A Decade of International Affairs, Change, and Global Confrontation

 The world has drastically changed in a decade. International power  dynamics are shifting due to economic and geopolitical factors. The 21st century is going to be more turbulent due to these changes. Warfare, poverty, and intense racial hatreds have not disappeared with advancement of civilization. The international liberal order is being rejected. The nations of the Global South have become more frustrated living in a world that takes dictates from the European Union, United States, and western elites from the World Economic Forum. Globalism implies a world of cooperation, peace, and a community of nations. The ideology and term is a misnomer.  Globalism used in modern context is furtively promoting neocolonial imperialism. Western values, culture, and liberal democratic systems are imposed on particular nations. To gain public support, wars are framed as humanitarian intervention or protection of democracy. The world of the 2010s and 2020s was predicted back in the late 20th century. The power void left by the fall of the Soviet Union allowed for abuse by the world's sole superpower. The assumption was that the world would become more peaceful after the Cold War. The United States did not end its military interventions or decrease defense spending. NATO expanded in Europe and engaged in operations outside the continent. Afghanistan and Libya were targets. The response to aggression across international borders came from a more powerful China and a Russian Federation recovering from economic challenges of the 1990s. International affairs is undergoing a more pugnacious transformation. Warfare is now being promoted as a humanitarian quest to stop authoritarian leaders and states. Multipolarity is going to be a part of world politics. The United States, France, UK, and Germany are not accepting of this change. Intolerance, a limited worldview, and closed minded perceptions become fuel for global confrontation. 

         The expansion of war zones has increased. Previous areas are either stuck in a status of failed state or long term insurgency. The Democratic Republic of the Congo's second civil war ended in 2003. By the 2010s the M23 rebels emerged with Rwandan backing. The ethnic tension between Hutus and Tutsis did not dissipate. The Libyan Civil War in 2011  created a failed state similar to Somalia in North Africa. The aftermath was mass refugee migration that continues to be a challenge for Europe. Eastern Europe became a warzone, when the legitimate government of Ukraine was deposed in 2014. Ukraine became a area of proxy war between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Long term conflicts continued, but took on a larger international scale. The tension between India and Pakistan became intertwined with the Afghan War. Pakistan has supported factions of the Taliban, while fighting other armed groups. Kashmir remains a disputed territory among the two Asian countries. China tends to favor Pakistan over India in terms of  its foreign policy. What makes this more precarious was President Barack Obama's pivot to Asia. The more confrontational approach to China was a neoconservative vision of eliminating it as a world power. Taiwan from 2012  onwards was given more focus and military aid. A movement is underway in some foreign policy circles to abandon the one China policy. Part of this involves instigating conflict in the region. President Hu Jintao expanded China's international relations in various parts of Africa. His successor Xi Jingping  continues to establish stronger diplomatic ties to Global South nations. The 2002 to 2012 era of China's new phase of international relations caused a reaction from the United States and European Union countries. The attitude is hostile to the extent of moving to abandon the one China policy. Taiwan will be given more arms, even though it is a part of China. North Korea is a target for a future war with the US and South Korea doing joint military drills. The introduction of the pivot to Asia and the Indo-Pacific strategy has created conditions for an Asia-Pacific war. NATO is becoming a fighting force designed to impose a neocolonial status quo. Internal challenges invite interference. Mali Sudan, and Ethiopia are struggling with civil wars and armed groups. 

