Every four years the American presidential primaries roll around to remind Americans how weak, clumsy and negative their major political parties have become. The news media’s red-and-blue maps, the repetitive partisan standoffs in Congress and the drama created by the polarisation of the parties create the impression that they hold tremendous sway, that Americans are devoted to either the Democrats or Republicans and obsessed with their prospects. The reality is more muddled and dispiriting.
The largest, and growing, share of Americans choose not to identify with either party. According to a Gallup poll released this month, 43% call themselves independent, tying a record set in 2014. In Gallup’s poll, the proportion of eligible voters identifying as Democrat has fallen to a record low, 27%, the same percentage that call themselves Republican. Another Gallup poll, also this month, found that only 28% of adults, also a new low, were satisfied with “the way democracy is working in this country”.
Yet the parties are not reacting by making themselves more appealing. Something is interfering with the signals the electorate sends to the organisations that supply candidates and ideas, never more so than this cycle, when most Americans have consistently turned their noses up at the products most likely to be on offer, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
“The first party to retire its 80-year-old candidate is going to be the party that wins this election,” declared Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, as she conceded the New Hampshire primary to Mr Trump on January 23rd. She may be right in theory. But she is wrong in practice that there is some coherent entity called a “party” capable of such a rational calculation. As Mr Trump demonstrated in 2016, and Barack Obama did before him, political parties do not plot or strategise anymore to anoint a candidate, at least not with much effect; they have instead become vehicles idling by the curbs of American life until the primaries approach, waiting for successful candidates to commandeer them.
For most of American history, party leaders picked presidential nominees. That system collapsed after the fractious Democratic convention of 1968, in which party elders ignored the candidate of the anti-Vietnam-war left and instead bestowed the nomination on Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, who had not competed in a single primary. Reformers successfully argued that nominating delegates should be picked by voters in primaries instead, and Republicans eventually followed the Democrats’ lead. This approach opened up the system to candidates, such as Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, who might never have been chosen in a smoke-filled room.
But in taking power from the party establishment, reformers unintentionally handed it to activists, who tend to be more extreme than other partisans, let alone the rest of the country. This is particularly true of the Republican Party. Now, relatively small numbers of impassioned voters can end up choosing nominees.
After Mr Trump won 51% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses this month, he was credited in the news media with a “landslide” win and a “blowout victory”. But it was a frigid night, and fewer than one in six registered Republicans turned out. They were probably among the most motivated of voters, quite unlike most Americans. Mr Trump won about 56,000 of these Republicans, or about 7% of the potential pool of 752,000 Iowa Republicans.
In New Hampshire on January 23rd Mr Trump won most Republicans who turned out, while Ms Haley won most “undeclared”, or independent voters who did so. Political analysts rightly saw this as a weakness of Ms Haley, because in many states independent voters cannot cast ballots in partisan primaries. And it might seem reasonable that the Republicans would want to nominate whoever wins the most Republicans. The flaw in this approach is that, definitionally, that candidate has demonstrated only that they can win if the electorate is Republican. A party capable of organising itself to win a general election with a big majority would place more value on reaching beyond the base.
A party’s nominee may not win the majority even of its primary voters, let alone of its eligible primary voters. The primaries tend to exaggerate the popularity of the eventual nominee because many states award all their delegates to the winner, rather than dividing them proportionately among the candidates. In 2016 Mr Trump won fewer than 45% of primary voters in all—that is, he won the Trumpy minority of the activist minority that turned out.
This is a fragile basis on which to stake a claim to nationwide electability. Nominees overcome that handicap by relying on what political scientists call “negative partisanship”. Though the plurality of Americans call themselves independent, they tend to lean to one party or another. Encouraging these voters, as well as less politically active party members, to see the opposing party as demonic is a reliable means of getting them to vote your way.
Third parties are hard
All this helps explain the longing of certain idealists and opportunists for a third party. That yen is particularly sharp in this cycle. History suggests it could be fulfilled quite suddenly, says Bernard Tamas, a political scientist at Valdosta State University and the author of “The Demise and Rebirth of American Third Parties”. “It’s often at times like this when the two major parties are polarised, because it opens a door for a third party to attack,” he says. “You don’t know if it’s going to happen until it happens.”
