popular Republican two-term president, former Governor of California and Hollywood movie star, still remains the “Gold Standard” for what most Americans view as desirable in a president. Reagan was a strong and charismatic leader who won the Cold War, vanquished communism, and reverently referred to America as the “Shining City on a Hill.”

Trump speaking at a campaign rally The Trump campaign’s iconic red hat

2. Abramson, Alana. Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million Votes, ABC News, December 22, 2016. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-official�ly-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341

HOME AFFAIRS

Since that Golden Era of American politics, the country has become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats; Red vs. Blue; Elephant vs. Donkey. Of the 50 U.S. states, the ones with the largest urban populations like New York and California, have gone solidly Blue. Meanwhile, states with more small cities, towns and rural areas, like Texas and Alabama have gone Red. The Democrats have had the lock along the Northeast and West Coasts, and Upper Mid-West, while Republicans dominate in the South. While there are many reasons for this split, socioeconomic and demographic factors top the list. Big cities tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Core supporters include an alliance between politically liberal factions of university elites and the least educated urban poor. Democrats tend to favor big government, higher taxes and expansive social programs which benefit the poor, generally at the expense of the economic upper and middle classes, including small business owners. They also push a progressive social agenda, where LGBT activism and drug legalization figure prominently in recent times. Minority ethnic groups of Blacks and Hispanics have overwhelmingly supported Democrats, with Mrs. Clinton winning 88% and 66% of their votes, respectively.3 Religious minority groups such as Jewish and Muslim communities have also strongly supported Democrats, as do young voters. Meanwhile, small cities, towns and rural areas tend to vote Republican, and mostly identify as politically conservative. Republicans favor limited government, lower taxes, limited migration and advocate for strong national defense. A slim majority of whites tend to vote Republican. Social conservatives, particularly deeply religious Evangelical Christians who account for about 90 million Americans, form a base of Republican support. They have attempted to counter the progressive agenda, notably against gay marriage and repeal of the military’s prohibition against LGBT 3. Tyson, Alec. Maniam, Shiva. Behind Trump’s Victory: Division by Race, Gender, Education. Pew Research Center. November 9, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

HOME AFFAIRS

service members, while also seeking to restrict abortion. Older voters tend to vote Republican. Close to 40 of 50 states are solidly Blue or Red in recent decades are not deeply contested. Thus the real battle is in about a dozen “Swing States” where there is roughly an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and population balance between urban and rural areas. These so-called “Purple States” blend Blue and Red, and make or break presidential elections. Key states include some of the Top 10 states by population, notably Florida, Ohio and North Carolina. Most of the presidential campaign activities by both Republicans and Democrats take place in the Swing States. For the 2016 election, the Trump Team knew it would have to win nearly every single “Swing State” and one or more traditionally Blue States. The math was heavily on the side of the Democrats. However, individual Swing State polls had been extremely close in the month leading up to the election, meaning Mr. Trump did have a slim chance provided everything went well. And it happened. Not only did Mr. Trump win every Swing State except for two states with small populations, New Hampshire and Nevada, he “flipped” three traditionally Blue states with large populations. Those heartland Democrat states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are heavily populated, with Michigan and Pennsylvania in the Top 10 and Wisconsin in the Top 20. Their combined Electoral College votes made the difference in Mr. Trump’s large margin of victory, despite losing the popular vote. That said, victories in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan were razor close. In fact, only 107,000 votes combined in the three states turned them from Blue to Red, sending Mr. Trump to the White House. Ironically, the football stadium where I attended college, Pennsylvania State University, holds 107,000 people. So in practical terms, the number of people who attend Penn State football games on any given Fall Saturday made the difference in who won the White House. Amazing to consider. So what was the “X” factor that caused those three

reliably Democrat states to switch to Republican in 2016 and tip the balance for Mr. Trump? Several, actually. First and foremost, jobs and the economy. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have some of America’s largest cities – Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, respectively. Outside the big cities there are sizable numbers of white, working class, pro-labor union workers who traditionally identify as Democrats and have worked in the manufacturing sector, like the automotive and steel industries. Mr. Trump reached out directly to them, loudly and often, denouncing free trade agreements and promising to bring American jobs back from overseas. To be sure, Republicans have traditionally supported free trade. Yet Mr. Trump has not been bound by party lines and managed to win over many Democrat voters by taking the opposite position. Second, Hillary Clinton as a deeply flawed candidate. National polls routinely showed her as untrustworthy and dishonest by a majority of Americans.Notable reasons included compromising U.S. national security via her unauthorized private e-mail server while Secretary of State; blaming the 2012 Benghazi terror attack on a video which her e-mails showed she knew was not true; and accepting tens of millions of dollars in foreign government donations on behalf of her foundation. Yet even worse, she made a fatal error on the campaign trail. At a rally in September 2016, she labeled “half of Trump supporters” as a “basket of deplorables.” In what has become an alarming trend from many Democrats, she said Trump supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”4 Rather than addressing concerns from Americans about bringing jobs back from overseas and protecting the nation from open borders and a rising tide of Radical Islam-

inspired terror attacks, she instead insulted about a quarter of the American population. This shut down debate, and significantly helped the Republican cause. And third, the excitement gap. Mr. Trump’s rallies became a movement in themselves, with 30,000 or more people packing into concert halls and sports arenas, often multiple times a day in various states, throughout the year. The energy level came to rival the best of rock concerts. Hillary Clinton just did not get that kind of reaction. Democrat party leaders assumed she would automatically get the same level of support in Blue states that Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 as a Senator and 2012 as President. They desperately jammed musical celebrity appearances alongside Mrs. Clinton in the last weeks of the campaign, with the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, Jay Z. and Beyoncé, some of America’s most famous entertainers. Though obvious to state now, Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama – and despite celebrity endorsements, it helped cost her the election. Even though the Democrats had invested significantly in the “ground game” of a turnout operation, it just was not enough. So what’s the lesson? For the establishment, it is never underestimate the will of the American people. And for all Americans, the power rests with the people. We exercised our Constitutional right to vote and have set the nation on a new course.

4. Blake, Aaron. Voters Strongly Reject Hillary Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” Approach. The Washington Post. September 26, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/voters-strongly-reject-hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-approach/?utm_term=.195598c85049

HOME AFFAIRS

HOW DO AMERICANS LIVING IN BUDAPEST FEEL ABOUT THE ELECTION?

Following the election, I was filled with a deep sense of mourning. Not for the damage that has yet to occur come January 20th, but the damage that has already occurred as of November 8th. In electing Mr. Trump to presidential office, those with a voice in the United States have collectively deemed every one of his racist, bigoted, elitist, and sexist remarks acceptable within social and political discourse. What message does this send to the discriminated, underserved, and voiceless in the United States? I mourn the irreconcilable damage that this has already done to those individuals and communities. Aki Neumann, Fulbright Student

My primary reaction to the US election was surprise; I had been told over and over again that Trump had no chance and that we could plan for another Clinton presidency. I thought this because everything that I had heard—from the media, from my family, from my social circles— was in line with this. The problem, though, is that my social circles were already far too insular for me to have a solid understanding of how much support Trump actually had. Once I processed this, my secondary reaction hit; I was concerned for the future of cooperative discourse across the aisle. If everyone lives in an echo chamber then how does anyone form tolerance for the Other?

Living in Budapest has given me the opportunity to talk more openly with Americans and Europeans about the election. I’ve spoken with vehement opponents of Trump and more hopeful individuals. Such a balance would have been more difficult to find in the US. While I am disappointed that Trump continues to act like he stars on a reality show, I hope that his win signals that politicians need to improve their strategy in connecting with middle-class voters. Maddy Stein, Fulbright Student

Antall József Knowledge Centre

Cameron Wright, Fulbright Student at

Before November 8, I felt confident that Hillary Clinton would become the first female President of the United States but that feeling quickly faded as the other political scientists at the party I attended came to the realization that Donald Trump would become the next president. I was in a state of confusion, sadness, and what I can only call a mixture of shame and fear. I’ve realized why people voted for Donald Trump, and while I don’t agree with their rationale, I hope that the next 4 years can be a period where people strive to understand differences and the cleavages in the United States. Tara Riggs, CEU Political Science Student 22

HOME AFFAIRS

Even though I was pretty sure Clinton would win, I also had a nagging feeling that Trump might pull it off. Immediately following the election, I felt shock, but the more I study how and why Trump won, the more it makes sense. Clinton wasn’t the best candidate and made some major missteps campaigning that only became evident after the fact. Now I, and a lot of other Americans, are anxious about the direction the US could head during the next four years. Unfortunately, Trump’s actions since the election have done nothing to alleviate those fears.

Budapest Semester in Mathematics

Allison Pingley, Fulbright Scholar, Visiting Political Science Professor at ELTE

HOME AFFAIRS

TRUMP’S DOMESTIC POLICY IN A DIVIDED AMERICA Elizabeth Wahl Washington DC based journalist

The campaign and beginning of the presidency of Donald Trump exposed an America deeply divided. The surprising win of the business mogul that ran on an anti-establishment platform with nationalist and nativist messaging rallied much of blue collar and rural America. Their strong turnout at the polls demonstrated the anger and frustration at a Washington they felt had left them behind. Trump’s campaign rhetoric was a departure from traditional political norms: he was blunt, politically incorrect, and had a knack for dominating the news cycle as the public was transfixed on the brash former reality television star. But his appeal was largely underestimated by the political establishment. In fact, many of his supporters, fed up with the “elites” in Washington, gravitated