      Confrontation between nations does not cease. Mali since 2012 has been fighting a long term insurgency. The aftermath of the Libyan Civil resulted in arms and soldiers coming into Mali. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad seeks an independent state for the Tuareg people. Sudan ended its second civil war by accepting the independence of South Sudan. The new nation came into existence in 2011. South Sudan descended into civil war in 2013. The ethnic violence between Neur and Dinka has been present since South Sudan's independence. Omar Al-Bashir ruled Sudan since 1989, but was deposed by coup. After a number of rotating heads of state, another military ruler came to power. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan was made head of state by the Transitional Sovereignty Council. The former members of the Janjaweed militia forces joined in a revolt led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. The Rapid Support Forces have since 2023 attempting to overthrow the government. Ethiopia has another issue similar with the conflict with the Tigray People's Liberation Front. The Tigray War lasted from 2020 to 2022. A consistent pattern can be seen with all of these countries during the 2010s to 2020s. States are experiencing balkanization and consequences of past colonialism. The majority of borders in Africa and Asia were formed by former imperial powers. Syria's destruction was simple, because it was the product of the mandate system after World War I. Iraq , Lebanon, and Jordan have the same concerns with borders. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 enabled terrorist organizations to have a greater foothold in West Asia. ISIS emerged in both Iraq and Syria. The US, UK, and France assisted terrorist organizations for the purpose of removing the Bashar Al-Assad government. The Syrian Civil War became a proxy conflict between the US and Russia. Only when Russia intervened on Syria behalf in 2015 did it prevent another regime change. The Syrian army could  not defeat Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. HTS took over the government installing Ahmed al-Sharaa. HTS is a terrorist organization and it now governs a state. Baathism became a political force in 1968. The US occupation of Iraq ended that branch. The removal of the Assad government in 2024 made the ideology extinct. Wars have increased in number with rivalries from the 20th century continuing, 

       The world economy continues to be dominated by neoliberal capitalism. After the 2008 global financial crisis, the hope was for serious change. Instead , bailouts and the protection of corporate power went unchallenged. Transnational corporations during the 2000s gained more power than governments. The liberal democracies accepted this development, because certain companies provide campaign contributions to politicians. Poverty has increased, with people who were at one stage middle class falling into socioeconomic hardship. Privatization, structural adjustment programs, and outsourcing had devasting consequences. The private sector cannot meet all the needs of a country. This enabled corporations to do business in various areas, which reduced the quality of public services. Private equity firms continue to buy housing and hospitals. To reduce costs beds in hospitals are reduced. Apartment complexes have spikes in rent. Deregulation related to banking only exacerbates the problem. The 2008 financial crash was induced by subprime mortgage loans. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund  keep developing nations in a state of dependency through loans. African, Asian, and South American nations are forced onto structural adjustment programs. This meant reducing tariffs, cutting spending on social services, and privatizing various public sectors. The world under neoliberal capitalism and an international free market changed the nature of employment. Workers are not only competing for jobs in their own nation, but internationally. Outsourcing accelerated with many manufacturing jobs going to Global South nations. Low skilled and semi-skilled professions were the first jobs to disappear in the developed nations. White collar professions were not protected  either. Globalization describes all the policies and events effecting the world economy. The reduction of trade barriers and promotion of free markets has not increased the wealth of workers world wide. Nations that obtained their independence in the 20th century are still seeking economic security and development. The standard of living has declined in the UK and US. The European debt crisis contributed to this in EU countries. Workers  have seen their incomes and standard of living decline. A growing number of workers are falling into poverty. A middle class could vanish  from various nations. Neoliberal capitalism is not preserving the world economy, but making it more erratic. 

         Globalism became a  force in international affairs. Although it is presented as a model for a unified and peaceful world the ideology masks neocolonial imperialism. Globalism is not about cooperation of nations, but a world under permanent leadership of the West. Not only does it demand the exploitation of the Global South, but to adhere to the culture of Europe and North America. Supranational organizations either want to reduce or eliminate national sovereignty. The United Nations was not for the purpose of undermining countries. The international body was designed to facilitate dialogue among nations and peaceful solutions to disputes. Instead, the UN remains dominated by large powers. It was the United States and the Soviet Union that were the dominant powers in the United Nations. Global power shifted in the direction of the US after 1991.Simultaneously, European integration accelerated. The European Union was established in 1993 from the agreements articulated  in the Maastricht Treaty. This took advantage of the Eastern European nations, which were in dire economic condition. More countries of the former Soviet Union were joining the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The problem with this plan for European integration was the Russian Federation. During the Boris Yeltsin presidency Russia was suffering from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse and economy shock therapy. When Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, the Russian Federation was going in another direction. While Yeltsin was more oriented to the West, Putin's focus was on Africa, Asia, and Latin America. At one stage President Vladimir Putin contemplated joining NATO and being a partner with Western Europe. These policies would have never been accepted by the European Union or NATO. Russia cannot amalgamate into a globalist structure, because of its independence. Since 2008, Russia's policy is to influential in international affairs. Globalism wants all nations to adhere to one world system under one culture, liberal democratic systems, and capitalist economies. Globalism insists there is an international community in which all nations are subject to the same laws. The most powerful countries violate international law and are never punished. Their allies and collaborators are also exempted. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey never face any sort of punishments for human rights violations. Although globalism can have multiple meanings in academic circles, supranational institutions and other organizations have a specific ideology. The World Economic Forum, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank want an imposed global order. Countries that resist globalism, are going to face hostility.  

