This is not about'tear it all apart'. Its about central bureaucratic state powers in Brussels and to some extent Washington dictating border policy.
I think Max Fisher's summary of the problem is spot on. I've noticed this burn-it-down attitude among Trump supporters, who thrill at ridicule of liberals, but when you listen for what they want, you hear only idiotic things that cannot help them (how can bathroom bills, or outlawing abortion, or building a wall, actually help anyone?). Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders' supporters likewise would have been happy to blow up the Democratic Party, even while Sanders used it for his own ambitions. But what actual good would destroying the party have done? I think a lot of people are mentally ill. A lot of harm will be done before people come to their senses, if they ever do.
8
To quote that eminent academician, Professor Quincy A. Wagstaff f Huxley University, way back in 1932 -
"Whatever they say, I'm against it!"
3
Next to the problems and issues laid out here, those in Venezuela seem normal.
3
"Outsider candidates can raise money online, running without the consent of party chiefs or groups like organized labor. They can reach voters through social media, circumventing gatekeepers and mainstream media."
But can these same candidates and their voters in the US circumvent the gatekeeper of all gatekeepers: The electoral college?
1
I think of myself as well left of center but I think that blaming the right as entirely responsible for the collapse described in the article is not warranted. Have a look at Nicaragua and Venezuela. The most thought provoking comment I read suggested that governments are breaking down because the problems have gotten so complex, numerous and dire that the systems in place are overwhelmed. With that perspective it seems likely that more and much better managed information technology (and not less as many suggest) will be required. Getting there while preserving desirable liberties and consent of the governed will not be easy. There are many evil forces to overcome, corporate greed and racism among them, but I am in sympathy with the idea that the combination of huge human population growth, ecosystem collapse and climate change has led to a level of complexity in social affairs may be the driving force behind the political collapses we are witnessing.
5
In the US, UK and Europe a great many working people are angry.
" The class divide is toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable.
You are probably part of the problem." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
The huge wealth/income gap and climate change are ticking time bombs, and the time is late, but better late then the consequences of never.
Hopefully, the times will be a-changin.
Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have solutions!
3
The people I know who voted for Trump are xenophobic and will believe just about any lie they are told, just like those who voted for Brexit. They have been whipped into a fury by lack of economic opportunities and conservative media and social media lies. Part of the reason for their gullibility is the dumbing down of our education system. The media did let us down during the Bush years, allowing his lies, and those of his cabinet, to drag us into never-ending war. It seems to me Trump is trying to do the same thing, weakening alliances that led to strong, peaceful ties. In Britain, Brexiters were told all sorts of lies about how much better off they would be without the EU and could control their own borders.
The outcome of all this could be localized wars, and, as always, the only people who win are those who supply arms and armaments. We are reaching a golden age of war machines that use few people. Wars can be fought without the awareness of most of the population since fewer people are needed for cannon fodder. The war machine just needs the tax dollar of a divisive state where everyone is angry and nothing else but war is accomplished.
15
From the local paper for former junior Brexit minister, Steve Baker’s constituency:
‘MP Steve Baker … Addressing a meeting of the ERG on Wednesday night … is believed to have said: “I could tear this place down and bulldoze it into the river. These fools and knaves and cowards are voting on things they don’t even understand.’
However: 'Baker says he “owes it to the Wycombe Conservative Association to continue”'
(https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/17538334.tory-mp-backtracks-on-claims-he-will-quit-the-party-if-pms-brexit-deal-passes/ )
1
Is democracy the best political and social system? Dictatorship sometimes has strong power economically and politically recently. The phenomena in the west give us a good chance to examine the advantage and disadvantage of democracy. And if we want to maintain the good points of democracy, we come to the conclusion that we have to accept the decisions of the leaders elected by people.
1
Baloney.
The British citizenry never wanted to join the EU to begin with.
To a progressive leftist ideologue, it's a teardown.
To a normal rational Brit, it's a fix that has been delayed far too long.
2
I feel, to some degree, you prove the author’s point.
7
I hardly call what’s happening in America and the UK “populism”. It’s jingoism with a heavy dose of Dunning-Kruger
7
In America this isn't playing out like a new era for democracy. Trump and his Republicans are governing like white nationalist proto-fascists. They took power by appealing to the anger, fear, racism and resentment of a specific minority of the population--the minority defined by "hesitant, vague answers" to every question, and an uncontrollable urge to punch the other side in the face.
15
"I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it
I'm against it!"
— Prof. Quincy Adams Wagstaff, 1932 (Groucho Marx, Horsefeathers)
9
“Across Western democracies, politics are increasingly defined by opposition to everything.”
So says the mouthpiece of the anti-Trump “resistance”.
1
It's interesting to note that the revolt is led by the mainstream, especially the so-called "heart-land". The typical Brexiter, yellow-vest, or MAGA-hat wearer is not a recent immigrant, nor a city-slicker, nor a minority.
Maybe the stereotypical aggrieved protesters have really bought in to the empty lip-service the politicians pay them and feel they are the "real" British, French, or American that are entitled to the first cut of prosperity.
4
What is so hard about holding another vote if the majority now support remaining and the first vote was rife with misleading propaganda?
10
Er, the last poll put Labour 5 points ahead, with a 7 point drop for the Tories. This is not “even worse”. Twitter is currently awash with photos of people cutting up their Tory membership cards.
1
This is a precursor to outright war.
2
In the democracies, the opposition is very important!
2
What the authors describe is anarchy. Opposition to everything, or everyone whose different, or believes otherwise. The Yellow Shirts are, indeed, anarchists.
But majorities in Britain, the U.S., and France are not. Political structure in the U.S., political process in the U.K., and political party breakdown in France, permit anarchists to rule or grab headlines.
The authors say Brits oppose everything. Most want to remain in the E.U.. Their parties are controlled by people who don't. How did that happen? People who have strong feelings have more influence. The referendum wasn't taken seriously by most Brits, letting this mob in.
Hillary C. won by 3 million votes, a lot. An archaic 18th century expedient, the Electoral College, allowed those guided by reactionary nostalgia to gain power.
France's political parties lost influence. Inchoate opponents are all that remain. But France is better governed, because of top-down and self-imposed media controls.
England has tabloids that spew anarchist populism, a media that's dried up elsewhere, but is plenty influential there. The U.S. has Fox, Sinclair, radical right radio. It's not about free speech. These are strategic arms of conservative wealth. France doesn't have tabloids, doesn't have Fox. That's the biggest difference.
Majority rule can be dangerous. But this isn't a majority problem. It's about angry minorities.
10
Max Fisher
‘Parties might do well in one election by promising to crush the other side — as Republicans did in 2016 and Britain’s Labour in 2017 — only to suffer their own humiliating defeat in the very next cycle.’
That is a bit confusing – Labour did not promise to crush the other side in 2017 and it gained a substantial advance though failing to end Mrs May’s majority – how did the GOP promise to crush the other side and suffer their own humiliating defeat – or are you predicting their future defeat?
1
What the article failed to mention is all these anti-everything demagogues get their support from Russia and Vladimir Putin. All of this is part of Putin's plan to destabilize developed Western industrialized democracies, of which Russia views as a threat to their security. Supporters of Trump, Brexit, the Yellow Vest movement and all other forms of right-wing populism all get their backing from Putin.
6
@Orange County
How convenient to blame ‘it’ on the Russians. Takes you back a way, eh?
1
One man's breakdown of faith in establishment politicians, establishment political parties and established policies is another man's appreciation of a long-overdue healthy skepticism in how little these have done to alleviate longterm and deepening problems among hoi polloi. I'd say Brits' deep dislike of both Corbyn and May, and French protests against Macron are well earned.
2
Winning by stoking fear and division with no clear goal to address an economy that is being upended by a tech revolution; where the majority of citizens can no longer afford even the basics - housing, education and healthcare - leads to hopelessness and rage AND demonization of “the Other.” Revolutionary change, one way or another, is inevitable.
The horror is London elites might not even care if the island becomes a billionaire row like “Hudson Yards” in NYC; and Surrey and other bucolic countryside settings become a never ending vanity plate for Game Of Thrones actors.
“Let them eat cake and live in Wales and Southern Ireland” said the Queen.
8
This author is very careful to not delve very far into the problems he sees as driving this breakdown. He mentions technological disruption and income inequality, but he doesn't want to probe very far into why these hurt people or how they came about.
4
@Robert F
T has been in process since the 1970’s, the introduction of Neoliberalism, first in the conservative think tanks and chambers of commerce, then the universities, corporate media and finally policy resulting in massive inequality, disregard for national interest save those that serve the gentry; with its most evident even being the disappearance of the Middle Class as it was once structured. The article’s summary follows; and the answer is revolution of some unpleasant sort.
Amassing how long it took public to start to respond as described but ‘the media’ was captured.
4
@wsmrer
It has been in process since the 1970’s, the introduction of Neoliberalism, first in the conservative think tanks and chambers of commerce, then the universities, corporate media and finally policy resulting in massive inequality, disregard for national interest save those that serve the gentry; with its most evident event being the disappearance of the Middle Class as it was once structured. The article’s summary follows; and the answer is revolution of some unpleasant sort.
Amazing how long it took public to start to respond as described but ‘the media’ was captured.
The Democratic party platform will soon include ending the electoral college and packing the supreme court. nobody got that from Fox News. Democratic party candidates jumped on the kill Biden bandwagon this week over some rather suspect vague and silly #metoo claims. Nationalizing vast parts if the economy for the green new deal, Fox News is not pushing that. All the while the comments here blame the Republicans for this phenomenon.
3
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
― Bertrand Russell
9
The problem with Pyrrhic victories is similar to the problem with arsonists.
The more you try to reason someone out of irrational self-sabotage, the more likely they are to act upon their initial impulse.
5
I don't pretend to understand the social/psychological dynamics behind the tear-it-down movement. Revolution may be deeply embedded in the human psyche.