Protest by civil rights group Black Lives Matter 24

HOME AFFAIRS

towards his unconventional, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization stances. He promised to be the voice of the working class, vowing to bring back jobs from overseas. Blaming globalization and free trade for the economic plight of the shrinking middle class, Trump advocated for a more protectionist approach to the economy and foreign policy. Appealing to the working class in rural America, Trump said he would revive the coal and oil industries, while showing little concern for renewable energy and largely ignoring climate change as a legitimate risk. Also at the top of his agenda was repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Known commonly as “Obamacare,” former President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare legislation had been a target by Republicans for

years. Conservatives have long seen the law as government overreach, being too intrusive on the healthcare system which they argue limit healthcare options for Americans. On immigration, Trump was ruthless. His signature campaign promise was to build a multibillion dollar wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico, he would repeat with certainty, would pay for the wall. In terms of immigrants already inside U.S. borders, Trump said 11 million undocumented immigrants would be deported. He proposed banning Muslims from entering the country while blocking off entry for refugees. The isolationist sentiment that underpinned Trump’s campaign enflamed racial tensions. The “alt-right” gained a voice. The far-right fringe thrived mostly on internet and social media forums with nationalist viewpoints that often crossed over into racist and anti-Semitic territory. Suddenly, figures ignored for beliefs largely seen as reprehensible such as KKK leader David Duke were in the headlines for voicing support for the Republican nominee. Many criticized Trump for failing to instantly condemn such hate speech, and only doing so under pressure from the media and public figures from both sides of the political aisle. Nevertheless, racial tensions remained a consistent and underlying issue throughout the election. The outcome of the election spotlighted how fractured America is politically and economically. Large swaths of middle America voted for Trump. He prevailed with the older, white male demographic and Americans without college degrees. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won over the urban voters that tended to be more educated, while attracting women and minority votes. Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 3 million. However, Trump proved victorious by winning the Electoral College. Many hoped the turbulence and incendiary rhetoric would be left behind and a President Trump would prove more cautionary in his words and temperament. Those hopes have widely diminished and America remains deeply divided. Indeed, Trump has set out to do what he had promised. He immediately signed an executive order to start the process of dismantling

Obamacare. He rolled out a controversial travel ban on seven Muslim majority countries, prompting chaos and protests at airports across the country. That ban was later overturned in court and Trump’s efforts to reinstate the ban was rejected by a federal appeals panel. A few weeks later, Trump unveiled a second travel ban that spared Iraq and allowed for certain groups of people to apply for waivers. Despite the changes, civil liberties groups maintained the second version was still unconstitutional, arguing that it still discriminated based on religion. Hours before it was set to take effect, a Hawaii District judge placed a nationwide hold on the order. As far as the wall he promised to build, Mexico made it abundantly clear it will not be funding the construction of the wall and Trump’s insistence has strained relations. It became increasingly clear that taxpayers would be footing the multibillion-dollar barrier. Meanwhile, the Administration remains roiled in controversy. An unclassified version of a report from the U.S. Intelligence community asserted that the Russian government actively worked to interfere in the U.S. election process through hacking and releasing sensitive information. The stated aim was to undermine the candidacy of Clinton in order to tip the election in Trump’s favor. Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was forced to resign after revelations that he lied about the nature of his conversation with the Russian Ambassador, failing to disclose he discussed sanctions with the official—a matter he was not authorized to negotiate at that time in his capacity. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigating Russia over failing to disclose meetings with the same Russian official. Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are investigating Trump’s ties to Russia and the extent of the country’s interference in the U.S. election. The president’s adversarial relationship with the press has grown even more troubled. He repeatedly derides the mainstream media as being “fake news,” alarming citizens that see an unprecedented attack on free speech and the delegitimizing of critical media. He often takes his message straight to the people through his HOME AFFAIRS

Anti-Trump protesters at the 'Women's March' 2

HOME AFFAIRS

favorite venue, Twitter, to air grievances about his press coverage and has made statements that are demonstrably false. He has said millions of people voted illegally which led to his loss of the popular vote (without basis in fact), boasted that his inauguration audience was the largest ever (photographs prove otherwise), and made the shocking, unsubstantiated claim that his predecessor, President Obama, “wiretapped” Trump tower. Whether on social media or through the spoken word, the loose relationship he has with reality has many Americans wondering if he actually means what he says. Approval ratings reflect the rocky start. About 50 days into the presidency, Trump’s approval rating is at a historically low 40 percent. However, the president’s base sees a successful leader, carrying out bold promises he made during the campaign to make sweeping changes to Washington and disrupt business as usual. When it comes to foreign policy, Trump takes positions that are outside the Republican mainstream and general consensus of the foreign policy community. He repeatedly makes glowing statements of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and hinted at the possibility of lifting sanctions on Russia for its military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. He has questioned the relevance of NATO, supported Brexit and has vowed to take an “America first” approach to global affairs, signaling a less prominent role on the world stage. The anti-establishment wave that Trump is riding is not unique to the United States. The unprecedented influx of migrants and refugees into European countries has fueled the rise of populist far-right parties and politicians. Fake news has become a global phenomenon in the increasingly digital “post-truth” world where falsehoods spread like wildfire. As political extremism becomes mainstream, the future of liberal democracies is being called into question on both sides of the Atlantic.

HOME AFFAIRS

MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES Top Ten Largest U.S. Immigrant Groups, 2015 Country of birth:

Number of

Country of birth of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population: January 2012 Country of birth:

immigrants:

Number of

Share of total

immigrants:

immigrant population:

Country of birth

Estimated popula-

Percent

tion in January

of total

Country of birth

Estimated popula-

Percent

tion in January

of total

Dominican Republic

1 063 000

2,5%

Korea

1 060 000

2,4%

Mexico

6,720000

Korea

230,000

El Salvador

1 352 000

3,1%

China*

2 065 000

4,8%

El Salvador

690,000

China

210,000

Guatemala 928 000 2,1%

Cuba

1 211 000

2,8%

Guatemala

580,000

Ecuador

170,000

India

2 390 000

5,5%

Vietnam

1 301 000

3,0%

Honduras

360,000

Vietnam

160,000

Philippines

1 982 000

4,6%

Other

18 295 000

42,3%

Philippines

310,000

Other countries

1,760,000

Mexico

11 643 000

26,9%

India

260,000

HOME AFFAIRS

Tourists / Business Travelers from Top 12 Visa Waiver Countries: 2014 20

1800 K 1600 K 1400 K 1200 K

Percent

Number of Legal Permanent Rersidents

Annual Number of US Legal Permanent Residents, Fiscal Years 1820-2015

1000 K 800 K

600 K 400 K 200 K

O K 1830

1850

1870

1890

Source: Migration Policy Institute

1910

1930

1950

1970

2010

1990

Fiscal Year

30,3

38,2

Service

24,6

16,9

Sales and office

17,0

25,1

Natural resources,construction, and maintance

12,9

8,1

Production, transport, and materialmoving

15,2

11,7

Source:US Department of Homeland Security 30

HOME AFFAIRS

Refugees Admitted

11,4

11,5

11,8

10,8

11,6

11,8

11,3

10,5 Year

Source: US Department of Homeland Security

2012

2011

2010

9279

2009

itz

nd la Ire

en ed

s nd la er

n ai Sp

ly Ita

lia ra st

So a, re

h ut

ce an Fr

y an

180 K 160 K 140 K 120 K 100 K

40 K 2008

1215

DHS estimates not produced for 2001-2004

2007

Annual ceiling Number of admitted refugees

60 K

4 2006

683

220 K

80 K

2005

240 K

200 K

SLK

640

2000

393

Millions

Based on the 2000 census Based on the 2010 census

US Refugee Admissions and Refugee Resettlement Ceilings, Fiscal Years 1980-2016

Unauthorized Immigrant Population: 2000-2012 14

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Note: The percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 ACS

Average Annual Number of Person Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status from the Visegrad Countries between 2005 and 2014 based on country of birth

d ite Un

Management, professional, and related

Share of Foreign-Born Share of Native-Born Workers in Occupation (%) Workers in Occupation (%)

Occupation

Share of Immigration and US-Born workers by Select Occupation, 2014

20 K O K

1980

Source: Migration Policy Institute

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Fiscal Year HOME AFFAIRS

SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Hillary vs. Trump game of tweets

HOW TO WIN UGLY

Friday, December 21, 2016

Máté Kaló Independent Political Analyst

Donald J. Trump is now the 45 President of the United States. Even a year ago, not many would have guessed he could make it to the finish line, but he did. He was an unconventional candidate and so were his campaign promises and his communication style. Some would even go as far as to say he was an unqualified and flawed candidate who made a whole bunch of eyebrow-raising statements and slurs at his opponents and practically anyone who dared to criticize him. But was this a carefully orchestrated strategy or the classic case of a loose cannon— which happened to hit the bullseye? Donald Trump was the Twitter candidate and he has also indicated that now as president he has no intention to stop using the communication platform that became a trademark attribute of the political phenomenon centered around him. He says this is a very effective and powerful way of delivering his messages to the American and global public, among them everyday citizens, political allies, foes, big corporations, and foreign governments. And he is perfectly right. While calling his political opponents “all talk, no action” figures, he himself was all talk about them. His very simplistic, powerful and often abusive language enabled him to become the political agenda-setter throughout the campaign. His messaging blew everything else—especially policy-related issues—away. The direct outreach efforts to his Twitter and Facebook followers was followed up by the extensive coverage by the entire news media, which greatly magnified the effect of his words. And this should not surprise anyone, as the competition on the news market does not let these media outlets be selective in their coverage based on the quality of the content, especially not if the subject is one of th

HOME AFFAIRS

the US presidential candidates. The fact that Mr. Trump basically stole the initiative in setting the political agenda also robbed Democrats of the chance to focus the campaign on policies— Mrs. Clinton’s strong suit—putting a dent in her chances of winning the election. The efforts by media outlets critical of Mr. Trump to fact-check the billionaire-turned-politician were too little too late, while his social media presence allowed only limited means of calling him out on his false claims which he often made throughout the campaign. The fact-checking efforts were also weakened by the extensive coverage of Mrs. Clinton’s own scandals that somehow hurt her much worse than Mr. Trump was by hurt his own missteps. All of this shows how social media took over the traditional media in agenda-setting. Ironically it was the candidate with the biggest personal wealth who got the most free media coverage this way, spending close to nothing on paid media, which is every political campaign’s dream scenario. But does it matter what Mr. Trump and his rivals tweeted? According to research data, Donald Trump’s tweets were either very positive or very negative in their wording, and also more personal (which means both compliments and criticism), while Mrs. Clinton’s tweets were more positive but less personal and more calculated as part of a disciplined social media activity. Moreover, in her case, disciplined also meant less spontaneous, which drew a very visible contrast between her and her counterpart. Among others, this contrast became apparent in Mr. Trump’s lead in the number of followers.

@HillaryClinton twitter.com/HILLARYCLINTON

@realDonaldTrump twitter.com/REALDONALDTRUMP

Joined

Followers

Joined

Followers

2013

12,1 M

2009

20 M

'To all the little girls watching...never doubt that you are valuable and powerful & deserving of every chance & opportunity in the world.' Wife, mom, grandma, women+kids advocate, FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, pantsuit aﬁcionado, 2016 presidential candidate.

Hillary's tweets about Trump

President-elect of the United States

Trump's tweets about Hillary Trump won

Aftermath of the Debate

After Trump's speech - Florida, Tampa

'Today we make America great again!'