      Major changes to global society were induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid technological advancement, and  growing distrust in establishment institutions. The worst public health crisis since the influenza pandemic in 1918 caused massive damage. Part of the harm was exacerbated by inadequate public health policy. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and other restrictions created concerns even when the pandemic was over. Lockdowns between those years of 2020 to 2022  caused businesses to close and unemployment to increase. Instead of using quarantines effectively, lockdowns were utilized to greater extent. Workers were not only harmed, but children. Across the world students experienced learning loss from schools being closed. Trepidation and panic took over than rational public health measures. Personal protective equipment, masks, and social distancing should have emphasized more than the use of lockdowns. Sweden, Uruguay, Iceland, and Taiwan did not do lockdowns. Their deaths were not as high as countries in Europe and North America. Travel restrictions brought a decline in tourism and the airline industry. Even when people did not travel, stay at home orders prevented social interaction. Isolation and mental health decline was effecting many individuals. The pandemic caused economic damage, but caused a change in the nature of interpersonal relations. People became more suspicious of one another. Workers revolted in another way. Many left the workforce in the 2020s. Low wages and combined with the daily challenges forced workers to leave companies. The nature of employment changed from the pandemic. More were willing to work form home and champion a four day work week. The relation between employer and employee became more contentious. Technology has become a greater part of over lives. Video sharing, social media, and artificial intelligence rapidly expanded. Technology has made it easier to access information. Youtube, Twitter, and Google have an international reach. False claims and fake news can be spread from any medium. Newspapers and broadcast news did this with little complaint. Governments assert they want to fight disinformation. The true intent is to make censorship acceptable. Social media companies and other silicon valley corporations  took measures to ensure accountability to avoid government regulation. Facebook, Twitter, and Google made adjustments, but it showed a bias. Fact checking and bans were applied to certain individuals, not all users. The realization has come that the internet is too vast and ubiquitous to be censored. The internet is not the same as it was in the 2010s. The medium is constantly evolving and the way users interacts with it does as well. Artificial intelligence generates feelings of anxiousness and wonder. AI could make a large portion of jobs obsolete. If applied in a responsible way it could be beneficial. Using AI for warfare, medical assessment, or stock market management would be dangerous. As information and knowledge becomes more available, the public begins to question more. The establishment continues to lose trust and credibility. Lies about war, the economy, pandemic, and international affairs eroded public support for various institutions. Government, media, and medicine have lost trust from the public between the years of 2003 and 2024. Professionals and experts of the establishment were more interested in supporting a narrative, rather than the truth. The aftermath of this was that the public turns to fringe movements or xenophobic nativist nationalism.  

          As each decade passes, the risk grows of a massive global confrontation grows. Observers of foreign affairs claim that to a degree this has started. The United States and the Russian Federation are waging a war of proxy in Ukraine. Israel is at war with the Houthi in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and invading Syrian territory. An Israel-Iran War becomes a greater possibility, as the country seizes more land .  The third Sudanese Civil War and the M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could destabilize the African continent. Terrorist organizations and armed groups still are threats to the Sahel. Tensions between India and Pakistan could result in another long term conflict. War zones are expanding on Africa, Asia, and Europe. If the US, Russia, China, and the EU countries were to fight one another this would be a third World War. All these conflicts that are ongoing and the United Nations has been ineffective. If a third World War were to breakout, the United Nations would cease to exist. The institution designed to prevent mass global conflict is failing. At times the United Nations was a culprit in aggression. Libya and Haiti have been abused by the United Nations. The challenge in international affairs in the 21st century is containing war and using diplomacy. The unfortunate aspect is that diplomacy is not being employed to disputes. Destabilization, violence, and economic warfare is being used to attack multiple countries. African, Asian, and South American nations are the victims of this. The blowback is mass migration, which pushes western countries closer to the far-right. The  refugees since 2011 continue grow. Unable to find a solution, European leaders either use it to their political advantage or ignore the issue. The shift in demographics is going to cause internal difficulties for the EU. The majority of the world's nation-states are seeking cohesion within their borders. Control of borders is slowly dissipating in a globalized neoliberal capitalist economy. The flow of people, commodities, and information is going to be too much to manage. The rise of BRICS symbolizes a world of multipolarity. France, Germany, the UK, and the US will not accept this development. The United States was the sole superpower and decided to abuse its power. The violence accelerated in 2001, after the 9/11. The War on Terror was abandoned and shifted to a new existential threat of the Russia-China alliance. The desire to maintain a neocolonial structure creates conflict and undermines a stable peace. When powers decline and new ones emerge, a war tends to determine the world order. There is a need to break this cycle in international affairs. The abandonment of diplomacy in favor of war and intrigue demonstrates the desperation to maintain an unequal hierarchy of nations. The decade has been turbulent, erratic, and uncertain.          

