Alana Moceri

The coronavirus is a deadly moment of reckoning for the American healthcare system

As Spanish schools and universities went online, my students made a mad dash for their home countries and towns and while it might be comforting to be with family at a time like this, I realized that I would be a fool to leave Spain for the my home country, the U.S. This is in part because I am covered by Spain’s world-class public health system and currently have no health insurance in the U.S. But it is also because Spain is in a much better position to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. While Americans are doing voluntary self-isolation, still freaking out over buying toilet paper and apparently purchasing guns (only in America), the people of Spain are doing the only thing that can stop the spread of this deadly virus, staying at home.

Why is Trump’s newly great-again America doing such a terrible job against the coronavirus? To be fair, he inherited this system, if you can even call it one, but he has also done things to make it worse. We’ll start with healthcare in the U.S., which is a fragmented, for-profit mess that doesn’t cover everyone, which is the first and most important point.

Sanders can concede to Biden or declare war against the Democratic Party

The Democratic Primary was really over after former Vice President Joe Biden won nearly all of the Super Tuesday states. But if that wasn’t clear enough to Senator Bernie Sanders, then the results on March 10^thshould have been. Yet here we are, with another primary Tuesday in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Arizona, all states that are leaning strongly towards Biden in the polls. If this plays out as predicted, then it should be really put the crown firmly on Biden’s head. But it could also be the moment that Sanders declares an all-out war against the Democratic Party.

There is plenty of evidence the shows that Sanders has no intention of backing down. He certainly didn’t do so in his race for the nomination against Hillary Clinton in 2016. In fact, while there is a slight variation in states, at this same point in 2016 Clinton had 24% more pledged delegates (those that are chosen by voters) than Sanders. Right now, Biden has about 17% more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Biden da seguridad a los Demócratas... pero los 'candidatos seguros' pierden

Los Demócratas están aterrorizados ante la perspectiva de otros cuatro años de Donald Trump. Es un tipo de miedo peligroso. Es el tipo de miedo que lleva a tomar malas decisiones basadas en la apariencia de una elección segura y racional.

Tras meses de coquetear con un gran número de candidatos que representaban la diversidad a la que el partido Demócrata da tanta importancia, los votantes han decidido apostar sobre seguro. Han optado por un hombre blanco y mayor del establishment para medirlo al hombre blanco y mayor socialista, para poder enfrentarlo este otoño al hombre blanco y mayor republicano. (leer en El Español / in English)

Biden might make Democrats feel safe but 'safe candidates' lose

Democrats are terrified of another four years of Trump. It’s a dangerous kind of fear. It’s the kind of fear that leads to bad decisions based on making what appears to be the safe and rational choice. After months of flirting with a large field of candidates that represented the diversity that the party gives so much lip service to, voters decided to play it safe. They chose an establishment old white man to take on socialist old white man so that he can go on to do battle with the Republican old white man this fall.

In other words, both Klobuchar and Buttigieg were coaxed into ending their campaigns by party leaders in order to consolidate the moderate vote behind Biden and counter the excitement of those that feel the Bern. It worked. Moderate voters lined up behind Biden, turning the Democratic Primary into a two-way race with Sanders. Now, I’ll tell you why this “safe” choice is a bad one.

Cómo influye el cambio climático en las primarias demócratas

Qué importancia le dan los estadounidenses a la protección medioambiental? ¿Qué política defiende los candidatos demócratas respecto al clima? ¿Puede el cambio climático jugar un papel clave en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo noviembre?

A los demócratas en general, les preocupa profundamente el cambio climático pero, a la hora de designar a un candidato para la batalla que se avecina contra el presidente Donald Trump, hay un aspecto que predomina sobre todos los demás: la elegibilidad. Los demócratas de todo el país están enloquecidos tratando de decidir quién va a ser capaz de acabar con esta presidencia tan nociva. Y esa es una forma equivocada de escoger a un candidato. En lugar de escuchar a los aspirantes con sus programas y decidir quién les convence y, sobre todo, quien les apasiona más, los votantes están intentando hacer una predicción imposible. Los demócratas necesitan enamorarse de sus candidatos; el que haga vibrar suficientemente sus corazones será el más adecuado para enfrentarse a Trump. (leer articulo / read in English)

How climate change is shaping the Democratic primary race

Democrats generally care deeply about climate change, but in choosing a candidate for the coming battle with President Trump there is one issue that reins above all others: electability. Democrats across the country are tying themselves in knots trying to decide who might be able to take down this toxic presidency. This is an unfortunate way to pick a presidential candidate. Instead of listening to the candidates and their policy positions, then deciding who convinces and, more importantly, excites them the most, voters are trying to make an impossible prediction. Democrats have a need to fall in love with their candidates—whoever makes enough of their hearts go pitter patter will be the right one to take on Trump.

That said, beating Trump is the most important way to fight the climate crisis, no matter which Democrat replaces him. The man openly doubts scientific consensus on climate and has shamelessly rolled back environmental protections across the United States and most notably, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. I’ll stop here because the list is endless. And don’t just take my word for it, take a look at the ongoing list that National Geographic has kept up or another shorter, more organized one that is just as devastating.

La Entrevista de Radio 5

Fue un honor ser entrevistada para la Entrevista de Radio 5.

Alana Moceri

 

Entrevista con Cinco Continentes RNE

Cinco continentes - EEUU: «va a ser el debate más interesante»

Con Alana Moceri, profesora de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Europea de Madrid, analizamos la estrategia del exalcalde de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, en la carrera demócrata hacia la nominación de las presidenciales. Mañana, Bloomberg participa, por primera vez, en un debate televisado en el que, según Moceri, recibirá «ataques» del resto de participantes.

EEUU: «va a ser el debate más interesante»

 

El absurdo sistema de primarias de Estados Unidos

El caucus de Iowa, la primera votación de las elecciones primarias para elegir al candidato en el país, fue -utilizando un lenguaje propio de Trump- un auténtico desastre. Ahora bien, esta no es más que la punta del iceberg del caótico, imperfecto y, francamente, absurdo sistema de escoger a los candidatos presidenciales en Estados Unidos y que, en su forma actual, se remonta a 1972. El sistema de primarias no está incluido en la Constitución —de hecho, sus artífices ni siquiera creían en los partidos políticos—, sino que se ha desarrollado de forma aleatoria en los órganos nacionales y estatales de los partidos y es una anomalía en comparación con otras democracias del mundo. Sin embargo, no está nada claro que el fiasco de Iowa vaya a ser suficiente para generar cambios en el sistema de elección del llamado “líder del mundo libre”. (leer articulo en esglobal / read English version)

The absurd U.S. primary system

The first-in-country Iowa caucus was—to use Trumpian language—a total disaster. However, this are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the unruly, imperfect and, frankly, absurd U.S. system of choosing presidential candidates that has existed in its current form since 1972. It is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and in fact, the framers of the constitution didn’t even believe in political parties. Instead, this system has evolved haphazardly within the national and state party institutions and is an anomaly compared to other democracies in the world. Yet, it is far from certain that the Iowa fiasco will be enough even to bring about change in the system the elects the so-called “leader of the free world.”