On Sunday, President Joe Biden announced that he was withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. He delivered this message using X, a decision that highlights the medium’s power over politics, for better or worse.

X has the advantages that most social media networks possess over traditional news. Users can report stories more quickly than conventional outlets, as seen in the Trump assassination attempt. X also allows more press freedom. The COVID-19 lab leak theory and the Hunter Biden laptop story, which mainstream publications refused to publish, found an audience through X. These attributes of social media have their concomitant downsides, as false information and hateful views are popularized. But there are some elements of X’s influence that are unique.

In function, X is the platform best suited to mass political discussion. The ways in which discussion threads form and can be shared suits its role as the public square. Because its design naturally fits politics, it is disproportionately used by the political class.

X is the primary way politicians communicate with the public. Trump’s use of the network before his 2021 ban and Biden’s announcement on Sunday demonstrate this fact. The older channels of cable news appearances and emails have become less relevant.

It is also the preferred social media platform for journalists. Fifty-one percent of journalists consider social media to be important for their work, and 36% say X is the most valuable social media outlet they use, more than any other platform. X’s popularity among journalists and politicians shows its political power.

While X has allowed everyday people an unprecedented participation in political discourse, X remains a forum largely disconnected from the general population. Only 22% of Americans use X, compared to the 83% who use YouTube or the 68% on Facebook. Contrasting that with X’s usage among politicians and journalists, it is clear it finds its audience among the elite. Of course, an elite political bubble has existed in every civilization in history. But ours is uniquely affected by its presence on a social media platform.

Social media companies need to keep users engaged to generate advertising revenue. They keep consumers online through algorithms and interfaces that encourage strong emotional responses. This has led elite political discourse to take on the characteristics of hyperpassionate populist politics.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This means the hyperbole and conspiratorial thinking encouraged by social media is not kept to demagogic theater. Not only is political discourse affected by social media, but so are the institutions and people directly engaged in politics. After all, the people who work in Washington are now finding and discussing their news through X. This means the worst of social media politics has infected the halls of power.

X is a unique social platform that shapes American politics. Its use as a channel for political discussion, especially among the elite, has brought the benefits and drawbacks of social media closer to political power than any other medium. Greater freedom and wider participation are now more possible than ever before in elite politics. But X also makes the working of politics less civil and serious. Whether it helps or hurts the republic, X has changed American politics.

2024-07-23 19:14:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3096117%2Fxs-power-over-politics%2F?w=600&h=450, On Sunday, President Joe Biden announced that he was withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. He delivered this message using X, a decision that highlights the medium’s power over politics, for better or worse. X has the advantages that most social media networks possess over traditional news. Users can report stories more quickly than conventional,

On Sunday, President Joe Biden announced that he was withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. He delivered this message using X, a decision that highlights the medium’s power over politics, for better or worse.

X has the advantages that most social media networks possess over traditional news. Users can report stories more quickly than conventional outlets, as seen in the Trump assassination attempt. X also allows more press freedom. The COVID-19 lab leak theory and the Hunter Biden laptop story, which mainstream publications refused to publish, found an audience through X. These attributes of social media have their concomitant downsides, as false information and hateful views are popularized. But there are some elements of X’s influence that are unique.

In function, X is the platform best suited to mass political discussion. The ways in which discussion threads form and can be shared suits its role as the public square. Because its design naturally fits politics, it is disproportionately used by the political class.

X is the primary way politicians communicate with the public. Trump’s use of the network before his 2021 ban and Biden’s announcement on Sunday demonstrate this fact. The older channels of cable news appearances and emails have become less relevant.

It is also the preferred social media platform for journalists. Fifty-one percent of journalists consider social media to be important for their work, and 36% say X is the most valuable social media outlet they use, more than any other platform. X’s popularity among journalists and politicians shows its political power.

While X has allowed everyday people an unprecedented participation in political discourse, X remains a forum largely disconnected from the general population. Only 22% of Americans use X, compared to the 83% who use YouTube or the 68% on Facebook. Contrasting that with X’s usage among politicians and journalists, it is clear it finds its audience among the elite. Of course, an elite political bubble has existed in every civilization in history. But ours is uniquely affected by its presence on a social media platform.

Social media companies need to keep users engaged to generate advertising revenue. They keep consumers online through algorithms and interfaces that encourage strong emotional responses. This has led elite political discourse to take on the characteristics of hyperpassionate populist politics.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This means the hyperbole and conspiratorial thinking encouraged by social media is not kept to demagogic theater. Not only is political discourse affected by social media, but so are the institutions and people directly engaged in politics. After all, the people who work in Washington are now finding and discussing their news through X. This means the worst of social media politics has infected the halls of power.