JFK Files Released

 

More documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination have been released. A total of 80,000 documents. The release was done through executive order. Some are wondering why this took so long. The argument was that some documents had to be held for national security reasons. There was also speculation that the US government did not care about the assassination of a liberal head of state. At the time, Dallas Texas was rabidly anti-communist, anti-liberal, and supported racial segregation. Documents have been released before the recent executive order, but just add to the mystery. By law the government has to release all the documents. However, thousands of documents remain secret. This indicates that the criminal action had a much wider reach. Many Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Others suspect that either the CIA itself or Cuban exiles who were part of the Bay of Pigs invasion were involved. Decades of scholarship, independent researchers, and historians have not been able to solve the case. The attempts to undermine the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 is apparent. Withholding information just allows more conspiracy theories to develop. While making all the documents public might not provide answers, it ends one dispute. The Warren Commission was an inadequate investigation, which made the wrong conclusion. Oswald was not a sole culprit. He is charged as the assassin, but never was tried due to being killed by Jack Ruby. Seeing as Oswald was never tried or convicted this would make him an alleged assassin. The documents might not solve the criminal case, but are useful for the preservation of American history. 

Why Citizens Stop Voting

 Liberal democracy faces many challenges. Corruption, the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism, and economic inequality have become major concerns. Voter suppression and corporate influence make democracy unattainable. There can never be true freedom if a ruling class has the majority of the power. A more troubling trend for democratic systems is  non-participation. Millions of people in democratic governments do not vote. Citizens who were once enthusiastic about voting become disillusioned with the process. There are multiple reasons why people do not vote. Some may not be interested in politics or understand the system. Others may not see the relevance to their lives. A large portion of the public has become frustrated with politics and the general lack of progress. Voters may consistently vote for a certain candidate or party, but do not see substantive change. Incremental approaches to certain issues just are not adequate when circumstances are dire. Voters want to see or at minimal see that there are tangibles produced. The majority of  liberal democracies have two party systems or multiparty systems. The  dominant parties are either conservative, centre-left, or liberal in political ideology. Voters are normally left with a choice between either two parties. While some countries do have multiple political parties, they just do not have enough support to be formidable. This means citizens of a state do not have a variety in choice, rather two options. Realizing this, those running for political office do not have to produce significant results. The "lesser of two evils" has been a term used in American politics to describe this phenomenon. A leader does not have to do too much for their  constituency,  based on the fact voters will comeback based on the opposition. Both parliamentary and presidential systems function on this voter behavior. Senators, congressmen, and members of parliament became reliant on this fact.  When voters come to the conclusion that change will not happen, they disengage. The lugubrious political reality is that their vote has been weakened and that public servants have failed them. Leaders who seek  revolutionary change are either ostracized or condemned by the wider society. Without  real representation certain groups of society do not vote. Once dedicated voters become disillusioned. Others completely reject political participation, because they believe leaders will never embrace new solutions to persistent problems. 