What I find deeply concerning is that these folks rarely have a solution as to how to effectively put things back together in a way that benefits any but a small minority. Witness the Trump tax cuts, the GOP obsession with dismantling health care, Brexit, etc., etc. They don't seem to any meaningful grasp on the real consequences.
I suggest that FDR's popularity had much to do with his willingness to shake things up. The big difference it that FDR had a solid plan to improve things for humanity. And whether you want to admit it or not, he succeeded in a way that Trump, the Brexiteers, and the rest of the fascistic right can only dream about.
14
The grand institutions like the E.U. have done vanishingly little to help Europeans. How about Spain, how about Italy. Greece. Outer U.K.? These people are voters. The primary constituency. They haven’t been served. Show me the analysis showing they are better off. Of course you cannot, because these policies did not help constituents. “Tear it all down?” What melodrama. These institutions were playthings of rich, entitled, educated people just like me. People who think they are the “most qualified.” I know that I am an average idiot who got a good education. According to my resume, I must be smart and hardworking. Not the case at all! I never forget that average voters are just as good as I am (better) and just as hardworking (in reality, more so). I do not deplore average working people. Tear it all down? Get over yourself.
5
"Parties organized around opposition have proven less able to govern."
Surprise! Complaining about everything is considerably easier than actually doing any of extremely hard work to find effective solutions for difficult problems.
Not coincidentally, the individuals who appreciate that simplistic answers are ill-equipped to deal with complex problems are generally the people who are the least extreme and polarized in their views.
12
British voters wanted to leave the European Union. They had a referedum. They went to the polls. They won. Theresa May and the rest of the globalists betrayed them. It’s that simple.
2
@MariaMagdalena
it's not that simple actually.
As numerous people have pointed out on both sides of the Atlanticthe referendum was wildly unspecific about a massive and highly complex subject and the referendum process itself was corrupted.
No one knew what they were voting for if they voted to leave - ask Leavers in the UK what they voted to get and are they going to get it when they leave the EU and they can't answer.
4
@MariaMagdalena
No, it's not that simple. Lies were promulgated to make it look like a simple referendum would solve their complex political and immigration disagreements. "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong."
H.L. Mencken
3
@MariaMagdalena
Actually, it's not that simple. The voters were lied to about what would happen if Brexit passed and fraud is always grounds for revoking an agreement. If I sign a purchase contract to buy a house, and the owner told me that there were no termites in the foundation, and before the closing I found out that there was substantial foundation damage in the house, I could cancel the contract on the basis of fraud. The Leave campaign sold Brexit to the British public based on fraudulent promises. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html#explainer-question-0
That's why a second referendum must be held and the public should be told the facts this time.
3
This is a great piece that underscores why the U.S. founders gave us a republic, as opposed to a direct democracy. My hope is that the era of Trump and Brexit will eventually make it clear that “tearing it down” does not constitute leadership. I fear, though, that we will go through substantial pain in learning that lesson.
7
In addition to not mentioning corruption and mounting income inequality as even a small factor, this article gives us a not-particularly-hot take that is also not particularly new.
Yes, both Trump and Brexit were examples of democratic populaces voting to 'burn everything down', motivated by dislike of the other choice. They're also 2-3 years old at this point. This article is not insightful.
Just look at a few more recent counterpoints--look at Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand and Zuzana Caputova in Slovakia. It turns out, people don't want to burn down everything and hate everyone. Sometimes they do support people they like.
6
Its very tempting to be negative, but look at the counter-trends.
While several thousand disgruntled Britons took to the streets last week (as pictured in the article) with several different violently competing anti-European agendas, the week before that some 1.2 million took to the same streets with a united, pro-European message.
Looking at the Brexit vote: the Leave 'tear it all down' vote is largely found among the over-50s. Among young people, less than 25% support leaving the EU; for the next wave of voters it looks to be even less than that.
So, I don't think its right to see a rising trend of 'tear it down'-ism, so much as a cresting wave. Once it has passed, it will subside and be gone.
6
As a descendant of four Irish grandparents (Sligo, Kerry, and Galway proud), first in my mind is what Brexit is doing or may do to the still-fragile 20-year-old peace in Northern Ireland that was brought about by the Good Friday Agreement. It seems like there was little thought of what would happen to Northern Ireland when the Brexiteers voted out of the EU. What a mess.
10
@J.M.
This is true - it has been mentioned in the UK press that no mention was made of any obligation under the Good Friday Agreement during the referendum. I can't find sources for this but Brexiteers have dismissed Ireland as a ‘small’ or ‘unimportant’ country’ and the egregious Boris Johnson referred to ‘the dog wagging the tail’ (https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/boris-johnson-slammed-over-tail-12668455) as well as comparing international trade across the Irish border to traffic between London boroughs.
Why did this happen? Well you’ve answered that already: ‘It seems like there was little thought of what would happen to Northern Ireland when the Brexiteers voted out of the EU. What a mess.’ This is not quite true – I would guess that absolutely no consideration was given – after all no thought was given to most other aspects of the matter.
Sometimes I shake my head at the uninformed generalisations I see here about the country of my birth and the country of my ancestors – often from supposed ‘Irish-Americans’ - but it seems at the moment that the most stupid and ignorant people in Westminster are leaping and racing to give substance and strength to all the hostile clichés ever uttered about my country.
2
As a few commenters have noted, the blame can be placed squarely on the rightwing side of the political spectrum particularly in Britain and the US. Canada and others like it are just fine. The rightwing has developed a culture of opposition, if not outright hate, towards the left which they perceive as promoting extreme liberal ways.
Mainstream media was a target when it repeated leftwing points, but with the rise of rightwing media, and with the mainstream press trying hard to parrot the right's talking points, it is not so much a target anymore. After all, media has to produce what sells and hate is selling well these days. It's power in shaping opinions and movements might be diminishing as people see that the profit-motive is to blame. That might be the only positive thing the right has exposed.
6
It is just time that May gives up on these resolutions. The Brits decided they want to leave the EU, accept that fact and now live with it for better or worse. Voters in the UK will now learn what we in the US are learning: Elections have consequences. Some good and some bad. For us, it is bad.
5
A good analysis. The same process is happening in Italy.
2
Wait a second. How did we get here? Is it because the political establishment was overthrown, or is it because they did an extremely poor job of governing, which caused people to lose faith in them? Isn't it the latter?
George W. Bush was the establishment candidate for the GOP. The failure of his administration unleashed populist forces within his party. Had there been no Iraq War and no Great Recession would the GOP establishment have succumbed, first to the Tea Party and then to Trump? Would Jeb Bush have been easily pushed aside by Trump in 2016? I think not.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the Democrats. Why did so many Obama voters from 2012 switch to Trump in 2016? Not because they were all racists, surely? Because Obama simply didn't deliver the change they wanted, and because the Democrats nominated someone who represented the status quo, the Washington establishment.
Let's not blame the voters for being dissatisfied with a political establishment that has underperformed time and time again. That technological and economic change does harm to large numbers of people is not inevitable. It happens when political leaders do a poor job of protecting the people they are meant to serve.
68
@Mrsfenwick
Just as you acknowledge that Trump's actions as president are as establishment as they come. Who has benefited from Trump's presidency? The establishment. He rewards the CEOs of corporate America , the 1% and the lobbyists for the oil, prison, and charter school industries. And, on the other side, his extreme corruption, lying, and chaos creation, makes the establishment look good, even to a leftist like me.
8
@Mrsfenwick I don't subscribe to the idea that politicians can solve all the world's problems. If they could, that would have been accomplished millennia ago. At best they can somewhat influence the outcome.
I agree that voters can and should expect a very high skillset from the people running the country. However, that would require them to actually vote for that, rather than voting with their feelings. When voters hold themselves accountable for achieving that, I expect the quality of politicians will follow suit.
6
Totally wrong on “did not deliver the change they wanted.”
Many now want what ‘s impossible - the unicorns. And many now vote for those who promise the unicorns. In the majority, voters never analyzed or studied issues in detail. But facts were still sacred. Now facts are just part of the fabric of winning, interwoven with lies and propaganda.
3
You only need three words to understand the situation in Britain and the U.S.: "skyrocketing income inequality."
Unless both countries take drastic steps to re-balance their economies so that a far larger part of the public shares in the spoils (and even more importantly recognize that they're enjoying a greater share), the situation will continue to deteriorate.
211
@Scott Drastic steps:
Speaking for the US.
Pay for the campaigns of bona fide candidates with public money.
Pass the 28th Amendment that among other things repudiates Citizens United. (See American Promise)
Close the revolving door lobbyist system.
70
@Scott
To lash out against wealth inequality and un-earned wealth, we voted in Trump.
He failed us, so next way to lash out is thru Socialism.
When that fails, violent revolution is next on deck.
4
@MS Leave me out of that "we". I would only concede that socialist solutions are too easily corrupted by a government that is in the pocket of big corporate money. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with socialism (we are substantially a socialist country anyway) but the opportunities that government provides for lucrative skimming and rent seeking accommodations makes it unlikely that any productive legislation that might be deemed socialist could escape committee without a ton of pork.
10
Today we are to listen to every opinion and every very small group. The media amplifies the weird and the obtuse. The vast majority of Americans don't care about the thoughts and opinions of Rush, Ann Coulter or Alex Jones. But the media reports them as if they are significant. They are not. The media does not label clearly political lies as such. Why not? PBS Nightly News has an extended story and analysis of a black rapper and very small businessman that was murdered in LA. He is exceptionally unimportant to reality. Under educated people want more for themselves, making most everyone else the enemy. No thought about what or how, just not what is offered.
1
Seems like much of this is generated by a conservative "press", Murdoch-owned companies like Fox news. They can convince the voters that something new is "better", but there never are any specific plans of action behind that.
Brexit was an action without a plan. The same with trump's presidency here.
