Women played a huge role in the 2018 midterms. Women voters flipped districts across the country, and female candidates won a record number of congressional seats. So, what does it mean for American politics as a whole moving forward? Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Goldman School of Public Policy professor Sarah Anzia sat down with graduate student Charlotte Hill to examine what happened in 2018, and what might happen in 2020.
The conversation begins with an analysis of what led to the unprecedented wins of 2018. Both Anzia and Granholm point out there was a massive increase in women running as Democrats, but the number of Republican female candidates remained about the same as years past. Granholm argues the increase is evidence women are more motivated than ever before to get involved in politics, from the Women’s March to the voting booth. She suggests the lopsided nature of that motivation is in no small part a reaction to President Trump.
The other major change the panel noticed was women changing the way they campaigned. From ads that show candidates breastfeeding, to addressing sexual assault, professor Anzia says, “women were running as women.” While it may seem like a strange observation, Granholm agrees, saying she was advised not to show her children, and was coached on keeping her voice low when she was running. Granholm calls the new acceptance of women being their authentic selves a gift. She points to millennial representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as examples of women who have cast off restraints historically placed on women in office.
As of now, there are four women officially running for president in 2020. Granholm believes a woman will certainly be on the presidential ticket. But, will we finally see a woman in the White House? Will 2020 be another historic year for women? Only time will tell, but Anzia and Granholm have some predictions.
The results of the 2018 midterm elections are in, but what’s next? Will a Democratic-controlled House and Republican-led Senate be able to work together? What do the results mean for 2020? And, what should Democrats do to capitalize on midterm gains? Professor Emeritus Sanford A. Lakoff shared his thoughts on those questions and more at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at UC San Diego Extension. He begins by looking at midterm turnout, changing demographics, and increasing political polarization. He notes that many point to the Gingrich Revolution as the beginning of modern-day polarization, and suggests President Trump has only added to the trend.
But, there is also division within the Democratic Party. Several newly-elected representatives have pledged not to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Lakoff argues that would be a mistake. He cautions that the coalition risks becoming a “Tea Party of the Left” if they are unwilling to compromise, especially without holding either the Senate or the Presidency. He suggests Pelosi should pledge to only serve as Speaker until 2020, and prepare new Democratic representatives to take on leadership positions in the future.
Lakoff then lays out what he believes should be the top priorities for Democrats over the next two years. His list includes healthcare, immigration reform, climate change, and gun control. While he admits it’s unlikely Democrats will make significant progress on the issues, Lakoff says the effort would show voters what they can expect should Democrats take the Senate and White House in 2020. Lakoff also suggests lawmakers go beyond legislation, and set up think tanks and non-partisan commissions on the major issues of our time. Those include electoral reform, medical coverage, gun violence, the national debt, and ensuring employment with the development of artificial intelligence. But, the ability to make any progress on any of these issues may rest on an unpredictable variable: the Robert Mueller investigation.
Have Americans lost the ability to talk politics? Recent studies show the country is more divided than ever before, and it’s only getting worse. In a lively talk at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, professor Robert Reich outlines what he sees as the main causes of the problem, and how we might be able to address them.
Political fights are a staple of American history. From the Civil Rights Movement to Vietnam, we haven’t always agreed. But, we used to agree on how to disagree, Reich says. He believes we have lost our respect, tolerance, and openness to the ideas of others. And making matters worse, we no longer trust government institutions to handle our disagreements.
Reich lays out three key factors he believes led to the current climate: geographic tribalism, stagnant incomes, and the media. Our opinions are most influenced by those around us, he says. And over time, we have separated ourselves into ‘red states’ and ‘blue states,’ becoming entrenched in political identities with little tolerance for outside opinions. Incomes have stopped growing with the economy, leading many to feel the system is rigged. Reich says politicians have latched on to that feeling to gain support. At the same time, a proliferation of media outlets has left each fighting for attention. One way to catch a viewer’s eye he says, is to stoke anger.
But, Reich says all is not lost. He lays out how each of us can do our part to bring civility back to political discourse. It all starts he says, with one conversation.
Kurt Campbell, Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, visits his Alma Mater, UC San Diego, to share some insight and some anecdotes from his political career.
Campbell, who is now Chairman and CEO of the The Asia Group, sits down with Susan Shirk, the chair of the 21st Century China Program and Ho Miu Lam Professor of China and Pacific Relations at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) at UC San Diego, to discuss US relations with Asia and how that continent has garnered more attention than it has in the past.
When Campbell worked with Secretary Clinton in writing a statement predicting that the 21st century would be largely focused on Asian countries, their piece coined the phrase “pivot to Asia.” This phrase caught the attention of the international media, with some unintended consequences.
There was plenty of excitement earlier this month when two coasts collided at UC San Diego. No, it wasn’t some strange weather phenomenon but the second annual “The Atlantic Meets the Pacific,” hosted by The Atlantic magazine and UCSD. The sold-out, three-day forum brought together some of the country’s most fascinating thinkers to talk about the future of energy, health and technology.
We’ll be premiering these outstanding discussions in November, but there was one that simply couldn’t wait. In “Predicting Election 2012,” veteran political reporter Ron Brownstein of the National Journal and Republican strategist Steve Schmidt analyze the homestretch of the presidential campaign with input from James Fallows, National Correspondent for The Atlantic; Sam Popkin, UC San Diego professor and author of “The Candidate;” James Fowler, a UC San Diego professor who specializes in the biochemistry of political behavior: and longtime pollster Dan Yankelovich. Look for some fresh insight from these lively and connected pundits as they call the fates of Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and the next Congress.
Watch “Predicting Election 2012” on October 26 at 7pm — or online now — and make sure to come back in November for more in “The Atlantic Meets the Pacific” series, including conversations with Dreamworks’ Stacey Snider, Facebook’s Chris Cox, “The Happiness Project” author Gretchen Rubin and much more.