This revolution in communication isn’t over. The 2016 presidential campaign has brought us more dramatic transformations in the art and science of political communication. It’s changed what constitutes an appropriate statement by a candidate or campaign, and changed the content and nature of the news itself. Most of this has been driven by one candidate.
Challenges, Lagarde said, are low growth, rising inequality, and falling numbers of jobs. Resolve these three stumbling blocks and we may get the world to work better. The IMF alone cannot do it, nor even the IMF, World Bank, U.S. Government, OECD, European Union, United Nations together. We can’t channel the human mind to a higher level anytime soon, but we’d better tackle those three bugbears or we’re all sunk. The wealthy with the others.
For some people, Hillary Clinton’s kid-glove treatment by the FBI might just be what pushes them over the edge. They may not tell the pollsters. They may not tell their friends and neighbors. But when they enter the privacy of the voting booth on November 8, they may well decide that Donald Trump—sleazy, offensive and dangerous as he is—may be counted on to do at least one good thing if he is elected: He will throw a bomb under Washington’s smug elites.
You hear a gay bar called a “soft target,” and you are forced to confront the inconceivability of hardening the soft targets where you live your life, like the mall you were planning to shop at this afternoon, or the café where you ate last night, which in hindsight could be the twin of the Tel Aviv café where terrorists killed four people a few days before.
Once again, our nation is forced to struggle with the pain and confusion that follows an act of political violence, an act of terrorism. But I hope that an important facet of this attack does not go forgotten: Omar Mateen targeted the LGBT community, and he did so for a reason.