9
Well, ignorance makes it easy to knock things down.., but it makes it very difficult to know how to build..
6
All of this is a result of the greedy housing bubble, credit-default swaps and the invasion of Iraq—destroying that country and creating a continent-spreading ISIS - driving frightened migrants to the shores of every nation.
As the housing bubble burst and worldwide economies collapsed, migrants continued to swim to shores. And, in came the demagogues... explaining quite simply how the problem is the immigrants; the poor leeching off the govt; the govt itself, and a lack of security and the dilution of Each National Race must be met with a strong, righteous fist—into their faces. And borders must be closed, to deal with the chaos.
I wouldn't say blame George W, but I would say that at least SOME of this creation started right there, in his good ol' USA polic(ies).
4
I think it's safe to say that this new era is synonymous with populism, itself indicative of something else: the demise of conservatism as an ideology. Conservatism has essentially done a philosophical Reducto Ad Absurdum upon itself the past forty years with Reaganomics and Thatcherism. Whereas Reagan spoke about govt as the problem, Trump has taken it to the illogical conclusion of abandoning governance altogether; while the idea of society as an organic whole was once an integral part of conservative political philosophy, Margaret Thatcher undermined it with her infamous statement that" there is no such thing as society." Certainly, one could well argue that the notion of social responsibility has vanished from American society since 1980.
Present day populism is a reaction against Neoliberalism, itself often enshrined by conservatives the past four decades. This also coincides with the disappearance of an integral tenant of liberal democracy: equality of opportunity. In colloquial terms, this means the "American Dream" is dead, sacrificed in the name of globalization and benefits for select few in the developed world. Whether populists can proved viable alternatives to what's been lost is highly debatable, but they disclose how we're reached the end of an era. Sadly, politicians such as Macron refuse to acknowledge this.
5
Having spent a great deal of time in western Europe since 1971, before the European Union came into existence, the Euro, the population density in most places, the tourist as a necessary, but hated entity, the downturn with the economy, different than the one in America, for individual countries policies, etc. I know that too many differences existed in ideas about taxes, social programs, individual responsibility, immigration(the good and the bad), that the truth is that it hasn't gone well, for many of the countries. My husband's brother has lived in Holland for 48 years, being married to a Dutch woman, and it was more difficult financially for a number of years changing from the Dutch guilder to the Euro. Then, there is France, what can you say, having had a high unemployment rate for 5 decades, and the feeling that there isn't demonstration or a burning things down, mostly cars, but now buildings that can't change the place for the average person, not!!! Last, there is Switzerland, which operates just fine an outside entity, that has a diverse economy, private healthcare for all, on a sliding fee schedule, higher wages, but a high cost of living. We have spent about 2 years of our life in Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. We know it well, along with all of the diverse issues related to Immigration, terrorism, unemployment, the economies of each country, the fact that most still don't like the Germans because of World War 2.
3
It has become clear that the rich (people like Trump) have bristled against being told what to do for quite some time. They figured out that without a functioning government they can do as they please. They convinced a large portion of the masses that government works against their best interest by 'telling them what to do' and benefiting 'others' (or as Reagan, a progenitor of this movement, said: "government is the problem"). The solution proposed? Tear down government--unfortunately, in democracies, government is supposed to be by and for the people. Without it, the people who already have money will be the prime beneficiaries of a system that no longer keeps them in check. Without a functioning government, the people's wishes do not matter any longer.
17
@DD
THIS is the bottom line which is never adequately addressed in the NYTimes, probably because it is owned by wealth: the wealthy have been attacking any and all systems of governance since they last lost control in the New Deal era. THIS comment should be a “PICK”!
Add to the wealthy, religious fanatics who don’t believe in earth-bound governments that don’t serve to reinforce their absolute religious power over people’s lives, especially of women, minorities, and the LGBTQ communities. Once religion lost its own hard and fast hold on the power it’s enjoyed since Roman times, it was joined with the wealth under Reagan’s big tent in the 1980s to wage all-out war on democracy and the average human.
It’s all about wealth and religion. Until those two forces are brought to heel in service to humanity and not to bottomless greed and mythological sky creatures, nothing will change.
2
But it was Obama's refusal tear it all down that brought us Trump.
1
@GeoJaneiro
"tear it all down"?? What are you talking about?
4
@mike, the banks, I assume.
1
Voters are against the status quo in both countries because they vote for change and nothing happens. The political processes are corrupted and ineffective. The result is social dystopias - people feel that their lives are shallow and mostly pointless. We need political makeovers - in the UK, proportional representation, an English parliament, more devolution to the regions; in the US, effective controls on political donations (including a Constitutional amendment to abrogate Citizen's United and McCutcheon), disestablishment of the Electoral College and ranked choice voting in the states. When people wish to, and can, control most other aspects of their lives, the current political charades invite contempt.
7
Finally an essay that gets above the individual events and has taken the more difficult and higher road to actually analyze the situation as a signs-of-our times. Much to ponder here. Thanks.
4
Where to start? The insurgent leave campaign headed by privately educated rich white men - Johnson, Gove, Ree-Mogg, Farage etc. Underwritten and supported by rich white businessmen - Tice, Ratcliffe, Dyson, at least two of whom are now leaving the country. The rabid Brexit press with two of three Murdoch titles supporting Brexit, plus three others. Hysteria whipped up by editorials leaving reason at the door. Fantasy statements about the nirvana to come with little or more likely no evidence in support. Cynical manipulation of a vulnerable (thanks in large part to 10 years of Tory austerity and cruel welfare cuts) population. And of course whilst not all leavers are rascist all rascists voted leave.
12
@Michael since when were being white, and being rich pejorative? Gove and Farage are self-made. Ratcliffe and Dyson too.
When you talk of cynical manipulation of the vulnerable, are you referring to all of the 17 million who voted for Brexit? Or just the 1.2 million more who voted Brexit than remain?
Patronising and elitist nonsense.
Donald Trump and Brexit are both symptoms of a politica of anger and hate. For how many decades have we heard the more extremest conservative and leftest tell us the government is corrupt, incompetence, can't do anything right. Along come likable scam artist, con men and two bit demagogues who tell them everything is easy to fix, people who tell them lies , but comfortable lies. People who screech meaningless nonsense like MAGA or tell people they will unleash their countries and make them the new Singapore and openly lie about big savings. On the left we have the Chevez who tell people he will make them rich and squanders a nation's future, buying peoples love and loyalty. Democracy requires constant vigilance against the Trump's, Farrah's and Chavez's, the real bottom feeders of any Democracy.
5
Right Wing is Worldwide now; internet offering instant hate and fear. It is not Democracies who are tearing themselves up; it is the right wing that delights in fighting; hate and fear mongering. Fight back against the right wing or live under a pseudo Nazi world again. Ray Sipe
6
The social media age has brought together points of view and information from all over in an instant.
I see the tear it all down mentality springing directly from that as our earth heats and our global economy crumbles.
Being fed crumbs from on high while low and middle class populations do worse has reached a tipping point.
Unbridled capitalism is no longer working and more and more people see the writing on the wall.
4
I am on the left, and so what I about to write is hard for me. But even I can see that people in the west seem to want to talk about demographics.
It is part of the conversation the establishment has said it is uncouth to have. But it is not white supremacy. it is a sort of soft ethno-nationalism. But it is a shift that is not uncouth to talk about. If it happened anywhere in the world, it would have the same effect.
Politicians and pundits still want you to believe it is a racist idea. It is racial, but I would argue the establishment has to stop looking at it as racist is they want to stay in touch with real people.
11
@EC
This is persuasive. I think fairly few of those who argue for stricter immigration enforcement are racists, at least as that term was used in the 60s. Since then it has expanded greatly to include all sorts of things never before considered racist.
When you tell people they're racist and simply try to clobber them, guess what? They dig in and become alienated. There's a rational discussion about immigration that must take place, and it does not include insulting non sequitur like "no human being is illegal!"
6
@EC
This is not persuasive. Talk about non sequiturs. How is it that Trump supporters are "real" people? Go ahead, make the case that everyone else is comparatively unreal.
1
@Wine Country Dude . It is rather obvious that Donald Trump likes illegal
immigration since his business hires them. The fact is illegal immigration was allowed in the U.S. for the cheap labor.
This eventually led to Hispanics, Asians,
and Muslims to settle in 'White' communities and stoked irrational fear.
Donald Trump used this fear to get elected and stay in power. Do you really believe he or anyone else is going to change the 'face' of America? Immigration is what makes the US economy strong. People are People and deserve respect.
1
The problems of the “chosen, favoured western democracies”, that have ruled the roost and exploited the resources and labour (slave ?) of the third world, now lay exposed both by cheap T-shirts and migrant caravans! Today only the 1% truly benefit but the dam has to burst sometime and current venal politicians lack morals,ideas and courage to lead; especially in the NO age.
1
So sad, especially given that the UK is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Why ever did we put ourselves in this position? Why is someone who likes the idea of ethnic self-determination suddenly left with only nazis and quasi-nazis to turn to? It's all so recklessly irresponsible, such very poor leadership. They can't possibly expect the people's approval under such circumstances. They are provoking revolution.
4
About 10 or 15 years ago I ran into a study on friendships.
In a nutshell: Most friendships are based on "dislikes" rather than "likes".
Humans love to moan and groan.
They want someone to listen.
They want someone to agree.
If you agree, you are my friend.
Put another way: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
For that little gem of collusion every country is willing to undergo trillions in debt, war, bloodshed, ignorance and deprivation.
Yes, a few like Robert Mercer, Trump, MBS, the Greens and the Kochs have made out nicely and shall continue to do so, but for the rest of us.... all we get is the pleasure of moaning and groaning while the 1%er's rob us blind.
Well, that's my complaint for the day.
Gee, I feel so much better!
Thanks for listening....