       A growing number of  loyal voters are becoming disillusioned. This makes them become non-voters which has increased by millions of people. The reason once dedicated voters no longer are active is based on the fact leaders do not fulfill obligations of political office. The expectation is that certain problems will be solved, rather than just empty promises. New solutions and specific policies must be enacted to keep the public engaged. After many elections in a person's life time, without effective change there are many ways in which citizens react. Their are either dramatic turns to the left or right. A genuine leftist party in the case of the US does not exist rather a centrist Democratic Party that fails to adjust to the evolving political conditions. The option for the voter is to keep voting more conservative, which has dire repercussions. The more logical line of thought when faced with unfavorable choices is not to select one. If  either candidate does nothing to improve or at minimum challenge the status quo, then voting would make no sense. Citizens vote with the idea that their voices and concerns will be heard. The only true guarantee of service is being part of the corporate structure, being of the highest socioeconomic status, or connections to lobbying organizations. The average citizen is low priority in relation to donors of political parties. Realizing that unconventional participation has limitations, the frustration only increases. If material conditions get worse, it could mean insurrection in a society. Building an efficient and effective  government takes time. Yet, there are political forces that are actively preventing votes from having power. The Electoral College was designed to act as a consensus among popular election of a president and congressional selection. What the institution really does is prevent the voter's choice. Candidates running  for office are either selected by corporate power or supported by certain think thanks. Grassroots politics remains at a disadvantage compared to corporate politics. The disparity in resources makes it difficult for new leaders not subject to the elite class to be successful. Voters who are knowledgeable at some level understand this. Knowing their is very little chance for reforming the political system, people stop voting. 

       Some reject politics and voting itself because it has become intensely vitriolic. The mere act of disagreement has become grounds for extensive arguments. Expression a certain perspective becomes offensive to others. Although liberal democracies preach freedom, there seems to be a strong impulse for conformity in thought. Even with personal choice to participate or not to do so is met with scorn. Those who refuse to participate are criticized as not doing their duty as a citizen. The more vituperative accusations is that non-voters are either lazy or uninformed. Dedicated voters are shamed for which candidate they decide to vote for. The disrespect for personal choice and a difference in thought is not an example of a functioning democratic system. Rational discussion and debate have been silenced by partisan tribalism. Mass media only causes more political factionalism in countries that are divided among political, racial, class, and religious lines. This explains the developments in the US, France, and UK. Politics has become a large arena of anger and contention, which most people repudiate. It is no wonder that some would not be politically active with so much negativity present in the public sphere. The divide transcends a simple political  left and right paradigm. Sometimes it comes to reality versus politically constructed fiction. The various factions act as if they are in a war against some form of evil. The politics of fear transform into a vicious hate. Citizens see other citizens as enemies. The political contention spreads to other areas of life. Suddenly, everything becomes a political argument. Other perspectives, ideas ,  or opinions are regarded as farcical if they challenge the status quo or the general consensus among political factions. This is why new solutions to economic and social problems are difficult to implement. Devotion to a single mode of thought becomes more important than understanding the challenges of a state.   Non-voters may be disgusted with unprofessional conduct and  erratic behavior. 

        To keep people engaged, citizens need to be provided results . The loss in faith comes from not seeing any form of progress. When there is nothing to show for going to the polls, many may come to the conclusion the leadership is not worth supporting. Change does take time, but a slow gradual approach may not be enough to placate public demands. Voters may keep switching between various types of candidates during election cycles. After awhile this still may not produce the results that voters want to see. Understanding that particular changes will not happen, the  mass of non-voters grows. Those running for office must do more to earn a person's vote. Simply saying you are more qualified or making an empty promise is not enough. There needs to be a specific statement of polices related to economics, foreign, and domestic affairs. A plan of political action must be utilized to demonstrate a candidate for office is serious about the issues effecting average people.  Rhetoric about national unity or returning to some past era does not help people who are struggling now. Poverty and joblessness continues to effect millions. Economic inequality has not been challenged no matter who is elected to office. Racism and police brutality continue to remain a plague society, yet genuine reform has not materialized. Inaction becomes an indirect message to voters that politicians do not care. If leadership does not care about the populace, then there is no reason to vote. People need something to vote for, rather than against. Politicians became too comfortable with not providing anything, while winning elections by simply being an opposition candidate. Non-voters become frustrated, because they think that the majority of leadership does not care about the public. Votes must be earned and candidates must make more effort in terms of outreach. If this is not done more non-voters will increase in liberal democracies. 