AVG:7

Aftermath of the Debate

Charity Dinner

AVG:3 aug. 1.

szept. 1.

okt. 1.

nov. 1.

aug. 1.

szept. 1.

okt. 1.

nov. 1.

dec. 1.

Sentiment results The most frequently tweeted words

Top Mentions timkaine POTUS FLOTUS

thank work

great

good

win

great

good

DonaldJTrumpJr

wow

better

love

ready

won

stronger HFA

badly

issues

false

lost unﬁt

Positive

TeamTrump

72,0 HillaryClinton

lost hard

megynkelly

disaster

fear

failed

hard debt

-72,0

poverty wrong

hate

FoxNews Negative

nice dangerous

JoeBiden

BillClinton

oreillyfactor

amazing

love

EricTrump foxandfriends

support best proud

TimKaine

Top Mentions

right

failing

CNN

dishonest bad crooked

TheBrieﬁng2016 Hillary_esp

nytimes

realDonaldTrump

@IvettAlexa (graphics: http://caglecartoons.com/)

HOME AFFAIRS

TWITTER FOLLOWERS POSTS

FACEBOOK LIKES FOLLOWERS

Barack Obama 83,231,964 15,435 Donald Trump 21,761,910 34,358 Hillary Clinton 12,552,119 9,807

Barack Obama 54,306,676 52,140,693 Donald Trump 18,796,729 19,644,408 Hillary Clinton 10,134,361 10,019,528

REPUBLICANS John McCain 2,110,367 12,218 Ted Cruz 2,027,853 18,211 Mitt Romney 1,875,624 1,608 Sarah Palin 1,374,008 3,686 Paul Ryan 1,349,115 10,172 Mike Pence #1 ( https://twitter.com/mike_pence ) 1,213,383 5,242 Mitch McConnell 206,169 1,531 Condoleeza Rice 195,861 436 DEMOCRATS Bill Clinton 6,842,123 535 Bernie Sanders #1 ( https://twitter.com/berniesanders ) 5,059,659 10,252 Bernie Sanders #2 ( https://twitter.com/sensanders ) 3,791,846 16,012 Al Gore 3,023,361 2,020 John Kerry 2,541,152 2,249 Joe Biden 1,525,985 1,199 Nancy Pelosi 945,876 4,455 Harry Reid 425,935 4,032 Chuck Schumer 296,356 9,180

REPUBLICANS Mitt Romney 10,396,559 9,541,019 Paul Ryan 4,796,602 4,470,615 Sarah Palin 4,754,204 4,292,223 Ted Cruz 2,140,027 1,947,090 Mike Pence 1,046,280 1,041,703 John McCain 913.914 806.873 Condoleeza Rice 676.69 659.434 Jeb Bush 341.55 320.123 John Kasich 289.625 299.767 Mitch McConnell 164.111 174.401 DEMOCRATS Bernie Sanders #1 5,715,662 5,592,148 Bernie Sanders #2 4,936,337 4,822,958 Bill Clinton 3,983,612 3,891,157 Nancy Pelosi 448.826 434.031 Al Gore 349.517 339.117 Chuck Schumer 213.787 217.196 John Kerry 157.534 155.953 Harry Reid 137.174 133.278

Democratic and Republican Politicians on Social Media

So did Trump win the election thanks to social media? We should be careful with our assumptions. First of all, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes nationwide. Her loss is down to the fact that her campaign failed to recognize her weaknesses in Midwestern states and the resulting lack of action cost her the election. At the same time, Mr. Trump managed to flip states into his column that hadn’t gone Republican in many years. The use of social media probably helped him 34

HOME AFFAIRS

in reducing his deficit and eventually turning it into an electoral win. Compared to 2008, we may notice that the social media buzz around Barack Obama’s campaign was a smart use of conventional methods of social media in an age still dominated by traditional media, while this year Mr. Trump ran a successful campaign in an environment where social media was at times able to dominate traditional news sources using an unorthodox method: simply being himself without any form of filtering.

This may seem a very risky and strange strategy for someone who wants to run for the highest office of the country without risking their public image and integrity. We might never learn the truth but at least now know that winning the White House is not the ultimate prize and comes at a cost: four years of governing. And this raises another question. Can Trump deliver as commander-in-chief? If yes, he is a good politician and also lucky to have a Republican Congress by his side. If not, he must compensate

with a very effective communication that can convince voters about the opposite. But Mr. Trump should be aware of the fact that while he won by a narrow margin in critical states to claim the presidency, his divisive strategy earned him a seriously low approval rating for an incoming president of around 45%. To have the chance to successfully run for a second term in 2020, it looks as though he will have to deliver politically, otherwise even the smartest media strategy is unlikely to save him at the polls. HOME AFFAIRS

THE PEOPLE’S VOICE: DONALD TRUMP AND TRADE Zsolt Pálmai AJKC, Head of Transatlantic Relations Office “As a political candidate, I’ll go with how people feel, and I’ll let you go with the theoreticians.” This quote may not come from Donald Trump, but it is nonetheless an apt summary of the political credo of the 45th President of the United States, which no doubt served him well during the election. Newt Gingrich, one of the most active surrogates of the Trump campaign, also successfully used the above line to shut down a debate between him and a CNN anchor1, in which the former Speaker of the House had been trying to persuade Alisyn Camerota that, despite FBI data showing a decrease in nationwide violent crime2, the “average American” does not feel that they are any safer and that there is less violence on the streets. The present essay argues that, as a politician, Trump also appeals to emotions, which were his primary tool for winning the presidency (and are likely to remain his number one device for governing in a manner that can be considered— or, perhaps more precisely, communicated as—successful), even in cases where his views do not immediately seem to match that of the majority of voters. The essay does not aim to provide a critique of the quality of the President Elect’s policy proposals and rhetoric, but rather to analyze how and to what degree they can be traced back to the general mood of the US populace. For this purpose, the essay will look at the example of foreign trade, a frequent target of Trump’s criticism. The thesis put forth here also includes the implicit claim that, when analyzing Trump’s policy proposals, one should concentrate on the feelings shared by the majority or at least a politically potent group 1. Transcripts. CNN. 19 October 2016. <http://edition.cnn. com/TRANSCRIPTS/1610/19/nday.02.html> Accessed: 12 December 2016. 2. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. FBI. <http://ucrdatatool. gov> Accessed: 6 August 2016. 36

HOME AFFAIRS

of voters regarding the issue at hand, instead of the ideological or academic background of the proposal in question. The essay will work on the assumption that, during the campaign, the President Elect’s primary goal was not to introduce and promote a set of action plans, but to get elected. Today, we still face a shortage of concrete details that could aid us in assessing Donald Trump’s policy proposals. The political agenda on his official campaign website contained a mere seven points (two of them about the same issue), and only one of these had anything to do with trade—and it dealt with the relationship with China only. 3 Thus, his stances on various issues are revealed in interview, press releases, and public appearances. This should not come as a surprise considering the businessman’s stated aversion to in-depth analyses and lengthy policy papers—indeed, during the campaign, he repeatedly mocked his Democratic rival for the series of finely detailed reform plans that her campaign came out with. He even went so far as to claim that he considers himself as his number one advisor when it comes to foreign policy, and—which, in our case, is even more relevant—he established an equally peculiar point of reference when he stated that his views “are what everybody else’s views are.” 4 However, as the present essay will show in connection with a specific issue, however shallow a oneliner the latter statement may seem, it actually identifies one of the primary sources of Trump’s policy proposals.

3. US-China Trade Refom <https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ positions/us-china-trade-reform> Accessed: 16 August 2016. 4. Michael Grunwald: Donald Trump’s One Unbreakable Policy: Skip the Details. Politico. 17 July 2016. <http://www. politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-policy-2016-hillary-clinton-214058> Accessed: 6 August 2016.

Donald Trump has openly admitted that greed has been a defining element of his life up to this point, using these “credentials” to lend weight to his claims that, from now on, he will effectively be “greedy for the United States.” 5 For the purposes of his political program, this has mainly meant a sharp criticism of current and planned US trade agreements (especially NAFTA and TTP6), as well as the promise that he will withdraw from these deals or at least renegotiate them, while bringing back jobs from abroad and, in general, rearranging foreign trade relations to better benefit the United States. The most frequent target of his incendiary rhetoric are China and Mexico—the winders of bad deals by establishment politicians, who, in some cases, may even employ fraudulent means to hurt the US economy (see, for example, his repeated criticism of China for manipulating its currency) 7 . He has also called China’s acceptance into the WTO “the greatest jobs theft in history.” 8 However, free trade agreements are generally popular with Americans. In a March 2016 poll by the Pew Research Center, a 4-point majority agreed that these pacts have been useful for the country, while a 3-point majority considered them beneficial to their family’s finances.9 It is also important to note that these favorable attitudes were present in all demographic groups surveyed. A short while later, Gallup measured similar sentiments regarding free trade, but when it came to concrete deals (the poll mentioned NAFTA and TPP), the ratio of those who would 5. Zack Beauchamp: Think America’s terrified of Donald Trump? Check out how the rest of the world’s reacting. Vox. 5 May 2016. <http://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11590870/ trump-world-reaction> Accessed: 6 August 2016. 6. Jonathan Swan—Ben Kamisar: Trump’s Agenda Tackles Taxes, Spending and the Wall. The Hill. 18 July 2016. <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/287841-trumps-agenda-tackles-taxes-spending-and-the-wall> Hozzáférés: 6 August 2016. 7. Darren Samuelsohn—Manuela Tobias: Donald Trump’s Policy Problems. Politico. 12 May 2016. <http://www.politico. com/story/2016/05/donald-trumps-policy-problems-223092> Accessed: 7 July 2016. 8. Donald J. Trump: How to Make America Wealthy Again <http://fortune.com/2016/06/28/transcript-donald-trump-speech-jobs/> Accessed: 7 August 2016. 9. Views on Economy, Government Services, Trade. Pew Research Center. 31 March 2016. <http://www.people-press. org/2016/03/31/3-views-on-economy-government-services-trade/> Accessed: 4 August 2016.