Your Friend,
Rosa
4
I think the problem in the US can be traced back to 1988, the year the Rush Limbaugh show was syndicated. Since then a right wing media ecosystem has exploded. The people in the ecosystem are angry because they are out of reality. Who wouldn't be angry if you were fed lies for years aimed at making you angry. This anger is stirred up with lies about race, religion, taxes, immigration, etc. The lies are put out on websites, repeated in the media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart, and never are fact checked and are repeated over and over. Trump himself repeats the lies in tweets and then his tweets of these lies are picked up the media and repeated again. You can't have a good functioning democracy without truth and the right wing media has successfully prevented the truth from reaching a large percentage of Americans. For a large segment of the US population bias-confirming propaganda is preferred to the truth.
16
@Bob
You give Rush too much credit. And besides, the left has MSNBC which is just as dumb and misleading.
5
@Bob
‘Who wouldn't be angry if you were fed lies for years aimed at making you angry. This anger is stirred up with lies …’
I would add that during the referendum we were told any number of lies about how the foreigners were taking advantage of us and how it required just a little firmness to call their bluff (for an incomplete list see: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Davis#On_Brexit and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4K-LUEpcvc).
Since then the Brexiteers have turned round and withdrawn a lot of, if not all, the promises they made during the referendum. However having made all these promises about an effortless responsibility-free Brexit, instead of admitting they were wrong and making a dignified retreat, they are using the rhetoric of British patriotism with appeals to the Dunkirk Spirit and the Blitz Spirit and comparisons between Dominic Grieve and defeatist MP’s at the beginning of the Second World War.
I did not vote Leave but I feel as if a group of Christian evangelists had turned up at my door, fluently converted me to Methodism, and then before leaving invited me to meet them for worship at the local Mosque.
Brexit was originally an effortless piece of cake where the UK took back control from dishonest and spineless foreigners – now it is an ordeal by fire of the British spirit – why are people still expressing support for it – their original indignation was whipped up falsely but they are still angry.
5
@Greg
I agree that MSNBC is biased but it fact checks just like the NY Times. Truth matters on MSNBC. In that respect it is not like Fox News which puts out propaganda. Read the recent book Network Propaganda if you can't tell the difference between the left wing media which follows standard journalistic practices and the right wing media that puts out propaganda and ignores traditional journalist standards.
2
The people no longer trust the ruling class, and why should we? They lie to us about everything, deliberately creating complex policies to hid their true purposes. Like that Jonathan Gruber who can right out and said the American people were too stupid to understand the virtues Obamacare, and therefore had to be lied to.
Until we get some new leaders who tell the truth, the best thing is to tear it all down.
3
@Greg
Please be careful what you wish for - your wish may be granted and then you could find that societal collapse really is no solution at all.
11
@Quiet Waiting
I don't think you are hearing.
People are doing it THAT tough.
@Greg So Jonathan Gruber made a mistake. In the end, does that really matter? If anything, it's the Republican ruling class that lies more and has less interest in the average person than the Democratic ruling class which is only "not as bad." But you're picking and choose which side to support - why would you go on the side of the people who are part of the ruling class?
I've heard your above argument as a rationale for voting for Trump. Trump may not be a part of coastal elite class but he is very much a product of that class
2
Sober reflection upon the social agreement that allows democracy is based upon a fundamental trust in all people who are part of the democracy. Majority rule is based upon the understanding that the majority are not trying to suppress or exploit the government against the will and interests of the minority. The majority is not acting as a tyranny. That is the problem which this all reflects, a bunch of minorities who feel exploited in democratic systems.
Partially it reflects the relative shifting of how wealth and power have been redistributed into greater inequities due to changing economic and political dynamics that are beyond the control of states and part of it is the intransigence of the privileged in being willing to reduce the inequities as has been done many times in the past to resolve this very problem. The attitude amongst conservatives since Reagan and Thatcher has been to treat the less affluent as underserving because they have not achieved wealth and power. To a large extent they have prevented governments from heading off the inequities and discontent with their superior attitudes.
4
The trouble in the UK is that the electorate's "already-tenuous faith in their democracy" is actually a faith in a consultative referendum that was illegally (against statute) claimed to be a decision making one by a foolish prime minister. It is abuse of the Parliamentary system by political leaders (specially David Cameron & Theresa May) that has brought democracy into disrepute there. Populism is perhaps in part a reaction to this type of autocratic abuse, in Europe if not in the US. But the basic thesis of this article stands. Perhaps the inherently adversarial nature of party politics, and the refusal of electorates in the "west" to accommodate themselves to the relative decline of their nations' standing in the world are driving factors. Perhaps this is what decline on the way to fall looks like. Perhaps its name is decadence.
4
Democracy’s New Era of Tear-It-All-Down
Isn't it *really* a "new era" of utter demagoguery (relying on lie after lie, often unflagged by traditional news sources but flogged as true on social media), jaw-dropping corruption, and what's effectively a war against real, functioning democracy waged by uber-rich special interests and their mouthpieces, like NewsCorp, Fox and cyber trolls?
3
If intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms came to earth they would immediately understand humans are stupid, ludicrous, petty, vile, corrupt, grotesque little creatures worthy of practically nothing. Humans can create great things; language, architecture, music, literature, artwork, technology, medicine, etc. But for some reason we cannot govern ourselves for the better or truly care about our fellow human beings more than ourselves. We have never learned from history and continue to make the same mistakes. You can debate this premise all you want. But tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow you will witness the same terrible things happening with no solution or end in sight.
And if those intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms came to earth what would they do? They would laugh uncontrollably, and either leave quickly or destroy the earth so as not to spread the mess that are humans throughout the universe.
2
@Gaston Corteau That assumes they are better than humans and yes, if they achieve that level of mastery over space and time, they perhaps are but it's unclear whether it's even possible for highly intelligent species to co-exist in very large numbers in an enlightened manner. We're testing that very thesis now with our intelligence but who's to say that all intelligence won't lead to the same outcome?
A glimmer of hope is that there are people who can do this, and we've made many attempts to accomplish this. There are also forces against this for their own reasons which I can never understand. So which side is stronger? And each side things they are in the right.
Brexit is an impulsive decision based on incorrect or even false facts campaign.
I wonder how many supporters are now realizing that their mistake is paving the road to an uphill future.
7
@Armando
This is the reason so many Brexiters want to get us all out of the EU door while making patriotic music before we all wake up.
I appear to have returned to being censored by the NYT. Not sure why, but it does make it a waste of time to spend any effort to respond in this section.
Nonetheless, I strongly recommend Anthony Lane's humorous take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letter-from-the-uk/waiting-for-brexit
His final hypothetical result runs thusly.
"Riots in France will topple the government of Emmanuel Macron, creating a legislative vacuum, inciting civil strife, and causing a surge in support for the National Front. The Italian economy will collapse, and no action by the European Central Bank will be able to assist. The Euro will plummet. Angela Merkel will take a hike. And, suddenly, the woes of the United Kingdom won’t seem like such a big deal—or such a big no deal—after all. Give the whole thing a couple of years, in short, and you can forget all about it. Brexit? What Brexit?"
3
Nihilism can only exist in well ordered and peaceful societies in which the people are so inhibited that they just are not free to be themselves and blame their societies instead of themselves. It's identical to what drives adolescents into really dangerous behaviors from fast driving of alcohol that cause poisoning to drag racing on city streets. The limbic system rules and the reasonable mind evaporates.
The Brexit vote was about as stupid as people can be when they have no concern for the consequences. Well, here are the consequences, a realization that the U.K. and the E.U. are entangled with each other very extensively and a separation would not be simple. As a gesture of displeasure with the status quo it was as stupid as leaping from a higher place onto a very hard place and expecting to land lightly and without harm.
2
None of us should underestimate the power of the disparate forces who nevertheless all profit at the same time by actively exacerbating an already divisive social milieu: Murdoch’s hateful rags and networks make mountains of money promoting bigotry and rage, Putin’s global skullduggery undermines public discourse itself with weaponized disinformation campaigns, which delights ALL enemies of democratic norms & weakens ALL Western countries, and the general chaos is thoroughly enjoyed by thousands of ‘globally homeless’ jet-setting billionaires who are thrilled to keep bothersome topics like justice, equity, fairness and inclusion all far down on the docket. We are set upon by a plague of human locusts, and our failure to recognize it as an attack is our biggest failing: wasn’t it Pynchon who said that ‘when they’ve got you asking the wrong questions they don’t need to worry about your answers’?
3
@Jim Spencer Too many humans are taken in by the acting role they're in rather than being true to themselves and finding self-actualisation. All these people you mention interested in wealth and power - I wonder why. I only hope they are happy/content.
So could Brexit's silver lining be that Britain emerges with some new, more beneficial, political world order? Somehow democracy can and does survive?!
I sure hope so. Very sad to observe how this once majestic island nation has reduced itself to such a narrow-minded mixed up place.
1
Years ago, the eminent civil war historian, David Donald, wrote an essay in a collection called "Why the North Won the Civil War." The essay was entitled "Died of Democracy". It argued that the power of the Confederacy was sapped by an excess of democracy: there were too many veto points by which effective policies could be cancelled. In the case of Britain, today, there seems to be little party discipline. The Whips are ineffective and each MP has more or less the same influence.
1
Building is hard; maintaining is even harder. That is because everyone loves something new. Taking care of that new thing is much less dramatic. It is similarly easier to tear down, a friendship, a marriage, a road or a society than it is to continuously build for a better life. Who does not complain about something (or many things)?
Each and everyone of us must look into ourselves, and concentrate on "building." It is not the next person's job; it is our own. We all struggle throughout life for many reasons. We must all find our own path forward, and hopefully, carry society along with us.
Otherwise, democracy is doomed.
9
I agree with most of the analysis of this article. However, it leaves out one important element. The role of the 1% in dictating the government's agenda - everywhere.
The feeling of loss of control due to a failure of economies to deliver rising prosperity since 2008 is due to the fact that despite the prosperity that has ocurred since 2008, not a bit of it has trickled down, not one bit.