But the group No Labels, which is considering a third-party bid, appears to be off to a poor start. Successful third parties have tended to run candidates not just for president but down the ballot, too, and to have specific, galvanising issues. Had Donald Trump been capable of organising such an effort, he might have been a powerful third-party candidate. But why bother, when an existing party was just sitting there waiting to be commandeered? ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter examining the state of American democracy, and read other articles about the elections of 2024.
The columns of Royal Exchange are dressed for Christmas, at Bank in the City of London, the capital’s financial district, on 20th November 2024, in London, England.
Richard Baker | In Pictures | Getty Images
LONDON — U.K. inflation rose to 2.6% in November, the Office for National Statistics said Wednesday, marking the second straight monthly increase in the headline figure.
The reading was in line with the forecast of economists polled by Reuters, and climbed from 2.3% in October.
Core inflation, excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco, came in at 3.5%, just under a Reuters forecast of 3.6%.
Headline price rises hit a three-and-a-half year low of 1.7% in September, but was expected to tick higher in the following months, partly due to an increase in the regulator-set energy price cap this winter.
“This upwards trajectory looks set to continue over the next few months,” Joe Nellis, economic adviser at accountancy MHA, said in emailed comments on Wednesday, citing the energy market and “the long-term pressure of a tight domestic labor market.”
Persistent inflation in the services sector, the dominant part of the U.K. economy, has led money markets to price in almost no chance of an interest rate cut during the Bank of England’s final meeting of the year on Thursday. Those bets were solidified earlier this week when the ONS reported that regular wage growth strengthened to 5.2% over the August-October period, up from 4.9% over July-September.
The November data showed services inflation was unchanged at 5%.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is widely expected to trim rates by a quarter point at its own meeting on Wednesday, taking total cuts of the year to a full percentage point. Some skepticism lingers over whether it should take this step, given inflationary pressures.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated shortly.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference following the November 6-7, 2024, Federal Open Market Committee meeting at William McChesney Martin Jr. Federal Reserve Board Building, in Washington, DC, November 7, 2024.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images
Inflation is stubbornly above target, the economy is growing at about a 3% pace and the labor market is holding strong. Put it all together and it sounds like a perfect recipe for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates or at least to stay put.
That’s not what is likely to happen, however, when the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank’s rate-setting entity, announces its policy decision Wednesday.
Instead, futures market traders are pricing in a near-certainty that the FOMC actually will lower its benchmark overnight borrowing rate by a quarter percentage point, or 25 basis points. That would take it down to a target range of 4.25%-4.5%.
Even with the high level of market anticipation, it could be a decision that comes under an unusual level of scrutiny. A CNBC survey found that while 93% of respondents said they expect a cut, only 63% said it is the right thing to do.
“I’d be inclined to say ‘no cut,'” former Kansas City Fed President Esther George said Tuesday during a CNBC “Squawk Box” interview. “Let’s wait and see how the data comes in. Twenty-five basis points usually doesn’t make or break where we are, but I do think it is a time to signal to markets and to the public that they have not taken their eye off the ball of inflation.”
Inflation indeed remains a nettlesome problem for policymakers.
While the annual rate has come down substantially from its 40-year peak in mid-2022, it has been mired around the 2.5%-3% range for much of 2024. The Fed targets inflation at 2%.
The Commerce Department is expected to report Friday that the personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, ticked higher in November to 2.5%, or 2.9% on the core reading that excludes food and energy.
Justifying a rate cut in that environment will require some deft communication from Chair Jerome Powell and the committee. Former Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren also recently told CNBC that he would not cut at this meeting.
“They’re very clear about what their target is, and as we’re watching inflation data come in, we’re seeing that it’s not continuing to decelerate in the same manner that it had earlier,” George said. “So that, I think, is a reason to be cautious and to really think about how much of this easing of policy is required to keep the economy on track.”
Fed officials who have spoken in favor of cutting say that policy doesn’t need to be as restrictive in the current environment and they don’t want to risk damaging the labor market.
Chance of a ‘hawkish cut’
If the Fed follows through on the cut, it will mark a full percentage point lopped off the federal funds rate since September.
While that’s a considerable amount of easing in a short period of time, Fed officials have tools at their disposal to let the markets know that future cuts won’t come so easily.
One of those tools is the dot-plot matrix of individual members’ expectations for rates over the next few years. That will be updated Wednesday along with the rest of the Summary of Economic Projections that will include informal outlooks for inflation, unemployment and gross domestic product.