have preferred to withdraw from the agreements and those who would have preferred to stay was equal (28-28%)—while a considerably larger group (43%) claimed to be undecided. 10 It is thus safe to say that, when it comes to trade, Trump’s views are not only not “what everybody else’s views are” (since even among the voters there is no consensus on the issue), they do not even reflect those of the majority of Americans. Yet a closer look at trade-related polls reveals that, if we compare the general attitude towards existing trade pacts with opinions on some of their (perceived) effects, it begins to seem like the views of “average Americans” are also somewhat contradictory (more on this below). It should also be noted that the President Elect is not categorically opposed to free trade, so his stance cannot be explained by consistent isolationism either. To understand how attacking existing trade practices became one of Trump’s most potent messages, the question needs to be looked at through both wider and narrower lenses. The first major issue is the US’s number one trade partner, China: In 2015, the combined value of goods that exchanged hands between the two parties exceeded $598 billion. 11 It is a wellknown and oft-repeated fact that the People’s Republic owns a massive amount of US foreign debt ($1157 billion in September 2016). 12 Clearly, the country represents an important economic factor in the eyes of American citizens, who, quite understandably, view it as a serious rival and problem source, as seen in the data gathered from relevant polls. 13 Research indicates that Americans see a marked decline in their country’s status as a great power: The US’s global leadership role has been 10. Americans Split on Idea of Withdrawing From Trade Treaties. Gallup. 28 April 2016. <http://www.gallup.com/ poll/191135/americans-split-idea-withdrawing-trade-treaties. aspx> Accessed: 4 August 2016. 11. U.S.-China Trade Facts. USTR. <https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china> Accessed: 7 August 2016. 12. Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities. Department of the Treasury. 18 July 2016. <http://ticdata.treasury.gov/ Publish/mfh.txt> Accessed: 7 August 2016. 13. 6 Facts about How Americans and Chinese See Each Other. Pew Research Center. 30 March 2016. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/30/6-facts-about-how-americansand-chinese-see-each-other/> Accessed: 4 August 2016. HOME AFFAIRS

reduced, and is consequently less respected than before. 14 They still consider it important that their country be intensely involved in global economic processes15, but the new millennium clearly saw China emerge as a main rival, and, as seen in a Gallup poll, Americans today view the Asian country as the world’s predominant economic power16 (this attitude is not mirrored in similar polling by Pew, but the tendencies seen in their research from recent years also portray China as a serious competitor). 17 In addition to narrower economic issues, it is also apparent that China is also a general source of concern and fear for Americans. Even liberal Democratic voters see the process of China becoming a world power as a threat in relatively great numbers (46%), while it appears to be a dominant attitude among independent (51%) and republican voters (57%).18 Not many people consider the People’s Republic an outright enemy (20-27%), but between 43% and 47% of respondents said that China is a “serious problem” for the USA. Meanwhile, 84% of those polled expressed some degree of concern over the country’s increasing influence. 19 There are several other polls showing China as a source of economic, security, and human rights concerns,

14. Perceptions of U.S. Global Power and Respect. Pew Research Center. 5 May 2016. <http://www.people-press.org/2016/05/05/8-perceptions-of-u-s-global-power-and-respect/> Accessed: 4 August 2016.

15. Public Sees U.S. Power Declining as Support for Global Engagement Slips. Pew Research Center. 3 December 2013. <http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/public-sees-u-spower-declining-as-support-for-global-engagement-slips/> Accessed: 4 August 2016. 16. Americans See China as Top Economy Now, but U.S. in Future. Gallup. 22 February 2016. <http://www.gallup.com/ poll/189347/americans-china-top-economy-future.aspx?g_ source=China&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles > Accessed: 4 August 2016. 17. China and the Global Balance of Power. Pew Research Center. 29 June 2016. <http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/3-china-and-the-global-balance-of-power/> Accessed: 4 August 2016. 18. Public Uncertain, Divided Over America’s Place in the World. Pew Research Center. 5 May 2016. <http://www.people-press.org/2016/05/05/public-uncertain-divided-over-americas-place-in-the-world/> Accessed: 4 August 2016. 19. International Threats, Defense Spending. Pew Research Center. 5 May 2016. <http://www.people-press.org/2016/05/05/3-international-threats-defense-spending/> Accessed: 4 August 2016. 38

HOME AFFAIRS

but the most relevant among them is one by Gallup, according to which Americans have an overall negative view of their rival, with China placing third among Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq on the list of countries seen as the greatest enemies of the US. 21 Returning to the broader issue of free trade agreements, it is worth investigating why, despite the general popularity of deals like NAFTA and TPP, Trump may want to articulate such aggressive criticism of these pacts. Sticking with the assumption that, before 8 November, Trump’s primary goal was to achieve an electoral victory, the states of the American Rust Belt were an obvious key to the President Elect’s strategy: Confirming the theories (if not exactly the confident predictions) of several analysts, this region ended up representing Trump’s road to the White House through an electoral map that, based on tendencies seen during recent elections, is still considered to be more favorable to Democrats.22 For the process of “rusting”—the decline of a once-vibrant industrial production which resulted in hundreds of thousands of workers finding themselves unemployed—that earned these states their collective nickname, many voters have blamed the free trade agreements that saw their jobs moved to foreign plants. 23 Apparently, the concern and frustration that this process gave birth to are not exclusive to the blue-collar groups directly affected by it, and it is here that the aforementioned contradiction is revealed, as these feelings are measurable among the general populace as well: A Pew poll found that 60% of Americans see the outsourcing 20

20. China and the Global Balance of Power. Pew Research Center. 29 June 2016. <http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/3china-and-the-global-balance-of-power/> Accessed: 5 August 2016, also Pew Research Center (30 March 2016.). 21. Americans See China’s Economic Power as Diminished Threat. Gallup. 26 February 2015. <http://www.gallup.com/ poll/181733/americans-china-economic-power-diminished-threat.aspx?g_source=China&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles> Accessed: 5 August 2016. 22. Ronald Brownstein: Trump’s Path Runs Through the Rust Belt. The Atlantic. 29 March 2016. <http://www.theatlantic. com/politics/archive/2016/03/trumps-path-through-the-rustbelt/475767/> Accessed: 8 August 2016. 23. The View from the Rustbelt. The Economist. 19 May 2016, also Alex Seitz-Wald: Why Trade Matters in the Rust Belt. MSNBC. 12 March 2016. <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ why-trade-matters-the-rust-belt> Accessed: 8 August 2016.

Abandoned factory in Youngstown, Ohio

of domestic jobs as a very serious problem, with 29% saying it is somewhat serious. 24 Although the cited research deals with China specifically, the attitudes revealed therein are reflected by polling on voters’ views on the results of the US’s global economic engagement and the country’s ideal foreign policy goals: 73% believe it hurts the American economy when companies move jobs abroad, while 81% said that protecting American jobs is one of the most important tasks of foreign policy. Furthermore, the results of the poll are a clear evidence of the Trump campaign’s focus on the common man instead of experts and academics: When asked about the same issues, only 29% of the Council on Foreign Relations’s

experts agreed with the general populace25 — meaning the President Elect does indeed go with how people feel, and leaves the theoreticians to someone else. Thus, even though Trump’s trade-related views and ideas do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the average American in a broad sense, their details are comfortably mainstream, and the emotions they appealed to were no doubt key to winning key electoral votes. In an economic and military sense, China is seen by Americans as a power aspiring to catch up with (and overtake) the United States, and the vital concerns that this atmosphere has bred are based on connections simple enough to make the Asian country (even in the eyes of those who otherwise support

24. Pew Research Center (30 March 2016.).

25, Pew Research Center (3 December 2013.). HOME AFFAIRS

TPP Depicted as a Trojan Horse at a Protest

Anti-NAFTA Protesters

intense foreign trade) a politically potent villain, whose strengthening and its adverse effects on American workers are the results of the policies pursued by what Trump has claimed to have been the single greatest cause of the nation’s maladies: the political establishment (and within it President Obama and his party). Another important element of the winning campaign’s approach was convincing the disillusioned and angry voters of the Rust Belt that, unlike his opponents, Trump was representing the interests of American workers, and not of large corporations. A very encouraging early sign came in March, when a comparably populist Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Michigan Democratic primary, and by August the strategy had managed to achieve a remarkable effect: While only 39% of Republican voters saw free trade agreements as harmful a week before the announcement of Trump’s candidacy in June 2016, by August 2016 61% of them had embraced this attitude. 26 In light of this, it is safe to say that the views articulated by Trump not only gave a voice to voters’ feelings, but were also able to shape them. Of course, the consistent messaging paid off on November 8: Three Rust Belt states previously considered safe for Democrats (Wisconsin last voted Republican in 1984, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 1988) “went red” for the businessman-turned-politician, tipping the electoral college in his favor. It thus appears to be the case that, in Donald Trump’s view, voters’ true feelings about free trade agreements are not what they had been telling pollsters. According to his proposed narrative, pacts like NAFTA and TPP may seem like favorable deals for the US in theory, but—as the people have felt first-hand—in practice they have led to the loss of jobs, ultimately leaving voters with a bad taste in their mouths. Whether this psychological strategy is the result of intuition or careful calculation is beside the point; what matters is that it is undeniably working: By the

final stage of the campaign, the majority of voters had come to trust Trump more than Clinton when it came to the economy, as well as the creation and protection of jobs. 27 And in light of this, there is truth to the President Elect’s claim that his is the voice of the people. 27. Voters Prefer Trump on Economy, Clinton on Most Other Issues. Gallup. 26 September 2016. <http://www.gallup.com/ poll/195809/voters-prefer-trump-economy-clinton-issues. aspx> Accessed: 8 December 2016.