And another point - the elites of Western countries, due to their worship of the god of "Free Trade" have readily and easily opened their economies to the competition of Asia without obtaining anything in return. Why?
Both points I make above should send a message to the elites of political parties in all Western economies. Ignore the needs of the majority of your citizens at your own peril and you will get what we have now, the politics of "No", and the demagogues we see emerging everywhere.
13
@John McGlynn I think free trade is a good thing, but it does need to be free on all sides and not to benefit a select few who are already wealthy.
I think that closing the Mexican border will destabilize the US as profoundly as a hard Brexit will destabilize the UK.
It is not lost on me that these events may be happening at the same time over these next few weeks and for the same reason; this dismantling is done by one’s own governmental paralysis in each situation.
I did not see the Mexican border closing threat coming in any way and yet, here we are. It is an existential threat coming at a very fast pace with no precedent.
Both countries will now be considered trigger-happy, unreliable and untrustworthy flakes for years if not decades when so much so for long went into keeping the decisions of each respective country stable and predictable for their global partners and foes alike.
I think the root cause is the same; meddlers who manipulate vulnerable, unhappy, angry, exploitable citizens on social media. Those meddlers are not friends of the US nor the UK nor democracy in general.
Social media is an extremely available and powerful propaganda device. Those best practiced at propaganda are those most apt to excel at delivering their objectives by exploiting one misguided citizen at a time.
Brexit nor the border closing feels right. By contrast, it feels forced. We have become our own singular, atomized Manchurian candidates.
Both situations involve borders between established, peaceful partners key to each enormous trade bloc. Coincidence? There are winners in these outcomes; and it’s not US nor UK.
5
People seem to lack meaning and purpose to their lives. Everything seems too difficult or hard to do, except the talking. We have become Babbitts: endlessly talking about doing something, lamenting the difficulties in doing it, getting angry and resentful at the hardship.
We hate the people who do do something and then spend our time trying to take them down. We pick at them, priding ourselves on our perception and patting ourselves on the back for finding their ‘failings.’
We think something magical, like Brexit, will change our lives, fix our problems and relieve the boredom of doing nothing.
5
@Morgan Indeed, democracy is messy and takes actual effort -- it can never be a trivial pursuit. Alas, we have arrived at a place where the success of our democracies has led to a burgeoning middle class and widespread prosperity (let's not forget the uber elites who actually possess 99% of said prosperity), but we have become lazy, mentally lazy, forgetful, and too delicate to earnestly dig into the long and grinding solutions that are needed to put democracies back on track.
The twilight of Rome is looking more and more familiar.
2
Mr. Smith was right after all.
40 years of neoliberal policies (globalization, deunioniziation, tax cuts, privatization, mass influx of cheap labor, etc.) that serve the rich at the expense of everyone else and sold to the public, by all mainstream parties and institutions, with lies, has produced the present backlash where the public no longer believes or trusts the experts or the authorities to look out for them, and no longer knows who to believe or trust and so will latch on to any strongman who appeals to their worst instincts. Interesting time ahead.
12
@walkman
As per the old Chinese curse.
My take on the Brexit mess and the rise of populism is simpler than most. I feel that over forty years of the rich getting an obscenely large and ever-increasing slice of the pie has been the corrosive influence that has led us to where we are now.
In the UK, the USA and Europe the elites have gotten way too greedy and like most greedy people, they can never have their fill of power and money. They are snout-deep in the trough of international business and finance and couldn't care less about how it looks to the peons outside their gilded bubbles.
It was reported that the love-fest for the wealthy in Davos included the arrival of over 1,900 private airplanes. This is exactly how revolutions happen. "Let them eat cake" Marie Antoinette is reported to have said. That sounds a bit like some of our own rulers' utterances lately.
The Gilet Jaunes protests in France should be the wake up call we need. They have no core beliefs, they're just really, really angry and really, really angry people lash out.
Sadly, the USA is being led by a man whose instincts are primal and whose thoughts are ephemeral. The USA cannot offer a fix for this problem with its current leadership. Pity.
8
We are a single species and we continue to evolve together, some in the lead, many far behind. It is the influence of the internet and technology. Everything is being disrupted. And it is easy to blame them because they are amoral and unethical and so are their inventions. The internet has brought too much information to too many people, and, just like commercials on television, causes everyone to want to "upscale" their "lifestyle." Meanwhile, the great leaders who established concrete principles of society and civilization have nearly all vanished. No one seems able to take up the torch. Liberalism leads by reaction and vague clichés. Conservatives lead with vile greed for power and reactionary thinking. Moderation is ignored. We are being invaded by Vandals and Goths once again. Our shining glory of the last (two) centuries is fading all too quickly. Money consumes everything. The wealthy lead only in greed and egotism. At least Britain has the example of the Royal Family. The USA has none. Only Ignobles. While movie stars have earned their fame, we are in a sorry state when they are the ones most listened to.
6
At the bottom of this is the increasing inequality that followed globalization. Decently paid workers saw their jobs disappear , the capital that moved their factories to low wage countries profited. But not the consumer. The wage differential was largely pocket by the manufacturer.
How do you think Apple got to sit on $ 123 Billion on cash ?
That could only go so long before the left behind (in France "La France périphérique" ) had enough
Paul Volcker recently nailed it
"He wondered how many lectures and presentations he had sat through with economists “telling us open markets are wonderful, everybody benefits from open markets.”
Eventually, Mr. Volcker said, someone in those lectures would always ask, “What about that poor manufacturer in my town?” But that concern was dismissed too easily, with talk of worker retraining or some other solution far easier said than done."
NY Times Oct. 23, 2018
The mess will continue until these economists, who include the Times Paul Krugman, come up with an answer to that can be implemented.
7
As usual, a Leftist NYT makes critical mistakes. Let me illustrate!
"Republicans ran for three consecutive elections on opposition to Obamacare. But after taking the White House and both houses of Congress, the party failed to unite around any plan to replace it."
The write forgets to mention the reason they didn't even try!
That is, TRADITION, and the unwillingness of the Senate Majority leader to "nuke" it. By "it" I mean, end the filibuster entirely. Without that, there could be no significant change to Obamacare. Also "of course" if the Democrats get control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they will then do exactly that: end the filibuster entirely.
Also: " “This, of course, is democratizing. But it is also destabilizing,” Mr. Levitsky said. Self-interested establishments often blocked popular ideas and minority groups. "
Currently the Democrats are getting very very close to opposing majority groups! They are already, very clearly, putting the loudly shouted wants of minorities above the
desires of vastly larger coalition groups.
3
@Doug McDonald
Maybe Republicans didn't get rid of Obamacare when they were in control because they know is it very popular with voters - even with Republicans. But they had to pretend to oppose it to satisfy their extreme base - the ones who shout the loudest. They are afraid to contradict Fox and Limbaugh.
Currently, we have a president who was elected by the minority and whose agenda is completely out of step with the wants of the majority.
We have a Republican controlled Senate that does not embrace or support the wants of the majority. This is because every state gets 2 senators regardless of their population. So the more populous states are underrepresented and we end up with minority rule.
2
Since the British armed forces pledge allegiance to the Queen she should declare Britain a Republic and dismiss this ramshackle parliament.
1
@SridharC um... "Republic'? Not a word Her Maj is likely to want to utter...
But yes, it's Her Majesty's Government and I'm inclined to agree with you. She can't do a worse job than Theresa. And I haven't checked, but I'm sure her approval ratings are higher than any UK politicians'.
Interestingly, there's been much talk lately of this being like 1641, when we were about to embark on the 20 year Interregnum. Time for another?...
1
@AT
You mean 1649.
@Lawrence in Buckinghamshire the British first started in 1649 indeed!
Probably. It reflects the realization that democracies in the west have now been thoroughly corrupted by wealthier citizens.
They have been so corrupted, that they’re unwilling and intolerant of the notion that all should benefit at least to some extent from the success that’s been realized the last few decades for the stability of democracy.
It’s a result of the loss of the belief that citizens are connected to one another. The suscessful have fully embraced the notion that the unsuccessful are undeserving, “takers,” as a Romney put it.
Under such an attitude, what else is to be expected? So, democracies are being corroded. Education is for sale to the highest bidder, so citizens don’t learn and understand what makes them citizens. They’re only learning that it’s the bottom end that is involved in citizenship. The results are not surprising. It’s the logical result of creating consumers instead of citizens! So, instead of pointing citizens to the real problem, their consumer leaders point them to foreigners! Because they wish to avoid facing the real problem! It’s the immigrants taking the jobs. The greed has gotten so huge that the citizens with the power have gotten blind to the plight of their fellow citizenry. They feel nothing for them and don’t care. At least that’s the way I kind of see it.
4
This analysis is faulty, largely for conflating unrelated developments. For example, the democratic shift to primaries from party boss control in the 1970s is in no way connected to the rise of outsider parties in Europe. And the notion that today's populism dates to the civil right movement of the 1960s is absurdly ahistorical.
But the glaring omission is the rise of rightwing media (e.g., Murdoch and FoxNews), followed by social media disinformation campaigns. Years and years of falsehood. That's why so many Brits actually believed Boris Johnson's bus lie that the EU was "stealing" 350 million pounds a week from "merry old England."
5
The truth is that there was never any social-liberal consensus among the population. The consensus was a elite-media-politician creation to keep any dissent out.
As soon as alternative narratives could reach audiences via technology change (talk radio on thousand-station nationwide networks, cable news and social media), the cat got out of the bag.
Now, the elites are desperate trying to put the cat back in the back. Facebook alone employs 28,000 full time censors (and growing), focused entirely on removing dissenting voices from its platform. All because of liberal-social-Democrat political pressure.
Liberal-social-Democrats can't stand dissent. Now even the NYT is writing panicked columns like this one - instilling fear on dissent and any alternative narrative that is not liberal-social-Democrat.