      A growing sense of hopelessness has emerged among the section of the public. Voting can not stop the violence that comes from the state or radically alter the social structure. Dramatic change can only happen through revolution. Such events in history rarely came through a ballot box. The American revolution, Haitian revolution, Russian revolution, Mexican revolution, French revolution, and Cuban revolution would have never happened working within the existing political structure. Change could theoretically come through elected bodies on the condition that the ruling elite does not have too much control. Elected officials remain dependent on wealthy donors to finance campaigns. Thus, their ability to produces laws that would benefit the majority are limited.    Leadership would never advocate revolution. Instead there are suggestions of reform. The millions of people who do not vote see it as a practice in futility. Few attempt to understand their actions or see why this feeling of lugubriousness is prevalent. Leaders offer no impressive vision of the future. Politicians have become managers of a system in decline.  Ranked choice and third party options are a possible solution. However, two party systems seek to undermine smaller parties. Multi-party democracies have a number of parties with a certain amount of seats, yet not large enough to form a majority. Run off or snap elections just add to more complications in a political system. To an observer liberal democracy becomes a rather  disorderly form of government. Politics at its core is not about helping people, rather the management of power. The notion of republicanism and a responsive to the will of the citizens is a concept relatively new to human history. These ideas from the Enlightenment  spread in the 19th and 20th century. People become non-voters when it seems as if fighting the political structure is impossible. Voting is suppose to be a method in which a citizens uses their political power. Through powerful organizations, voter suppression, and electoral irregularities the citizen is depowered. Showing resistance to an oppressive political structure by voting may not be effective, because it only legitimizes it.    

        Liberal democracy's biggest threat may not be xenophobic nativist nationalism or economic collapse. It is the fact that the political structure has depowered the average citizen's vote. Corporate power has more representation making the political system less democratic. Some have become so vexed that they have abandoned voting completely. Lobbying, special interest groups, and the power of political action committees undermine the dedicated average voter. The majority do not question the political systems they were raised in. Conversations regarding  these problems are either ignored or labelled conspiracy theory. This explains why reactions to questioning the electoral system or voting in general are met with a negative reaction. Winning elections does not require large masses. Many times just a few groups are enough to make it possible. The large dilemma is when more people become non-voters. What this does is enable the people who do vote to select leaders who may be more extremist in political ideology. Fringe movements can gain more political respectability in such an environment. The unfortunate consequence of freedom also includes the ability to make the wrong choice. Voting is not an indication of a well functioning democracy. Abuse can happen by leaders who were enabled by the voters. If voters select leaders that act against their own interest, then this can have devastating consequences. Votes can also be weaponized. The right-wing political establishment has used people's prejudice and fears to gain votes. The centre-left  manipulates voters by demonizing progressives and socialism. The more astute can comprehend these tactics.  There is a level of corruption in government that needs to be addressed. As long as a ruling elite have an abnormal amount of influence and power, voting will not be enough to stop them. People stop voting due to the fact they have little power. That only leaves the option of general strike, protest, or mass insurrection.   

Bernie Sanders Suspends His Presidential Campaign

Bernie Sanders has announced that his campaign has been suspended. This effectively means that Joe Biden has the Democratic nomination. The American left has been struggling to get its agenda and policies into action. Yet, the moderate and centerist wings of the Democratic Party seem to be the biggest obstacle. There is a clear ideological and generational divide that has not been resolved by the party. Baby boomers and the millennial voters are in conflict over economic and political ideology. Some have been nostalgic for the Obama administration, thinking that Joe Biden can return the US to a place of stability. The younger generation seems more willing to adjust tactics to make change happen. Minimal reforms may not be enough to undo the damage caused by a Trump presidency. Bernie Sanders was generating a level of enthusiasm, which Joe Biden has difficulty replicating. The fear is that President Donald Trump will be reelected, due to the fact the Democratic Party selected a candidate that does not resonate with voters. Bernie may never be president, yet a movement has been started. These numbers could possibly grow long after he has retired from public life. The 2020 presidential election will have immense significance beyond the United States. It is unclear if  there is a Joe Biden presidency whether or not economic instability, healthcare, and social inequality will be addressed. If there is not an organized left, then a more radical neoconservative right will dominate American politics.