26. Donald Trump Has Transformed the Way Republicans View ‘Free Trade’. New York Magazine. 18 August 2016. <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/donald-tradehas-transformed-the-way-republicans-view-free-trade.html> 8 December 2016. 40

HOME AFFAIRS

2016 Presidential Election Results

T O RY I

306

DONDALD TRUMP (R) Electoral Voters

232

HILLARY CLINTON (D) Electoral Voters

THE S R

UMP V R T

61,523,126 Popular Votes

62,523,126 Popular Votes

N U M BE Electoral votes 304 – 227

Number of electoral defections from Trump and Clinton 2–5 The popular vote 62,979,636 (46.1%) - 65,844,610 (48.2%) White support for Trump over Clinton (Edison Research) 58-37 Latino support for Clinton over Trump (Edison Research) 66-28 African American support for Clinton over Trump (Edison Research) 88-8

WA 11 OR 7

CA 54

MT 3

ID 4 NV 4

AZ 8

Women’s margin of preference for Clinton, as well as men’s margin of preference for Trump (Edison Research) 12 points

CO 8

KS 6

NM 5

OK 8

AK 3

Donald Trump’s edge over Clinton among voters without a college degree (Edison Research) 52-44

WI 11

IA 7

NE 5

TX 32

Donald Trump’s support among Christian voters (Pew) 55%

MN 10

SD 3

WY 3 UT 6

VT 3

ND 3

MO 11 AR 6 LA 9

IL 22

MS 7

NH 4

ME 3

NY 33

MI 18

PA 23 OH IN 21 WY 12 5 VA 13 KY 8 NC 14 TN 11 AL 9

GA 13

SC 8

RI 4 CT 8 NJ 15 DE 3

FL 25

MD 10 DC 2

HI 4

Clinton’s edge over Trump among voters aged 18-29 (Edison Research) 55-37

MA 12

The only two income groups among which Trump did not win (Edison Research) $30K-$49,999 and under 30K Source: POLITICO

Source: 270 to Win 42

HOME AFFAIRS

Though not common main election news sources, some Clinton and Trump voters regularly relied on digital-native outlets TRUMP VOTERS

Donald Trump Favorable Rating - This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines and is updated whenever a new poll is released.

CLINTON VOTERS

100

15%% 19%%

Google News The Huffington Post*

11 12

Yahoo News Breltbart*

BuzzFeed* Drudge Report*

10 11

Source: Survey conducted Nov.29-Dec.12, 2016 „Trump,Clinton Voters Divided in Their main Source for Election News”

Fox News dominated as main campaign news source for Trump voters; no single source as pronounced among Clinton voters

Unfavorable 62,7%

Trend Unfavorable 40,5%

50 ALL VOTERS Fox News* 19% CNN* 13 Facebook 8 LocalTV 7 NBC 5 MSNBC 5 ABC 5 NPR 4 CBS 4 New York Times 3 Local newspapers 3

TRUMP VOTERS Fox News* 40% CNN 8 Facebbok 7 NBC 6 Local TV 5 ABC 3 CBS 3 Local radio 3

CLINTON VOTERS CNN* 18% MSNBC 9 Facebook 8 Local TV 8 NPR 7 ABC 6 New York Times 5 CBS 5 NBC 4 Local newspapers 4 Fox News 3

Favorable Favorable

100

31,8%

25 March 26, 2016

0 June 1 2015

Source: Survey conducted Nov.29-Dec.12, 2016 „Trump,Clinton Voters Divided in Their main Source for Election News”

Obama Job Approve - This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines and is updated whenever a new poll is released

40,5%

Dec. 1 March.1 June 1 2016

Sept. 1

Dec. 1

March.1 2017

Source: Huffpost Pollster

2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton - This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released.

52,3 %

46,5 %

47,4 %

48,7 %

46,3 %

47,3 %

Approve

47,4%

Approve

Trend

48,2%

Approve 56,1% 50

Clinton 47,3 % 45 Trump

41,7 %

Disapprove 56,1% Disapprove 47,4%

Disapprove 48,2% Sept. 9, 2012

May 3, 2010

44,1 %

52,3 %

43,8 %

39,6 %

40,9 %

41,7 %

0 Dec.1 2008

Dec.1 2009

Source: Huffpost Pollster 44

HOME AFFAIRS

Dec.1 2010

Dec.1 2011

Dec.1 2012

Dec.1 2013

Dec.1 2014

Dec.1 2015

Dec.1 2016

June 1 2015

Sept. 1

Dec. 1

March 1 2016

June 1

Sept. 1

Source: Huffpost Pollster HOME AFFAIRS

CULTURE

House of Cards

5 TV SHOWS YOU HAVE TO SEE IF YOU’RE INTO US POLITICS (ANDRÁS KEMÉNY, GERGELY KOVÁCS, ZSOLT PÁLMAI)

The Wire The Wire knows where it wants to go and how long it will take to get there. Through five great seasons it paces its narrative in such a way that by the end of the series you not only get a chance to empathize with the characters, condemn or identify with their motivations and actions, but you actually end up feeling like you got to know the city of Baltimore inside and out. From homeless junkies to cops, stevedores, teachers, drug dealers, and corrupt politicians, everyone gets a chance to shine and make their case. The Wire manages to convey the ripple effects of political choices and feuds, how a “disagreement” between higher-ups can directly or indirectly affect either whole neighborhoods or just the life of a teenager. (Kovács)

CULTURE

If The West Wing is a glass of warm milk before naptime, then House of Cards is a splash of cold water in one’s face in the middle of the night. The character of the ruthless House Majority Whip may be somewhat exaggerated, the conflicts that he has to manage and the Washington power struggle depicted are all realistic. The show’s cynicism does little to portray public service as a noble endeavor, but if you’ve already caught the US politics bug, this is essential viewing. (Kemény)

The West Wing A few years ago, Aaron Sorkin’s beloved brainchild became a first-round casualty in Vulture.com’s “derby” to find the best TV drama of the previous 25 years. This was in part because it presented an unrealistically comfortable and idealistic view of government, where the right solution usually presents itself if we just “listen better.” However, this charming narrative is built on a firm knowledge (and love) of the history and workings of the US government, on display at every turn and often delivered in the form of now-legendary walk-and-talk conversations/lectures. There is a lot to be enjoyed and learned here, but in the rather hostile environment that is modern political discourse, The West Wing is worth balancing out with something more cynical. Which brings us to… (Pálmai)

Show Me a Hero Wire creator David Simon apparently found his already hard-to-digest magnum opus too easy a sell, and set out to write a miniseries about the many late-80s public housing debate in the town of Yonkers, NY. Based on true events, Show Me a Hero is one of those shows that is very hard to get other people into simply by talking about it, as its setting, characters, and events are all very mundane. But as unexciting as the premise sounds, it is quickly revealed as the backdrop for a very American yet un-Hollywood story of personal ambition, small-town politics, race, class, and heroes—unexpected, unsung, and false. It is no accident that Bruce Springsteen features very prominently on the soundtrack. (Pálmai)

Veep The two most important traits the politicians of Veep share are ambition and incompetence. If somehow they still end up doing something to make the lives of their fellow Americans better, it is merely a side-effect of their opportunism. The show’s humor stands as unique in today’s television landscape, with rapid-fire dialog and colorful swearing that transcends vulgarity and challenges the commonly-held belief that the toolkit of the English language does not allow for virtuosity in cursing. The series can be viewed both as lighthearted safety valve and serious, critical satire, with every character reinforcing one aspect or the other. Considering the tabloidlike aesthetics of the 2016 presidential race, Veep might be more timely than ever. (Pálmai)

CULTURE

2016’S TOP10 BESTSELLING BOOKS IN THE US

NONFICTION

FICTION

THIS YEAR’S MOST POPULAR BOOKS ACROSS ALL GENRES, FICTION AND NONFICTION, RANKED BY NUMBER OF COPIES SOLD AS COMPILED BY USA TODAY.

2. When Breath Becomes Air - Paul Kalanithi “It’s a remarkable book, for many reasons, especially for his description of his transition from all-powerful doctor to anxious patient, and of how he was “so authoritative in a surgeon’s coat but so meek in a patient’s gown.”

2. The Girl on the Train Paula Hawkins “What really makes The Girl on the Train such a gripping novel is Hawkins' remarkable understanding of the limits of human knowledge, and the degree to which memory and imagination can become confused. Reflecting on her fellow passengers on her daily train ride to and from London, Rachel thinks, "I recognize them and they probably recognize me. I don't know whether they see me, though, for what I really am." They don't, of course, and they can't. It's hard enough — maybe impossible — for a person even to see herself for what she really is.” 3. Me Before You - Jojo Moyes “Moyes’ twisting, turning, heartbreaking novel raises provocative moral questions while developing a truly unique relationship between two people brought together by chance. With shades of David Nicholls’ beloved One Day, Me Before You is the kind of book 48

CULTURE

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child Parts One and Two J.K. Rowling, Jack Thorne and John Tiffany “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child’ works because it is a play, a quasi-sequel to an enormously successful series. As a book, it would have fallen short in several departments, but as a script, it paints such a vivid picture of Rowling’s magical world that one wants nothing more than to watch the actual performance on stage.”2

you simply can’t put down— even when you realize you don’t want to see it end. This may not be a novel for the faint of heart, but it is a big-hearted, beautifully written story that teaches us it is never too late to truly start living.”

4. Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children Ransom Riggs 5. The Whistler - John Grisham 6. Double Down: Diary of a Wimpy Kid - Jeff Kinney 7. A Man Called Ove Fredrik Backman

Killing the Rising Sun - Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard “Killing the Rising Sun is one of the most complete and essential books on the subject of America’s fight against Japan during World War II, offering a flood of interesting facts and details delivered through a compelling narrative that successfully grips your attention.”

3. The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up - Marie Kondo “If you haven’t communed with your socks lately, thanked your shoes for their hard work or bowed (at least mentally) to your home in appreciation, maybe it’s time to consider doing so.” 4. Alexander Hamilton Ron Chernow 5. StrengthsFinder 2.0 Tom Rath 6. Hillbilly Elegy - J.D. Vance 7. The Magnolia Story - Chip Gaines and Joanna Gaines 8. First 100 Words Roger Priddy 9. Milk and Honey - Rupi Kaur 10. The 5 Love Languages Gary Chapman

8. The Nightingale Kristin Hannah 9. After You - Jojo Moyes 10. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay J.K. Rowling

CULTURE

2016’s 10 Biggest Songs in the US

2016’s 10 Biggest Albums in the US

This year’s most popular songs across all genres, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music and streaming activity data provided by online music sources.

This year’s most popular albums across all genres, ranked by album sales as well as audio on-demand streaming activity and digital sales of tracks from albums as compiled by Nielsen Music.

