Today, Paul Peterson argues that partisan primaries are a significant problem in American politics; Max Lamparth lays out some of the economic opportunities and deployment challenges issued by artificial intelligence; and John Cochrane uses his weekly rant to point out what a recent G7 report gets wrong about global economic growth.
Politics, Institutions, and Public Opinion
Partisan primaries sabotage voter confidence in American democracy, Senior Fellow Paul E. Peterson argues at Freedom Frequency. Once thought to be a democratizing tool, instead they reduce engagement, fuel extremism on the left and the right, intensify polarization, and weaken bipartisan governance, the Harvard government professor writes. Elections this year demonstrate all of these points, from the dominance of noncompetitive seats and incumbencies to anemic turnout and the widespread use of ideological cudgels. By contrast, the “top two” primary—maligned as the “jungle primary”—promises to boost engagement and turnout and enhance moderation, both during a campaign and after an election. Peterson makes the case that states should take the lead on setting up all-party primaries, a most promising remedy for the plague of polarization. Read more here.
Artificial Intelligence
In this Q&A, Research Fellow and AI expert Max Lamparth takes a look at the growing pains of artificial intelligence, including popular misunderstandings of what it is, why industries feel pressure to deploy it prematurely, and how one of the greatest challenges is employing AI when we demand “a good answer from human judgment.” Concentration of AI power in a few hands also risks hampering the broad benefits of the technology, he says, also pointing out the risks of reflexive automation and information gatekeeping. His work includes finding ways to evaluate AI systems without picking winners, as well as learning how AI can perform both reliably and democratically. Read more here.
International Economics
In this week’s Grumpy Economist Weekly Rant, Senior Fellow John H. Cochrane examines the G7 summit’s economic report and its diagnosis of the world economy. The report warns of “predatory competition,” “industrial overcapacity,” “unbalanced growth,” “reciprocal trade,” and the need for more international policy coordination. Cochrane argues that much of this language obscures rather than clarifies the central economic question: how countries actually achieve growth. Cochrane challenges the report’s view that trade deficits, surpluses, and global imbalances should be managed through international institutions, surveillance, and coordinated intervention. Instead, he argues, countries grow by removing barriers to investment, work, energy production, and enterprise. Emphasizing the central importance of growth, Cochrane says it depends less on international economic management than on policies that allow productive activity to expand. Watch or read more here.
Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
In terms of sheer economic might and influence, “the United States and China are in a category of power unto themselves,” Research Fellow David R. Henderson and coauthor Robert A. Rogowsky argue at RealClearMarkets. But when these nations try to throw their weight around via sanctions and other tools, even economic superpowers run into walls: technology- and market-based means of evasion and avoidance employed by other states. “The more aggressively Washington or Beijing deploy economic leverage as a coercive instrument, the more they accelerate the construction of the very infrastructure that erodes their leverage,” the authors write. They conclude that market forces, including new trade linkages between regions such as Europe and Latin America, are increasingly capable of undercutting “the power of two giant governments.” Read more here.
War with Iran
[Subscription required.]
At The Wall Street Journal, Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group contributor Reuel Marc Gerecht and coauthor Ray Takeyh examine the implications of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding. The deal “sets the stage for an eventual nuclear revival” on the part of Iran, they argue, “since what’s been blown up can be rebuilt as long as enough oil flows, the regime’s illicit dual-use import network remains operational, and US and Israeli intelligence fails against Iranian vigilance.” After demonstrating a bold willingness to cross “lines that previous presidents dared not traverse,” the authors say, President Trump now appears as “another American politician hoping to induce the Iranian regime toward pragmatism by dangling financial rewards.” Gerecht and Takeyh caution that previous administrations have gone wrong trying to find and exploit fissures between supposed moderates and hard-liners within the repressive Iranian regime, and they encourage current policymakers not to fall for this “fool’s gold of American statesmen.” Read more here.
Related Commentary