X is a unique social platform that shapes American politics. Its use as a channel for political discussion, especially among the elite, has brought the benefits and drawbacks of social media closer to political power than any other medium. Greater freedom and wider participation are now more possible than ever before in elite politics. But X also makes the working of politics less civil and serious. Whether it helps or hurts the republic, X has changed American politics.

, On Sunday, President Joe Biden announced that he was withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. He delivered this message using X, a decision that highlights the medium’s power over politics, for better or worse. X has the advantages that most social media networks possess over traditional news. Users can report stories more quickly than conventional outlets, as seen in the Trump assassination attempt. X also allows more press freedom. The COVID-19 lab leak theory and the Hunter Biden laptop story, which mainstream publications refused to publish, found an audience through X. These attributes of social media have their concomitant downsides, as false information and hateful views are popularized. But there are some elements of X’s influence that are unique. In function, X is the platform best suited to mass political discussion. The ways in which discussion threads form and can be shared suits its role as the public square. Because its design naturally fits politics, it is disproportionately used by the political class. X is the primary way politicians communicate with the public. Trump’s use of the network before his 2021 ban and Biden’s announcement on Sunday demonstrate this fact. The older channels of cable news appearances and emails have become less relevant. It is also the preferred social media platform for journalists. Fifty-one percent of journalists consider social media to be important for their work, and 36% say X is the most valuable social media outlet they use, more than any other platform. X’s popularity among journalists and politicians shows its political power. While X has allowed everyday people an unprecedented participation in political discourse, X remains a forum largely disconnected from the general population. Only 22% of Americans use X, compared to the 83% who use YouTube or the 68% on Facebook. Contrasting that with X’s usage among politicians and journalists, it is clear it finds its audience among the elite. Of course, an elite political bubble has existed in every civilization in history. But ours is uniquely affected by its presence on a social media platform. Social media companies need to keep users engaged to generate advertising revenue. They keep consumers online through algorithms and interfaces that encourage strong emotional responses. This has led elite political discourse to take on the characteristics of hyperpassionate populist politics. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER This means the hyperbole and conspiratorial thinking encouraged by social media is not kept to demagogic theater. Not only is political discourse affected by social media, but so are the institutions and people directly engaged in politics. After all, the people who work in Washington are now finding and discussing their news through X. This means the worst of social media politics has infected the halls of power. X is a unique social platform that shapes American politics. Its use as a channel for political discussion, especially among the elite, has brought the benefits and drawbacks of social media closer to political power than any other medium. Greater freedom and wider participation are now more possible than ever before in elite politics. But X also makes the working of politics less civil and serious. Whether it helps or hurts the republic, X has changed American politics., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24155678487472-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Joseph Nepomuceno,

A U.S. marshal protecting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home shot an armed man attempting to carjack him on Friday. This instance is just one example of how guns used in self-defense can be vital for one’s safety, especially in Washington, D.C. Coincidentally, Justice Sotomayor has a history of opposing the right to bear arms for self-defense.

The would-be carjacker approached the marshal’s vehicle with a handgun. While he pointed his weapon toward the driver’s window, the marshal inside drew his firearm and shot the assailant. A second U.S. marshal also opened fire on the carjacker. The attacker was subsequently taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.

Washington has been suffering under a crime wave that has persisted since the pandemic. The city had the fifth-highest homicide rate in 2023 and is on pace to have a higher death toll in 2024. The arrest rate has been consistently low since before the pandemic, the police force is at a half-century low, and the legal system remains slow to prosecute.

This dangerous security situation means that personal defense is all the more important now in Washington DC. This self-defense can require gun ownership, as demonstrated in the confrontation outside Justice Sotomayor’s home.

But Justice Sotomayor does not look so favorably on the independent ownership of firearms for the sake of self-defense. She and Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Breyer’s dissent in McDonald v. Chicago. This dissent included the line, “the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of ‘substantive due process’ does not include a general right to keep and bear arms for purposes of private self-defense.”

Fortunately, McDonald was decided correctly. Following District of Columbia v. Heller, which protected the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, McDonald extended this right’s federal protection to the state level.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Normal people do not get security details like Justice Sotomayor. Unlike celebrities, political figures, and big stores, the people most vulnerable to violent crime must rely on themselves. Legal gun ownership and carry is a great equalizer between violent armed criminals and those they terrorize.