1. Love Yourself – Justin Bieber 2. Sorry – Justin Bieber 3. One Dance – Drake featuring WizKid & Kyla 4. Work – Rihanna featuring Drake 5. Stressed Out – Twenty One Pilots 6. Panda – Desiigner 7. Adele – Hello 8. Don’t Let me Down – The Chainsmokers featuring Daya 9. Can’t Stop the Feeling – Justin Timberlake 10. Closer – The Chainsmokers featuring Halsey

1. 25 – Adele “A record that feels both new and familiar--a beautiful if safe collection of panoramic ballads and prettily executed detours.... Her voice is a national monument, a ninth wonder; whatever she chooses to wrap it around is transformed and taken over.” (Entertainment Weekly)

2. Views – Drake “[“Redemption” is] just one of the many deeply beautiful tracks here that further dismantles whatever barrier was left between rap and R&B following Drake’s earlier albums.” (Lost Angeles Times) 50

CULTURE

The Biggest American Brands, according to Forbes

1.Apple: $ 154.1 B

2.Google: $ 82.5 B

3. Purpose – Justin Bieber “Bieber’s offering is less of a mainstream crowd pleaser and all the more interesting for it, a quirky, atmospheric electro R’n’B concoction with sci-fi sounds and offbeat vocal samples that focus attention on the star’s soft, supple aand seductive singing.” (The Telegraph)

3. Microsoft: $ 75.2 B

4. Coca-Cola: $ 58.5 B

4. Lemonade – Beyonce 5. Anti – Rihanna 6. Blurryface – Twenty One Pilots 7. Traveller – Chris Stapleton 8. Made in the A.M. – One Direction 9. Beauty behind the Madness – The Weeknd 10. Hamilton: An American Musical–Original Broadway Cast

5. Facebook: $ 52.6 B

6. IBM: $ 41.4 B

7. Disney: 39.5 B

8. McDonald’s: $ 39.1 B

9. GE: $ 36.7 B

10. Amazon: $ 35.2 B CULTURE

The Highest-grossing Movies in the United States in 2016 (Box Office Mojo) 1. Finding Dory BV 2. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story BV 3. Captain America: Civil War BV 4. The Secret Life of Pets Uni 5. The Jungle Book (2016) BV 6. Deadpool Fox 7. Zootopia BV 8. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice WB 9. Suicide Squad WB 10. Doctor Strange MS

$486,295,561 $477,364,924 $408,084,349 $368,384,330 $364,001,123 $363,070,709 $341,268,248 $330,360,194 $325,100,054 $232,641,920

The Best American Movies of 2016 according to Review Aggregator Metacritic 1. Moonlight “In its quietly radical grace, it’s a cultural watershed — a work that dismantles all the ways our media view young black men and puts in their place a series of intimate truths. You walk out feeling dazed, more whole, a little cleaner.” (Boston Globe)

4. La La Land 5. Tower 6. The Fits 7. 13th 8. Paterson 9. Hell or High Water 10. Newtown

CULTURE

2. Manchester by the Sea “One of the funniest films about coping with tragedy I’ve ever seen. Not that it’s a comedy, not for a second. It’s an immensely moving and beautifully resonant drama about the walking wounded and how they cope with a horrific event from many years past.” (Chicago Sun-Times)

3. I Am Not Your Negro “It is a striking work of storytelling. By assembling the scattered images and historical clips suggested by Baldwin’s writing, I Am Not Your Negro is a cinematic séance, and one of the best movies about the civil rights era ever made.” (The Guardian)

The Most-watched Television Programs in the 2015-16 Season in the US

(Source: Nielsen Media Research, 2015-2016 season to date through May 25, 2016, in millions. Excludes repeats, sports pregame and postgame shows, and football overruns. TOP 100 SHOWS, ADULTS 18-49

TOP 50 SHOWS, TOTAL VIEWERS

1. The Walking Dead 2. NFL Sunday Night Football 3. Empire 4. NFL Thursday Night Football 5. The Big Bang Theory 6. Game of Thrones 7. The X-Files 8. NFL Monday Night Football 9. Modern Family 10. Grey’s Anatomy

AMC NBC Fox CBS/NFL Network CBS HBO Fox ESPN ABC ABC

9.6 7.8 6.6 6.0 5.8 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 3.7

1. NFL Sunday Night Football 2. The Big Bang Theory 3. NCIS 4. The Walking Dead 5. NFL Thursday Night Football 6. Empire 7. NCIS: New Orleans 8. Blue Bloods 9. Dancing With the Stars 10. The X-Files

NBC CBS CBS AMC CBS/NFL Network Fox CBS CBS ABC Fox

22.0 20.6 20.5 18.9 17.7 16.2 16.1 14.6 3.7 3.6

The Best American Television Shows of 2016 according to Review Aggregator Metacritic 1.Rectify: Season 4 Rectif y, a drama entering its final season on SundanceTV on Wednesday, is exceptional in being concerned with what comes after prison, for ex-convicts, for their families, for an entire communit y. (The New York Times)

2. O.J.: Made in America Historically meticulous, thematically compelling and deeply human, O.J.: Made in America is a masterwork of scholarship, journalism and cinematic art. (Los Angeles Times)

3. The Americans: Season 4 A season startling in its intensity and its endless probing intelligence--not to mention the raw suspense that hangs over every moment of ever y scene.... There is nothing that is the equal of The Americans on TV screens now. (Wall Street Journal)

4. Transparent: Season 3 5. The Night Of 6. Atlanta: Season 1 7. The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story: Season 1 8. Silicon Valley: Season 3 9. BoJack Horseman: Season 3 10. Veep: Season 5

CULTURE

THE TOP 10 AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES ACCORDING TO THE QS WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS

(Weighted indicators: academic reputation, employer reputation, student-to-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty and student ratio) 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); 2. Stanford University; 3. Harvard University; 4. California Institute of Technology; 5. University of Chicago; 6. Princeton University; 7. Yale University; 8. Cornell University; 9. Johns Hopkins University; 10. University of Pennsylvania 54

CULTURE

BOOK REVIEW

frustration of government intelligence analysts, Gertz highlights the process encompassing the better part of the past decade whereby the ideological dimension of the US’s fight against Jihad gradually dwindled away, which also saw a concurrent weakening of its own forecasting and reconnaissance capacities. The book provides a strong critique of the Obama administration and a left that is promoting a withdrawal from world affairs and subscribes to a compulsory sense of guilt for its past sins that America shall have when conducting global affairs.

BILL GERTZ: IWAR WAR AND PEACE IN THE INFORMATION AGE Anna Stumpf Executive Director of Hungary Initiatives Foundation

Veteran journalist and national security expert Bill Gertz has been a relentless critic of the US defense apparatus for decades with a proven track record of being a foreign policy hawk regardless of which party occupied the White House. His book iWar - War and Peace in the Information Age—released just in time for the new President’s inauguration—offers both a sharp criticism of the foreign policy strategy of the Obama years and concrete policy proposals for the newly formed Trump administration on how to win the hybrid wars of the 21st century. Enriching his arguments with anecdotes and relying on personal contacts within the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community, Gertz paints a far-lessthan-optimistic picture of the US’s current position in the global information war, but also offers a series of solutions for a nation full of hope. New Battlefield, Old Battles Gertz offers a simple thesis: the United States can only win the (dis-)information war against its major challengers (China, Russia, Iran, the Islamic State, and North Korea), if it goes on the offensive and launches a merciless and global campaign for the primacy of its own political ideas. At any cost. If it takes misleading the enemy with lies, so be it; if it takes hacking foreign entities, bring it on; if it takes conducting espionage in mosques, that is not too high a price to pay either. The author illustrates the full-court offense by the abovementioned rogue entities and countries with a series of widely-publicized cyber 56

BOOK REVIEW

attacks which, on their own, never seem to have made any waves among the general public, but when taken together they tell the story of a ruthless war. All of this offers an enjoyable—if somewhat frightening— read to refresh our own memories of the last decade’s critical events in U.S. foreign policy. The book sometimes displays an all-too-obvious ideological slant for its own good, but in many ways, it mirrors the thesis of the bestseller of Sebastian Gorka (son of Hungarian immigrants) Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War. According to Gorka, the America’s fight against global Jihad should be construed within the same ideological dichotomy of freedom-captivity as the struggle against communism during the Cold War. Gertz believes that the geopolitical narrative which abandons nation states, transcends the era of traditional conflicts, and, based on the global proliferation of shared norms and values, considers international peace and cooperation a natural goal of all states, is completely false. The means of war have changed, but the nature of war and other conflicts have not, he argues. Twitter, Facebook, and Other Accomplices “The world today is on fire and social media networks are providing the fuel to keep it burning,” says Gertz. When social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter host 1.5 billion users combined, the internal rules of data handling and censorship of each company quickly given a new dimension. The author also considers these two

social media platform providers weak links in the fight against Jihadists, Russia, and China. Based on the experience of recent years, while their cooperation with the CIA and the FBI in the name of the primacy of “freedom of speech” has hardly been exemplary in filtering out and identifying Islamist “lone wolves,” the same companies are clearly willing—for the sake of entering the vast Chinese market, for example—to lower their standards and adapt to “local conditions” (i.e. limitless governmental censorship) in China. National Security Political Correctness as Self-Imposed Hamstringing Gertz’s book is based on profound observations involving organizational culture, social trends, and political vocabulary, which constitute an important context for his foreign and national security guidelines, and which also help explain Donald Trump’s rise to power. In his assessment, the political narrative promoted by the left over the past decades has deliberately blinded or consistently silenced analysts who would have otherwise been capable of combating the US’s fiercest rivals in the field of information and cyber warfare. As an example, the author traces back a number of terror attacks committed on US soil, all of which could have been prevented, in his opinion, had the FBI and CIA not debilitated each other’s and their own capabilities by refusing to recognize the anti-American, hate-inciting, and recruiting power of militant Islamic doctrines. By citing several internal sources and illustrating the inner

The Restoration of the True Voice of America The Founding Fathers all understood the strategic role of information warfare and the press in foreign policy making. With the end of the Cold War, however, the US rapidly fell into the trap of its own success, paying ever less attention to the global marketing of its on national success story. iWar is an illuminating account of how quickly the instruments of the golden age of US public diplomacy and information warfare (Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, US Information Agency) began to decline in quality in the early 1990s, and just how critical their less and less independent organizational status and later their gradually hamstrung leadership were to the rapid deterioration of the US’s global soft power influence. To offer a solution, Gertz lists a series of projects, the central element of which is an efficiently-run, well-financed, organizationally independent, co mplex governmental communication apparatus, Information America, which is strong and confident in its American identity and capable of countering Islamist Twitter warriors recruiting on social media platforms, paid Russian media trolls, the most sophisticated Chinese hackers, as well as Iranian cyber attacks on critical infrastructural centers. Information America would be many things, but apologetic, reclusive, or overcautious – certainly not. A rather good fit for the new US President. iWar- War and Peace in the Information Age (2017) By Bill Gertz 372 pp. Threshold Editions, Simon and Schuster, New York. $17 BOOK REVIEW