Good luck with that.
2
Western Democracy, the 1-person 1-vote variety, is an ongoing comedy of blunders. The consequence is not so comical to the people living there.
Max Fisher never mentioned China in this article. I expected an astute reporter like him to be familiar with Fudan University's professor Zhang Weiwei, a political scientist. If not, watch his talk at Berlin's Schiller Institute in 2017: "The China Model and its Implications" on YouTube.
Professor Zhang made the case that China also practice Democracy, but ridicule treating voting as the only element. The way China select people for high office is more like how multinational corporations promote top executives: they have to be educated, well tested with proven track record.
To those pundits who for years yearn for China to adopt Western style democracy, it's not gonna happen because Chinese leaders have to be idiots to follow suit. Lucky to the average Chinese citizens, Brexit & Trump are excellent textbook examples for China to never copy such a form of government.
Western democracy is so entrenched and resistant to change that its inherent problems will continue to fester. To the eyes of Chinese leaders, not such a bad thing.
4
@Observer You are a Chinese nationalist, it seems. May I ask, why do multinational corporations promote almost only top executives that are white men? Are there no other people that are educated, well tested and with proven track record?
How can you make sure that the Chinese elites will not work in the same way, and just promote their own? Excluding talent that is unlike themselves?
1
Excellent piece and right on target. BREXIT and Trump supporters will argue vehemently that they are trying to build new and more affluent societies, it doesn't take much to see through that facade.
The disdain of "others", feelings of disempowerment, racism, distrust of education and talking heads that don't appeal to them, the desperate seeking of demagogues who will save them all add up to a tear it all down state of mind,
The sad thing is that there's really no simple panacea to solve their problems and as they get their vengeance they fail to see how less well off they will be.
Globalization certainly has been largely at the root of this movement and now it's time to ensure that globalization doesn't tear down those countries where inequality and loss of jobs were not properly addressed,
BREXIT will make the UK a less powerful center of finance and industry and is already causing an exit of banks and manufacturers who see it as pointless to stay,
In the US, the rich and the corporations are manipulating the naive angry middle class white voters into thinking they will save them, but it's obvious that was never the plan,
3
Congress should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Facebook is being pressured to stop spreading hate and disinformation. Corporations that receive broadcast licenses should be accountable for their content also.
For every Fox and Friends type of program, Fox News should be required to provide another program that presents the other viewpoints and calls out the misinformation and outright lies.
3
Decades of both the Labour and Conservative parties' blaming the EU for declining living standards led to Brexit, a predictable result.
And decades of both the Labour and Conservative parties' supporting the same monetary and fiscal policies led them to create hot-button issues to differentiate themselves, again, with predictable results.
1
The parties may have provided stability, but they both became dependent on money from corporations and the wealthy, so their primary allegiance shifted toward economic and tax policies that benefit them. Ordinary people have seen their standard of living slide. The new progressive candidates are willing to call out this favoritism and push for policies that benefit everyone. “Centrist” candidates still make the familiar promises they never actually delivered on. I’m encouraged to see people from all sides listening to voices like Sanders, Warren, and Buttiliege; if they accomplish meaningful change we can all calm down and get to work rebuilding our frazzled nation.
2
I am not sure that this is a "new era" of tearing down democracy when we had the turbulent 60's with demonstrations about civil rights, colonialism, war protests, etc., and a large number of the developing countries were given autonomy from colonial rulers. This is more like a continuation of the crisis brought about by many of the same forceful ideas that caused the turbulence back then, with the reactionary response gaining prominence today. William F. Buckley wrote about rapid change and a growing backlash. What do you think Barry Goldwater meant when he said at the 1964 Rep. Convention that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation is no virtue?"
The reason everyone seems not to notice is that the trend toward populism is a direct result of the neoliberalism that has embraced the country for the past two decades in particular. This is just the pendulum swinging the other way.
1
"Long the basis of modern democracy, in which establishments managed popular will and sought a common good,"
Well that's the problem in a nutshell: governments stopped seeking what was good for the majority - the "common good". After decades of the wealthy and powerful interests dropping all pretense of sharing the benefits of capitalism, and simply following their code of greed, the 99% is finally saying "Enough!".
Governments, and those who control them, were given ample opportunity to change things, to moderate the transfer of wealth upwards, but didn't. Even after the Crash of '08, when it was clear that those entrusted with the "common good" had sold them out, those in charge said "We're sorry, but we can only bail out the 'too big to fail' companies, and can't really do much to help with the foreclosures, bankruptcies, and lost pensions and savings for everyone else". And on top of that, none of the perpetrators of this disaster went to prison or lost the fortunes they made! Why are so many "smart people" still confused about why there's such a strong sentiment to tear down the Status Quo?
When the Social Contract between those who govern and those who are governed is breached - as it has been for decades - the people stop trusting those in charge, and from there it's a short step to upheaval. We are seeing the early stages of this happening right now, and unless those in power, both elected and behind the scenes, don't change, change will be forced upon them.
9
The "tear-it-all-down" voters don't seem to understand that their approach paradoxically makes the problems they are angry about worse. Thus they are forcing a plan-less Brexit that will result in great economic cost to England. Similarly, we now have an Administration in the U.S. that is exposing us to the consequences of unprecedented incompetence and corruption. All because many voters believed the older establishment was corrupt and incompetent. Perhaps they need to pay up and feel more pain in order to learn anything, like thinking things through or being reasonable.
9
@wyleecoyoteus Your analysis is based on a crucial fallacy.
That "tear it all down" will result in more hardship.
The entrenchment of globalist politics and pro migration, "no human is bad" ideologies are what lead to impoverishment. Not more freedom.
It’s official: the only thing that will solve the Brexit problem is a citizen pilgrimage to Lourdes,in the beautiful foothills of the Pyrenees, for enlightenment.....and perhaps, a miracle.
Income inequality is at the root of all of this. And it's no secret that people 'give up' when they sense the game is rigged against them. They don't expect different results when they vote for chaos, they're expressing outrage.
3
These tendencies can be seen all over, but they are definitely worse in the UK and the USA.
In both countries there is a division into districts, and within a district the winner takes all. That inevitable pits only two parties against each other, dividing the population into two maximally opposed groups. Not, say, into five groups, who will each have at least several points in other political parties that they can agree with.
On top of this, those two parties have no reason to be polite and co-operative to each other as they will never have to form a coalition government together. On the European continent on the other hand, there is representative vote and coalition governments, which softens the antagonism in politicians and the population.
Finally: The English gutter press. There is hardly a word low enough to describe it. (Except maybe 'Fox'.)
My two cents?
1 Research has shown that in the Netherlands economic growth does not do to the workers anymore, just as in the USA and that breeds bitterness and support for populists. So, rebuild trade unions. No-one is going to give you anything if you are not organized.
2 Have laws that ensure some quality in news media. At least 30% of budget should go to research for articles or TV documentaries for instance, so there will not be just spouting of unproven blather.
3 Do not use a system with winner takes all districts, but a representative system where people are forced to compromise in coalition governments.
14
A better solution is to split UK into pro- and anti-Brexit states.
I will be happy!
So, while its all being torn down, any lucid thoughts on what replaces it?
3
@Beach dog Someone like Trump, perhaps.
1
So what kind of leader needs to emerge in the next election who has a chance of bridging the partisan divide that exists here? And who will possess the tools to pull from both sides and can Americans listen? Will our legislators stop supporting party lines when the best answer for our country is to do otherwise? This opinion is correct in describing the problem but fails in it’s assessment of the causes.
1
Since the 60s the role of marketing has strongly increased in democracies, and especially in the US. It used to be that people were chosen that represented the voters, but now marketing only yields the promises to be made. One part of the electorate cares about abortion, another about the family (and does not like LGBTs), still another part cares about his job (and favors restriction on immigration), etc. So many promises are made during the election, and are shelved afterwards. As a result, people are continuously taken in, and subconsciously they are aware of it.
Neoliberalism also does not help. Everyone is supposed to be in a continuous Darwinian struggle and therefore stressed.
The media also do not help. All institutions and groups are continuously ridiculed: faults of a system are accentuated, but what functions well is ignored. This applies especially to Brexit. Trump refers to the dark state, but implicitly refers to himself: Fox, talk radio, some billionaires.
The role of Russia is dubious. One would expect that with all the gigantic profits it makes from exploiting Russia and which it invests in the West, the Russian elite would be content with living the life of the rich in the West, just as the Russian nobles did in the 19th century and the Middle East oil magnates still do. But Putin seems unable to change his ways and may still orchestrate much mayhem. But for what purpose? Because Russia has always been doing it?
2
40 years of cutting taxes has led to this.
5
It's easy to be opposed to things, to wallow in one's opposition, a bit tougher to stick your neck out and say what you're for and how you propose to get there.
9
The nihilism of many voters and especially non-voters is partially caused and strongly amplified by the self-centered behavior of many of the elected (supposed) leaders. Cynical politicians who put their own aspirations above principles (examples include Boris Johnson in the UK and Mitch McConnell stateside) create and promote cynical nihilism by the citizenry.
5
Russian propagandists and their cooperation with far right anti-immigration fellow travelers were surprisingly effective. For a couple of years. Seems like people are finally waking up to the real threat.
1
It's a cliche by now but my response to the turmoil among democracies is - the terrorists have won. I don't mean just those who fly airplanes into buildings, nor those who fall strictly into the definition found in the dictionary - those folks
have already sown the seeds of fear and doubt, setting off-the-hook political knee-jerking that has unhinged the reactionary element to a violent degree. No, I mean those whose sole purpose is to disrupt to the point of paralysis all that democracy has stood for - whether by election interference, by punitive economic policies, by, protectionist trade rules, by irrational emigration restrictions, by weaponizing the Internet, by hyperbolic media that feeds a populace starved of reason or rationality. Nothing new in any of these, really. Populism was never a coherent philosophy but it's just the tool to chip away at the plinth on which our greatest ideals stand. It's the central plot in the human comedy.