Thirty-two percent of American adults own at least one firearm. Personal protection is the top reason they give for their possession of a firearm. At a time when crime is still high and in a city that especially struggles with violence, the security of a firearm could prove to be life or death. For non-famous Americans, the inherent right to self-defense necessarily includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his visit to Russia on Monday. Modi’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin shows the delicate balance that India hopes to strike between Russia, the United States, and China.

During the Cold War, India led the Non-Aligned Movement, promising a way between the capitalist West and communist East. While India built relations with the U.S., it relied on Soviet technological and industrial support. In particular, Soviet arms were the main supplier for the Indian military.

It has been decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, but India is again attempting to find a middle path between the global powers. After India clashed with China on their border in 2020, tensions have been high. However, both Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to de-escalate tensions last year at the border. Still, India fears a unipolar Asia dominated by China and is looking to work with powers that can balance Beijing’s influence.

Today’s talks with Russia mirror India’s close relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Modi has refused to condemn Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and continues to rely on Russia’s military hardware and cheap oil. However, this importation of goods has led to a trade imbalance that Modi hopes to rectify at his meeting with Putin in Moscow. More broadly, Modi needs to keep Moscow from drifting too far into Beijing’s camp in case of any future conflict between India and China.

Despite New Delhi’s closeness with Moscow, the Biden administration has sought to continue to strengthen the U.S.’s relationship with India. India desires American technology and investment in both the military and commercial spheres. It is true the U.S. has some reservations about the provision of military technology to a country that has close relations with Moscow. Moreover, Modi’s brand of Hindu nationalism does ruffle feathers in Washington. But the U.S. needs a counterbalance to China and a site for American offshore investment.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In the future, it is likely that Modi will continue to navigate a path that balances the three global powers against one another. India may be able to play its cards right and become a properly global power during this century. However, it has historically lagged behind peer countries in development and some of Modi’s domestic policies threaten the liberalization required to compete economically.

When it comes to the U.S.’s approach to India, it should not hope to bring India into the American fold as an ally akin to Japan or South Korea. American diplomats and presidents should be open-eyed about the game India is playing on the international stage. The U.S. does not need to upset this balancing act that Modi is performing. Instead, if we play our role in Modi’s game effectively, we can prevent India from drifting toward an anti-American foreign policy and remain a reasonable international actor.

Russia’s economy is growing as Western sanctions fail to impede President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine. On Monday, the World Bank said Russia has gone from being an upper-middle-income country to a high-income country. Military investment and major government subsidies have spurred this economic growth.

After the initial full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian ruble lost 40% of its value. Western companies left the country and the international banking system, SWIFT, closed to Russian banks. Western states also banned the exporting of weapons technology to Russia, the importing of Russian gold and diamonds, and sanctioned individual oligarchs.

While these sanctions certainly hit Russia hard in 2022, the Russian economy has been recovering since then. Gross domestic product growth in 2023 was 3.6% and is on track to be 2.5% in 2024. Western sanctions have made Russia negotiate new trade partners and increase domestic industry. Most critically, Russian oil exports are continuing. Since the oil market is global, it is hard for Western countries to dramatically hurt Russian oil exports in the long term as prices and supply chains will adjust to sanctions.

This is not meant to say that the Russian economy is healthy. This wartime growth is not sustainable long-term. High amounts of government spending on military goods and housing have been driving the economy’s recovery. While consumer spending and incomes have increased, technology and production capabilities have not dramatically improved. Inflation is still high and the 2022 mobilization worsened the country’s ongoing brain drain.

However, these issues will not deter Putin from continuing to pursue his goal of dominating Ukraine. Putin is content with the current trajectory of the war in Ukraine as he thinks he can outlast Western resolve. He is fighting an attritional war that is currently to his advantage. Russian troops are continuing to slowly take ground while Ukraine has been incapable of waging a successful counteroffensive since its victories in the autumn of 2022.

The West must learn from the war in Ukraine that economic incentives are not enough to block determined foes. While they can be a nice carrot to encourage good behavior, other states must be receptive to Western goals for aid and sanctions to matter.

This means that the diagnosis of a state’s goals is all important in determining which tools to use. Western wealth is a useful tool for states that desire Western wealth more than they want to pursue anti-Western goals. But it cannot be used as a catch-all solution to negotiate with adversaries. Other states and their leaders do not have the same priorities as us.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The failure of Western sanctions to incentivize Putin to not invade in 2022 and to actually stop his campaign shows that other tools matter more in the rough-and-tumble world of geopolitics. The backbone of international relations is still hard military power and the consistently demonstrated willingness to use it.

At the end of the day, there are things in life more important than money. Even if we don’t realize that, our foes do. The failure of Western sanctions against Russia has taught us this lesson.