The Antall József Knowledge Centre (AJKC) in Hungary, during its six years of existence, has introduced a variety of events targeting Hungarian students enrolled in higher education, as well as domestic and international professional audiences. The Knowledge Centre’s main objectives, in line with the Antall philosophy, are talent management and providing students and young professionals with wide-ranging practical knowledge through various events. Having six years of experience in the field, the Knowledge Centre aims to become a regionally relevant think tank that is “unavoidable” when it comes to certain issues such as the Visegrad Cooperation, the future global role of the US, China, and Russia, security policy, sustainable development, as well as technological and social innovation. Our institution is structured into three international offices—dealing with the EU and the V4, the USA, and Asia and Africa—three thematic offices—focusing on security policy, sustainable development, and talent management,—two regional offices in Pécs and Győr, as well as

ANTALL JÓZSEF KNOWLEDGE CENTRE

the Brussels Office, all of which are working toward strengthening institutional relations both at the national and international level, developing scholarship and internship programmes, and boosting professional cooperation via international conferences, workshops, and event series. The publishing activities of AJKC involve releasing professional publications, scientific works on political and social sciences (with special regard to security policy and international relations), as well as university textbooks. In our autobiographical series, prominent personalities of the Cold War period, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl recount crucial years and decisions still affecting their lives. Reacting to events of political, social, and economic significance in the 21st century, the professional publications series of the Knowledge Centre is made up of works incorporating the latest results of international relations and geopolitics, the history of politics, economics, and psychology. In spring 2015, the Brussels Office of the Knowledge Centre was established. The bust

of Prime Minister József Antall was inaugurated in the József Antall Building of the European Parliament on 31 March 2015 as part of the first instalment of the Variations on Europe conference series, which continued in May and September. In January 2017, at the event organised jointly with the Konrad-AdenauerStiftung, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, delivered a speech entitled Europe 2017 on the challenges of our common future. The event was opened by Dr Hans-Gert Pöttering, Chairman of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and former President of the European Parliament. Our newest and largest event is think.BDPST. The main aim of the project focusing on innovation, new technologies, and regional development is to put Hungary on the map of large-scale regional conferences, such as GLOBSEC, the Krynica Economic Forum, and the Prague European Summit, by organising the most significant innovation forum in the region, thereby facilitating a dialogue between the representatives of the economic, governmental, and scientific spheres. The event enjoys the support of the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary and the International Visegrad Fund. In 2016, the Knowledge Centre organised the fourth Antall József Summer School. Every year, 40-50 students from more than 20 countries enrolled in different MA and PhD programmes participate in the two-week event, the aim of which is to strengthen and render the Visegrad Cooperation more visible in the field of education. The Antall József Summer School provides those interested in Central European studies with the opportunity to deepen their knowledge of the V4 region and Hungary. The objectives of the Knowledge Centre include talent management and the establishment of higher education network. For these purposes, AJKC organises the annual Danube Regatta. The number of participating universities has grown year after year since its inception: in 2016, teams from 16 Hungarian and two British universities, Oxford and Cambridge, competed against each other in rowing eights and dragon boat races. Other aims of the Regatta include encouraging a diverse use of the Danube and improving the image of Hungary.

ANTALL JÓZSEF KNOWLEDGE CENTRE

AJKC PAST EVENTS

NATO’s Strategic Adaptation to the New Security Environment – Enhancing Europe’s Defence 2 December 2016

Yes, he could? – Roundtable Discussion about the Obama Legacy 7 February 2017

Countering Terror Abroad and at Home - Analysing Counterterrorism Efforts on an International and European Level 25 April 2017

Danube Regatta 6 May 2017

Antall József Summer School 2017 – 3-14 July 2017

In autumn 2016, we took a closer look at the US elections. The Knowledge Centre welcomed 20 students from East-Central Europe at the first instalment of the Budapest American Studies Forum encouraging them to share their opinion about the 2016 US presidential elections, while the How the White House Was Won roundtable discussion aimed to draw appropriate conclusions. Speakers of the latter included journalist Elizabeth Wahl, JD Gordon, Director of National Security for the Trump campaign, and Zsolt Németh, Chairperson of the Hungarian National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee. The talk was moderated by journalist Adam LeBor.

The event offered unique insight into the future of NATO and European security: the changing of the guard in Washington, the increasing Eastern and Southern challenges breed a new security environment. The three panels focused on topics such as the possible response of the North Atlantic alliance, the Trump presidency, the exact definition of the information warfare in Europe, or the adaptability of a post-Brexit European defence strategy. Speakers included Ian Brzezinski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council of the United States, Paul King, Editor- in-Chief, NATO Review and NATO.tv, J.D. Gordon, Director of National Security for the Trump campaign, and Levente Benkő, Deputy State Secretary for Security Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary.

How will President Barack Obama’s eight years at the White House be remembered? What are his biggest domestic and foreign policy achievements? What can we call the ‘Obama legacy,’ and what will remain from it under President Trump? These and many similar questions were discussed at the roundtable discussion featuring Dr Tamás Magyarics, Professor at ELTE, Gábor Horváth, correspondent of the Hungarian daily Népszabadság, and László Zord Gábor, journalist of the Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet.

The aim of the conference is to shed light on recent developments of research in the field of international relations and concrete policy recommendations to decision-makers concerning asymmetric warfare, terrorism, and radicalisation both globally and on a European level. More than 50 years of experience has accumulated in the field of terrorism studies since the deadly year of 1967, and 15 years have already passed since the collapse of the twin towers in New York City. A lot of previous research and many conclusions are still valid and relevant today, especially with regard to the European member states. Speakers will discuss topics from two different but interconnected perspectives to identify their mostimportant aspects.

The 2017 event of the Danube Regatta, Hungary’s biggest cultural, music, and sporting event, as well as an international rowing and dragon boat competition between universities, will be organised on 6 May 2017. Eighteen teams from Hungarian and foreign universities will come to Budapest to face off against each other on the most beautiful stretch of the Danube. Come to Műegyetem rakpart and encourage your favourite team. For further information, please visit dunairegatta.hu

2017 is a special year for the European Union as it marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the 25th of the Treaty of Maastricht, and the 10th of the Treaty of Lisbon. Therefore, the 2017 Antall József Summer School will mainly focus on the examination of the Visegrad Countries’ position within the European Union. In addition, community-building activities are an integral part of this year’s programme and the creation of an AJSS Alumni Society is an additional important aspect in 2017, as the Summer School was launched exactly five years ago. Application to AJSS 2017 is now open. For further information, please visit http:// ajsummerschool.com/

ANTALL JÓZSEF KNOWLEDGE CENTRE

AJKC FUTURE EVENTS

Budapest American Studies Forum and How the White House Was Won 29-30 November - 1 December 2016

MARK M. LOWENTHAL

HÍRSZERZÉS A TUDÁSKÖZPONT TANKÖNYVMŰHELY

A TITKOKTÓL A POLITIKAI DÖNTÉSEKIG

Horváth Jenő – Paragi Beáta – Csicsmann László Nemzetközi kapcsolatok története 1941–1991

Mark M. Lowenthal hírszerzési elemző, egyetemi oktató. Az amerikai hírszerző közösség több jelentős intézményében töltött be vezető pozíciót, így szolgált a Központi Hírszerző Ügynökség (CIA) elemzésért felelős igazgatóhelyetteseként, a Nemzeti Hírszerzési Tanács értékelésért felelős alelnökeként, az amerikai Külügyminisztérium hírszerzésért felelős helyettes államtitkáraként és a Képviselőház Állandó Választott Hírszerzési Bizottsága (HPSCI) stábjának igazgatójaként. 1994 óta tart kurzusokat a hírszerzésről és a hírszerzési elemzésről amerikai és európai egyetemeken (Columbia Egyetem, John Hopkins Egyetem, Paris Institute of Political Studies).

Washingtoni éveim

EDDIG MEGJELENT KÖTETEI

Marton Péter A külpolitika elemzése Magyarics Tamás Az Egyesült Államok külpolitikájának története Marton Péter – Balogh István – Rada Péter Biztonsági tanulmányok

Jelen könyve az egyik legismertebb és legelismertebb összefoglaló munka a hírszerző közösség történetéről, felépítéséről, eljárásairól és a politikai döntéshozatalra gyakorolt hatásáról. Az aktualitásra törekvő kézikönyv részletesen tárgyalja a kiberbiztonság és kiberhírszerzés problémáit, a nemzetállami és transznacionális problémákat, az Iszlám Államot és az egyes országok hírszerző szolgálatait.

Alfred Rolington Hírszerzés a 21. században A mozaikmódszer Marie-Helen Maras A terrorizmus elmélete és gyakorlata

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Baranyi Tamás Péter – Szálkai Kinga Újhold A török külpolitika útkeresése a 21. század elején

ISBN 978-615-5559-21-1

4500 Ft

Roland Dannreuther: Nemzetközi biztonság

MARK M. LOWENTHAL „A hírszerzés a politikát szolgálja ki, a politika alárendeltje, és akkor működik – elemzési és műveleti szempontból – a legjobban, ha világosan meghatározott politikai célokhoz kapcsolódik.”

HÍRSZERZÉS A TITKOKTÓL A POLITIKAI DÖNTÉSEKIG

MARIE-HELEN MARAS: A TERRORIZMUS ELMÉLETE ÉS GYAKORLATA

Washingtoni éveim

MARK M. LOWENTHAL: HÍRSZERZÉS – A TITKOKTÓL A POLITIKAI DÖNTÉSEKIG

NEW RELEASES OF THE PUBLISHING OFFICE

MARIE-HELEN MARAS

A TERRORIZMUS ELMÉLETE ÉS GYAKORLATA

9 786155 559211

No Higher Honor - Condoleezza Rice

The Quest of Turkish Foreign Policy at the Beginning of the 21st Century - Tamás Péter Baranyi - Kinga Szálkai

Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy - Mark M. Lowenthal

The CRC Press Terrorism Reader - MarieHelen Maras

Born in an intellectual family in the American South, in Alabama, Condoleezza Rice was selected as member of the campaign staff of George W Bush in 2000. After the Republicans’ win in 2001, during the two terms of the Bush administration, she served as national security advisor, then as Secretary of State from 2005 to 2009. Her memoires chronicle these eight years including top-level debates on the possible military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq following 9/11 and her various foreign visits as America’s first diplomat as part of which she often had to mediate between two opposing parties, repress dangers presented by dictatorial regimes, or facilitate the process of democratic governments taking power. Through her reminiscences, Rice describes in detail the daily operation of diplomacy in a roughly two-hundred-year democracy, while also depicting leading politicians, negotiation partners, or dictators who used to appear on a daily basis in media coverages around the world. Moreover, the book provides a glimpse into those meeting rooms where historic decisions defining the future lives of millions of people were made.