Another is the use of guidance in the post-meeting statement to indicate where the committee sees policy headed. Finally, Powell can use his news conference to provide further clues.
It’s the Powell parley with the media that markets will be watching most closely, followed by the dot plot. Powell recently said the Fed “can afford to be a little more cautious” about how quickly it eases amid what he characterized as a “strong” economy.
“We’ll see them leaning into the direction of travel, to begin the process of moving up their inflation forecast,” said Vincent Reinhardt, BNY Mellon chief economist and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed, where he served 24 years. “The dots [will] drift up a little bit, and [there will be] a big preoccupation at the press conference with the idea of skipping meetings. So it’ll turn out to be a hawkish cut in that regard.”
What about Trump?
Powell is almost certain to be asked about how policy might position in regard to fiscal policy under President-elect Donald Trump.
Thus far, the chair and his colleagues have brushed aside questions about the impact Trump’s initiatives could have on monetary policy, citing uncertainty over what is just talk now and what will become reality later. Some economists think the incoming president’s plans for aggressive tariffs, tax cuts and mass deportations could aggravate inflation even more.
“Obviously the Fed’s in a bind,” Reinhart said. “We used to call it the trapeze artist problem. If you’re a trapeze artist, you don’t leave your platform to swing out until you’re sure your partner is swung out. For the central bank, they can’t really change their forecast in response to what they believe will happen in the political economy until they’re pretty sure there’ll be those changes in the political economy.”
“A big preoccupation at the press conference is going to the idea of skipping meetings,” he added. “So it’ll turn out to be, I think, a hawkish easing in that regard. As [Trump’s] policies are actually put in place, then they may move the forecast by more.”
Other actions on tap
Most Wall Street forecasters see Fed officials raising their expectations for inflation and reducing the expectations for rate cuts in 2025.
When the dot plot was last updated in September, officials indicated the equivalent of four quarter-point cuts next year. Markets already have lowered their own expectations for easing, with an expected path of two cuts in 2025 following the move this week, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch measure.
The outlook also is for the Fed to skip the January meeting. Wall Street is expecting little to no change in the post-meeting statement.
Officials also are likely to raise their estimate for the “neutral” rate of interest that neither boosts nor restricts growth. That level had been around 2.5% for years — a 2% inflation rate plus 0.5% at the “natural” level of interest — but has crept up in recent months and could cross 3% at this week’s update.
Finally, the committee may adjust the interest it pays on its overnight repo operations by 0.05 percentage point in response to the fed funds rate drifting to near the bottom of its target range. The “ON RPP” rate acts as a floor for the funds rate and is currently at 4.55% while the effective funds rate is 4.58%. Minutes from the November FOMC meeting indicated officials were considering a “technical adjustment” to the rate.
A briefcase filled with Iranian rial banknotes sits on display at a currency exchange market on Ferdowsi street in Tehran, Iran, on Saturday, Jan. 6, 2018.
Ali Mohammadi | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Iran is confronting its worst set of crises in years, facing a spiraling economy along with a series of unprecedented geopolitical and military blows to its power in the Middle East.
Over the weekend, Iran’s currency, the rial, hit a record low of 756,000 to the dollar, according to Reuters. Since September, the embattled currency has suffered the ripple effects of devastating hits to Iran’s proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian militant group Hamas, as well as the November election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency.
With the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad amid a shock offensive by rebel groups, Tehran lost its most important ally in the Middle East. Assad, who is accused of war crimes against his own people, fled to Russia and left a highly fractured country behind him.
“The fall of Assad has existential implications for the Islamic Republic,” Behnam ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told CNBC. “Lest we forget, the regime ahs spent well over a decade in treasure, blood, and reputation to save a regime which ultimately folded in less than two weeks.”
The currency’s fall exposes the extent of the hardship faced by ordinary Iranians, who struggle to afford everyday goods and suffer high inflation and unemployment after years of heavy Western sanctions compounded by domestic corruption and economic mismanagement.
Trump has pledged to take a hard line on Iran and will be re-entering the White House roughly six years after unilaterally pulling the U.S. out of the Iranian nuclear deal and re-imposing sweeping sanctions on the country.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed his government’s willingness to negotiate and revive the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which lifted some sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs to its nuclear program. But the attempted outreach comes at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency says Tehran is enriching uranium at record levels, reaching 60% purity — a short technical step from the weapons-grade purity level of 90%.