5
So if the masses vote for group suicide, then the already elected leaders must indulge the mob? Okay I can see the end of civilization approaching with this unwashed mob rule combined with climate change. Of course, the demise will be slightly different in each democracy with varying speeds. Meanwhile, the authoritarians (China and Russia) will watch and try to manage (strong-arm) their own nation's destruction.
5
To have the politics of grievance be the guiding force for populism is a tragedy. An uninformed and gullible electorate is thereby able to bend the direction and governance of an otherwise stable democracy, as has happened in Britain. The arrogantly rash decision to make the vote a referendum with a binding 50% majority rule has condemned the British to a morass of enormous economic chaos and moral damage. Well meaning citizens cannot so much as discuss the issue now without recriminations. This is an exemplary argument for the benefits of representative, as opposed to direct, democracy. Representative government has it's flaws but it's effectiveness is not predicated on a one time vote. It is sad that Parliament is deadlocked but it is not solely to blame here for the underlying problem. The deceptive salesmanship of malcontents and the haughty approach by previous leadership are equally responsible for this harvest of despair.
3
There are a lot of parallels between the UK and the US.
The opposition to Brexit, with their never ending “no” votes, reminds me of the “resistance” here in the US.
The Labour Party’s continued opposition against PM May reminds me of the Democratic opposition to Trump.
The DUIP’s special interest opposition to the “backstop” plan reminds me of the Tea Party/Democratic Socialist hijacking of our political process.
And the initial Brexit referendum shows the danger of a direct democracy, which is the exact reason we have an Electoral College.
Mob rule caused the downfall of the Roman Republic, gave the UK Brexit, and is now threatening both the US Supreme Court (calls for packing the court) and the Electoral College (replacing it with the popular vote).
Perhaps it’s time to take a step back and appreciate the job the Founding Fathers did in writing the Constitution. While not perfect, our form of government is the best around.
6
@LegalEagle-
Perhaps our democracy is still the best around, but it is the best around only when it is adhered to by the politicians entrusted to execute it. And they’re not doing a very good job on either side of the aisle these days.
3
@Patrick Sewall--thank you for recognizing that it is on both sides of the aisle. Most of my liberal dem friends would say it's only on the Republican side. But I always say, it takes 2 to tango.
I doubt the shambolic governments in the UK and the US will defend the liberal democracy that the Allies thought they secured in 1945. But that liberal democracy was based on representative democracy, not direct democracy, as brought to the UK by former Prime Minister Cameron with a vote on Brexit.
Crony capitalism has played a large part in entrenching economic inequality, particularly in the US, but it is widespread now and has become apparent even in China.
Institutional nihilism should surprise no one. The representatives we elect must accept and discharge their responsibilities for governing, not look for some autocratic potentate to hide behind or the judiciary to resolve their failure to legislate.
Legislatures can enact laws that alleviate inequality if only the legislators have the will to do so. Respect for institutions will return only when legislators earn the respect of their constituents, whether we have more or less populism and nihilism.
6
We are not confused. We know what we want. We want good schools, health care for ALL, a clean environment for the people in the future, libraries that are open, and on and on.
We all know what is on that list but our ‘leaders’ serve the rich and powerful, not us. So our needs get defunded, ignored, criminalized, you name it.
The rich get what they want because they PAY for it now and collect on it later.
But someone has to pay the price.
We are not the problem. The problem is a system in place that caters to the needs of the rich, at OUR expense.
26
It isn't a "tear-it-all-down". It is the people asking for real leaders who represent them, not corporations and the elite. It is people asking for real leadership based on what is right for generations to come, not for the current generation to cash out and load debt onto future generations. It is about the massive amount of debt this generation and previous generations have already dumped on the current and coming generations which struggles just to pay the interest on that mountain of debt.
London wanted to stay, the English countryside did not because they don't see the benefits of being in the EU being shared and spread throughout the land. They see the costs of living increasing but not the job opportunities or wages.
Unfortunately, leaving the EU will not help the situation and in fact will hurt any chance of jobs and wage improvements happening, but this isn't "burning it all down" this is not having a place at the negotiating table back in 2016 when the referendum was held and I see no change since then.
This is a cautionary tale to all governments around the world who have broken the social contract with the people. The UK government failed to come up with a solution to spread the benefits of trade throughout the country and allowed it to remain consolidated within a few hundred square miles. The UK failed to invest in the growth outside London and Brexit is the result.
9
@James Wallis Martin The costs of living increasing has nothing to do with the EU. It is years of conservative austerity kicking in, and their focus on London to try to lead us out of recession. Sadly with leaving the EU there is likely to be an even bigger pinch.
And our country is not lead by 'corporations and the elite'. It is such an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
1
@Tom Porter I agree the increase of the cost of living has nothing to do with the EU, but it is what the UKIP and others wanting to leave argued and yes, leaving the EU is chopping off their nose to spite their face.
However, to say the Parliament is immune to the needs of the City over their own community is being naive.
Anarchy reinvented itself into nationalism...or vice versa!
4
Brexit is a British mess with a distinct element of deep resentment for a woman being the PM. To make it a symbol of democracy in chaos around the world is not reasonable.
1
Naw. Most people on the right loved Thatcher. I genuinely think gender isn't much of a part of this.
8
@Khaganadh Sommu
There may be some people who don't like Theresa May as PM because she is a woman.
But I can tell you that as far as reasons for disliking her go, that would be almost last on the list.
Very simply, her performance as PM has been dire.
6
H'mmm- in the US only one side has been fighting- The Rich/Right Axis. What the author describes as "...negative partisanship..." is the Rest of Us fighting back.
6
@Lefthalfbach. What no sense, Your idea of fighting back is actually resistance.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, the elephant in the room is the European Union's embrace of neolberalism during the last four-plus decades (something that also happened in the U.S.).
By now it should be obvious that neoliberalism (i.e., "market fundamentalism" consisting of massive deregulation, privatization, and financialization of increasing segments of the economy AND the public sector) is a total failure as a socioeconomic system.
This failure (which again, was 40-plus years in the making) has done great damage to the working- and middle-class. This situation (increased economic insecurity, income inequality, "austerity" measures, total impunity for criminal banksters, etc.) set the stage for a working-class (populist) backlash; a situation that historically has included xenophobic, fascist segments of society.
Until and unless this issue of the failure of neoliberalism is properly addressed, yes, many would seem to prefer to "tear-it-all-down."
27
@Luis Mendoza
Please explain your alternative to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is rooted and based upon the foundations of the Enlightenment. Although not perfect, it has resulted in the greatest development/benefits to mankind in the history of human existence.
@Kim Must one have a shining alternative to neoliberalism in order to point out its faults, which Luis Mendoza has done in a clear manner?
Surely you see that the well being of many people and institutions have been sacrificed as a result of "the greatest development/benefits to mankind in the history of human existence."
Whatever good comes from neoliberalism does not justify the harm it has caused to millions.
3
@Luis Mendoza
How on earth can you call "massive deregulation, privatization, and financialization of increasing segments of the economy AND the public sector" anything akin to "neo-liberalism"? That's a misuse of the term.
Those qualities are textbook conservative, starve-the-beast (i.e. debilitate the government) policies. It's important to have these discussions, but the abuse or the perversion of the English language as a form of subterfuge —e.g. any cause with the word "freedom" attached to it— most certainly does *not* advance the debate.
3
Someday in the far far future we will discover we all live in/on the same place.
4
"The 2008 financial crisis, along with skyrocketing income inequality, have stalled wages and social mobility across the West." Wrong. It was not the crisis, but the response to the crisis. Systematic inequality, low wages, social immobility are the result of austerity policies, which were harsher in the UK and the EU then in the US. These results were predicted at the time and in some cases, embraced. It isn't some irrational response to difficult times -- it is a response to a system, and specific individuals who personified that system, that turned on its citizens with a brutal and forceful policy which put corporate profit over human need (we had to "save the banks" first and foremost -- ask Obama or Cameron, even today they will say the same thing). So will the establishment press. That's one reason for the distrust. Because prior to Trump, the establishment put out lie after lie after lie. The only difference is they lied about policy, decisions they made and resources they controlled, which actually affect peoples' lives. No one cares about how much money Trump has or doesn't have. No one cares how boorish and puerile an individual he is. We care about the shafting we got, and continue to get.
4
Us and them, goodies and baddies, friends and foes, people don't seem to be willing to try and understand another's opinion and point of view. Tolerance of a different opinion has disappeared. Until people stop actually enjoying being angry, fighting and tribal nothing will change.
3
We have the mob that Alexander Hamilton and the anti Federalists fretted over and it is being abetted by the wealthy around the world. They fund the "divide and conquer' politics that keeps us little folks at each others throats while the plutocrats steal everything they can get their hands on. The wealthy are political vandals.
17
When the U.S. has the most corrupt political system in the industrialized world and Brits have been subject to the same neo-liberal program, what did we expect?
Endless obedience? General celebration? Neo-liberals forever?
Corrupt, lying and incompetent leadership is unlikely to inspire trust and love.
And this is news?
4
At least part of this is a mirage: It's not that everyone is opposing things with no plans for what they support. Some of the time, people know perfectly well what they support; they just don't want to say it out loud.
Brexiteers can't just SAY "I want to make it so no Pakistani people ever become prime minister." (many) Trump supporters can't just SAY "I want to make it so no one ever speaks Spanish around me" or "Black people specifically shouldn't get so much aid from the government." So of course their beliefs look incoherent; they have to stop themselves before they follow their values to their conclusions.
Under some circumstances, people can have dark urges and beliefs, and once they recognize them, they work to change them. That is not the case right now, because people in the media have worked very hard to spread the message that refusing to accept your harmful, antisocial values is somehow representative of a loss of liberty. The powerful don't want you to believe reprehensible things, so if you do, then you're just standing up for yourself and acting with agency.