A Western “type” secular democracy or an empire following in the footsteps of the Ottoman Empire? An emerging middle power or a third-world country? For centuries, Turkey was one of the most defining countries in European history – both at its peak and its weakest period. Due to its geographical position, the Turkish Republic, established on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, connects regions and continents, thereby creating a bridge between the East and the West. In the nearly 100 years since it has been proclaimed as a republic, Turkey, with and without its Ottoman past, became a regionallyrecognised power, making it possible for it to promote it interests better. Ambitious in their aims, the authors of the study collection and the researchers of the Antall József Knowledge Centre, summarise and analyse the geopolitical factors of the Turkish Republic in one single volume. Functioning both as a university textbook and a handbook, the book presents the main directions of Turkish foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st century that were influenced by the unique geopolitical position of the country. The volume, after a general geopolitical overview, offers a historical foundation, then introduces key areas of politics along with the bi- and multilateral relations of the country.

Mark M. Lowenthal is currently an Adjunct Professor at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC He has written five books and over 90 articles or studies on intelligence and national security. His book Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy has become a standard undergraduate and graduate text. He is the former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production and former Vice Chairman for Evaluation on the National Intelligence Council. He has also served in the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) as both an office director and as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. The book is a detailed account of the history, structure, and methods of the Intelligence Community, as well as the ways in which its work influences political decision making. In the most up-to-date manner possible, the book offers a comprehensive analysis of the challenges of cyber security and cyber intelligence, problems on the national and transnational level, as well as the Islamic State and intelligence services around the world.

Dr Marie-Helen Maras is an associate Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. She earned DPhil in Law and an MPhil in Criminology from the University of Oxford. She has taught at New York University and SUNY-Farmingdale. Alongside academic work, her background includes approximately seven years of service in the US Navy with significant experience in security and law enforcement from her posts as a Navy Law Enforcement Specialist and Command Investigator. While in the Navy, she supervised her personnel in conducting over 130 countersurveillance operations throughout Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Terrorism is a global challenge. It does not take into account borders, gender, age, religion, or culture, while on the other hand it changes constantly. Terrorists are often faceless, ruthless, and mostly mislead people. With the help of the newest theoretical and practical research results and her vast personal experience, the author analyses this phenomenon with academic thoroughness in a textbook format that is also interesting to read. The book offers insight into the inner world of terrorist organisations and the working methods of the most experienced antiterrorism government agencies.

ANTALL JÓZSEF KNOWLEDGE CENTRE

REFERENCES OF PICTURES AND USED DATA

Groups over Time, 1960-Present.” n.d. Web. 25 July 2017.

N01/258030932/>

<http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/ largest-immigrant-groups-over-time> Interior cover picture: Shutterstock

image. Flick. Web. 01 August 2017. <https://www.flickr.com/ photos/12905355@N05/8513133481>

Page 40: AFGE. AFGE leaders, staffers and activists participate in #StopFastTrack rallies in the D.C. metro area during

Page 29: Baker, Bryan and Nancy Rytina. “Estimates of

the month of April. 20 April 2015. Online image. Flickr. Web.

Page 8: Székely, Aladár. Portrait of Endre Ady and Mihály

the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the

25 July 2017.

Jackson, Lawrence. Vice President Joe Biden jokes with Julia

Babits. 1917. Photograph. National Széchenyi Library,

United States: January 2012.” U.S. Department of Homeland

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/afge/16602034534/>

Louis-Dreyfus of the TV show, “Veep,” as she sits at his desk

Budapest. Web. 25 July 2017.

Security. March 2012. Web. 25 July 2017.

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.

<https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_

Winstead, Jim. Anti-NAFTA Protester. 15 April 2006. Online

12 April 2013. Online image. Wikimedia Commons. Web. 01

php?curid=17906471>

pe_2012_2.pdf>

image. Flickr. Web. 25 July 2017.

August 2017. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vice_

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimwinstead/129247349>

President_Joe_Biden_jokes_with_Julia_Louis-Dreyfus.jpg>

in the Vice President’s West Wing office at the White House .

Page 11: White House photographer. The inauguration of

Page 30: Migration Policy Institute. “Legal Immigration to the

Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

United States, 1820-Present.” n.d. Web. 25 July 2017. <http://

Page 42-43: 270 to Win. “Live Election Night Map.” 28

Page 48:

20 January 2017. Online Image. Web. 25 July 2017.

www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/

November 2016. Web 25 July 2017.

Shutterstock

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_

Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents>

<http://www.270towin.com/

swearing_in_ceremony.jpg>

maps/270towin-election-night-map> Migration Policy Institute. “State Immigration Data Profiles.”

Page 49: World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Bill O’Reilly at the

Page 15: Lord, Jim. Poster featuring the iconic “Hope” image

n.d. Web. 25 July 2017.

Page 44:

World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. 30 September 2010.

made famous during the 2008 election: Shepard Fairey’s

<http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/

Gottfried, Jeffrey, et al. “Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their

Photograph. Flickr. Web. 01 August 2017. <https://www.flickr.

Obama portrait on a banner in Chicago in 20108. 4 February

workforce/US#>

Main Source for Election News.” Pew Research Center. 18

com/photos/26702824@N08/5057122843>

2008. Online Image. Flickr. Web. 25 July 2017. <https://www. flickr.com/photos/lord-jim/2245362705>

January 2017. Web. 25 July 2017. US Department of Homeland Security. “Estimates of the

<http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-

Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United

divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/>

Page 17: Souza, Pete. Barack Obama and Donald Trump in

States.” n.d. Web. 25 July 2017.

the Oval Office. 10 November 2016. Online Image. Flickr.

<https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/

HuffPost Pollster. “Obama Job Approval.”n.d. Web. 25 July

Web. 25 July 2017.

population-estimates/unauthorized-resident>

2017.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/hinkelstone/31196987133>

Page 50-51: Shutterstock Page 52: Moonlight [Credit: A24]

<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ obama-job-approval>

Page 19:

Page 31: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Skidmore, Gage. Donald Trump. 19 March 2016. Online

“Infrographics 2014.” n.d. Web. 25 July 2017. <https://www.

Page 45:

Image. Flickr. Web. 25 July 2017.

dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/visualization/2014>

HuffPost Pollster. “Donald Trump Favorable Rating.” n.d. Web.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/25858555481>

25 July 2017. Migration Policy Institute. “US Annual Refugee Ressettlement

<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/

Skidmore, Gage. Make America Great Again. 18 June 2016.

Ceilings and Number of Refugees Admitted, 1980-Present.”

donald-trump-favorable-rating>

Online Image. Flickr. Web. 25 July 2017.

n.d. Web. 25 July 2017. <http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pro-

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/27150179783/>

grams/data-hub/charts/us-annual-refugee-resettlement-ceil-

HuffPost Pollster. “2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton.”

ings-and-number-refugees-admitted-united>

n.d. Web. 25 July 2017.

Page 24: Blue, Fabinacci. Black Lives Matter protest against

<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/

St. Paul police brutality. 20 September 2015. Online Image.

Page 33: Kovács, Ivett Alexa. Hillary vs. Trump Game of

Flickr. Web. 25 July 2017. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/

Tweets. 20 December 2016. Online image. Web. 25 July

fibonacciblue/21587635011/>

2017.

pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton> Page 46:

<https://public.tableau.com/profile/yvette#!/ Page 26: Dixon, Mark. Anti-Trump protester sat the ‘Women’s

vizhome/Hillaryvs_Trumpgameoftweets/

Pichard, Francois. The West Wing. 10 February 2010. Online

March’ 2. 21 January 2017. Online Image. Flickr. Web.

Hillaryvs_Trumpgameoftweets>

image. Flick. Web. 01 August 2017. <https://www.flickr.com/

25 July 2017. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/9602574@ N02/32409721756> Page 28: Migration Policy Institute. “Largest U.S. Immigrant 64

photos/tchuntfr/3269112999> Page 39: stu_spivack. Abandoned factory in Youngstown, Ohio. 01 October 2006. Online image. Flickr. Web. 25

Page 47:

July 2017. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/35034346243@

Photo Giddy. House of Cards. 27 February 2013. Online 65

NEXT ISSUE

IN FOCUS: FRANCE – AUTRE TEMPS, AUTRE MOEURS

F ÓKUSZBA N F R A NC I AOR S Z ÁG

2017. 3. szám ingyenes kiadvány

Aut r

e te m

ps,

a ut r e mo eu rs

France is one of the most important countries on the European continent and in the world. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a member state of the European Union, France is an active participant of the global political processes. Its unique historical legacy cannot be compared to another country: an individual history, including the French revolution; a culture that is like no other with Paris being the ever centre of art, science and philosophy; extraordinary culinary delights and, of course, wonderful heritage sites, which perfectly blend in the beautiful French landscape. With the date of the French Presidential elections approaching, the next issue of In Focus Magazine will offer an insight into French political culture and will take into consideration the factors that influence the presidential elections this year. In addition, it will have a closer look at the aspects of integration in France, taking into account the political and the protest culture of the country, its history as a colonial empire, its humanitarian work, and its relationship with NATO and the European Union. Our next issue will handle this complex, ever so colourful country of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Vive la France!

Interjúk

Társadalom

Nemzetközi kapcsolatok

Kultúra

Issues of In Focus are available on the webpage

of the Knowledge Centre, www.ajtk.hu. Please kindly note that In Focus can be downloaded free of charge.

CONTACT INFORMATION

IMPRINT

Antall József Knowledge Centre

Publisher: Péter Antall, Director

Address: 2 Czuczor Street, H-1093 Budapest

Editor-in-Chief: Ádám Kégler, Deputy Director for

Web: www.ajtk.hu

International Affairs, Antall József Knowledge Centre (AJKC)

Telephone: +36 20 310 8776

Editor: Zsolt Pálmai

E-mail: ajtk@ajtk.hu

Associate Editor: Mónika Horváth Cover and Graphic Design, Layout and Pre-press Preparation: Gergely Kiss Assistant Graphic Designer: Anett Gyökös Photo Credit: Shutterstock

ANTALL JÓZSEF KNOWLEDGE CENTRE

www.ajtk.hu 68

KÖVETKEZŐ SZÁM