3
What should be obvious to all the talking heads and legions of so called experts is that the social/intellectual/political balances across the globe are slowly but effectively eroding the arcane policies of the past.
However propelled, the tea leaves are not foretelling very positive fortunes for many that are in control today.
1
I don't see the brexit mess as the best example of a tear-it-down mentality.
First thing to note, the country is pretty much split between leave and remain, with remain gaining as the mess rumbles along. One million people marched in London for a second vote, and more than 6 million have signed a gov't petition to actually revoke Art 50. These are significant numbers; remember the population of the whole UK is around 65m.
The "tear it down" people in the UK are only a small faction of leavers; mostly people like the ERG or Nigel Farage. Most leave voters are less interested in the destruction of the EU, and more interested in "taking back control" -- of the NHS, of immigration, of our regulations, etc. (Whether any of this was the truth, or realistic in any way is a different issue).
The biggest lie of the leave campaign was the implication that business and life in general would just carry on as normal, but we would have some extra money to keep once our contributions to the EU stopped. Finally, with less than 10 days to go, it has become crystal clear to much of the voting public that leaving, especially with no deal, will be a disaster.
I think what people were really voting for was security and prosperity because they were not getting it from the Tories. The EU was just a convenient target.
6
Why is the British older generation wanting to commit economic suicide? Give your kids a freaking chance to make a living.
12
The issue is that there are no easy solutions. Any real solution is going to be messy - it's going to be imperfect. Life is imperfect. Everyone has different needs. Everything is changing, dynamic. There is no system that can be put into place that will then just run itself beautifully. It will need to constantly be implemented and updated by imperfect humans; it will need to adapt to different circumstances if it's going to be equitable. This doesn't mean we can't do anything; in fact, I think it's our responsibility to always be trying to do things better, and laws and government can be powerful, effective tools for that. But political purists won't settle for imperfection or things that aren't easy to tie up in an easily digested slogan or worldview - to them that's selling out.
6
This is a good piece, but it needs to go much deeper. This isn't just some random occurrence, there is an entire industry (News Corp) that's built on developing, maintaining and fomenting this type of partisan rancor and it's having a huge effect on our society. In countries where Mr. Murdoch operates, you see very similar breakdowns of governance and higher levels of right wing partisan vitriol. In countries where he doesn't, media companies have picked up on that same model of profitability to the same ends.
Media is by and large entertainment and the most profitable entertainment and highest levels of engagement are driven by outrage. The right wing picked up on this a long time ago and it's worked wonders as a means to profitability but is a terrible model for governance which is why these parties who build their identities around opposition, are completely unable to compromise or govern effectively when elected.
We have yet to grapple with this rot at the heart of how our society receives information and in the short term it will likely only get worse. You can't find solutions to a problem when people are reluctant to state plainly the root cause behind it.
55
And it started with Mark Burnett and FOX News, Facebook and a government unable to reinstitute laws that call for media companies to be held to a higher standard - like before Reagan and Obama got rid of the Fairness Doctrine.
1
Isn't short hand for tear-it-all-down the word revolution. Hmmmm.
3
@Bill. No, because it’s accomplished through voting.
There is no mention in this article of the Russian disinformation campaign that has been raging in the West for a few years now, (and resulted in Trump's election,) nor their interference in Brexit as well as in other European elections. Russians have aligned with far-right organizations and members of news organizations like FOX - the propaganda from RT mirrors much of what Hannity might say. That, combined with fascist groups becoming emboldened through online networking, is, unbelievably, creating this truly disastrous upheaval. There are big societal problems in the West, no one could deny that, but they are being exploited and weaponized, and until the public can be reached and properly educated, this spells doom. There should be emergency conferences in North America and abroad to tackle this issue before we find ourselves in WW3.
24
The best example of tear it down in America seems surely to be the RESISTANCE. When Hillary lost to Trump there was no community coming together after fair elections to work for the common good.
No, it was tear it down by the left with riots, censorship, and generally nasty demeanour.
5
All this mess because people the voters wanted Brexit not soft or hard just out but the government is not happy as the people did not vote the way the elite wanted and that is the reason for this fabricated mess to scare people and create the situation for another referendum
1
Income inequality is at the root of the Brexit, yellow-vest movement and rise of Trump.
This is the only way folks can lash out at the system that has been unjust for last 30+ years. This inequality spiked since 2009 when central banks printed trillions and 0.01% got first servings of it, bought up assets with this money, impoverishing the rest, whose wages stagnated.
Trump has made things worse, so the pendulum is swinging the other way (Socialism)
All of this is a cry for help against the global, elitists and their un-earned wealth.
Next step will be a violent revolution, if this is not corrected.
17
At least this article mentions the real issue, though only in passing and rather euphemistically as “whites’ growing fears of demographic change.”
Call it what it is, white bigotry. White bigotry delivered victories to Trump and Brexit. White bigots are motivated not by opposition to “everything” but by opposition to foreigners, Muslims and people of color. So let’s not pretend too much confusion.
11
@sedanchair ... " white bigotry " propelled Trump to victory? But where were the " white bigots " during the Obama electoral victories? Obama voters subsequently became " white bigots "?
4
@sedanchair I think fear of changing demographics is definitely part of it, but the large influx of immigrants into the Western world has also coincided with a trend of long-term economic stagnation. I don't think it's helpful to call people concerned about immigration, and the cultural and societal changes associated with it, bigots or racists. I think one of the challenges of 21st century will be for nations to find acceptable and stable levels of immigration.
4
'Tear-it-all-down.' Really?
This urge to strike out, to destroy, is very primal. Listen to the cadence of the phrases (and the three-syllable mind-numbingness) of: 'Lock her up,' 'Build that wall,' and 'U-S-A.'
They are all exactly the same (and as with vulgar language or 'swear' words, come from elsewhere in the brain than ordinary human discourse; some dark place that resides in all of us.) These hateful chants have always reminded me of chimpanzees (but definitely not bonobos) running through the forest, dragging heavy sticks, looking for some hapless infant, female, weaker male, or stranger to take their aggressions out on, often to murder.
To build takes energy, information, and matter- the three basic objects our universe is made up of. Tearing down is much easier. Destruction obeys the laws of entropy, and will happen even without our help. Life, as Schrodinger proposed in the 1930's, swims exactly in the opposite direction.
When we tear things down heedlessly, or explode them- ideas, buildings, systems, cultures, nations- the information, knowledge and energy we put into them will dissipate into uselessness forever. And any physical matter incorporated into whatever project becomes a cloud of choking, toxic dust.
The urge to destroy out of anger and frustration has been forever the bane of humanity.
12
Britain will live on and thrive on PBS Masterpiece Theater.
7
The inevitable results of Greed Over People, and decades of propaganda.
9
Interesting that when I see pictures of Trump’s base and pictures of the Leavers, it’s always a sea of white people. Does that not speak volumes?
30
White and majority old and majority not too educated.
1
Yes, it is true that populism fueled by technologies that empower individual voices has overcome the dominance of institutions like political parties. Five decades ago, a political leader like LBJ could muscle rank-and-file congressional representatives to vote a particular way by threatening to withhold party support in the next election; now, with direct marketing, representatives can thumb their noses at party bosses. But it’s also true that parties have had a role in this chaos. When Newt Gingrich instituted the politics of scorched earth rhetoric, making Democrats grow horns and smell of sulfur, he was setting us on the road to demonizing the opposition without standing for anything. That worked to ensure short-term political gains, but it also created the long-term problem of citizens who elect candidates not because they subscribe to their policies, but because they will poke the opposition in the eye. As in everything else, the solution will only come when Americans tire of the politics of grievance and start working hard to understand problems and search for people who can solve them.
5
@Ockham9
This is all Kabuki. Look behind the curtain and you will see the corporate powers at work.
The smash and destroy mentality is an expression of the legitimate grievances that virtually all of us share. It's a symptom of the very real feeling that we have no share in the benefits of democracy. If we, the demos, are not going to be heard then what is the point of calling it democracy.
Britain, the US, and probably most of the democracies of the world have been corrupted by the profound influence of what I call the Global Corporate Empire. In the US, the influx of dark money into politics opens the door to huge amounts of cash that is used to buy politicians. Ostensibly, the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) is supposed to enforce laws that require that there be no coordination, but like the Montana case of Art Wittich, the lack of FEC funding has bred an atmosphere that anything goes. Dark money organizations whose donors can't be traced freely coordinate with candidates, telling them openly what they expect for their support and money.
19
What’s been evident the last 20 years is that globalism has changed the world, creating an ultra wealthy class that almost appears to have more power than government. Meanwhile the middle class that consumes and manufactures most goods is being run dry in various ways. Jobs are lost, wages stagnate, low skilled immigrants rush in to take basic jobs, all while the common man realizes his political power has practically been stripped away as well. You can pray to become a global elite, watch your bills pile up and your future darken, or you can begin to fight against “everything”, because everything seems to leave out the common person’s interests.
9
One might view this article in as being written in a slightly academic or didactic style. I for one will send it as a link to many of my friends, students and associates exactly because it summarizes a complex reality that defines the times we are living in. Thanks so much for the article.
7
@Mark Smith I was part of a small startup. The marketing guy asked me to write a blurb for one of our products extolling its virtues. As a guide he told me this advertising aphorism: "It is easier to tell a simple lie than a complex truth."
Sadly reality is seldom simple.
11
People in the US and EU don't want to "tear it down". They just want a government that responds to their needs rather than endlessly pandering to the rich. It was clear after the last economic crash that the wealthy were in control and viewed the crisis in abstract economic terms with little regard for fear and anguish among many of the non-rich. If a democratic government fails to put the welfare of most of the people first, it may deserve to be torn down.
15
none of this is atypical in light of Joseph Tainter's unique study, "Collapse of Complex Societies."
in gist: as societies grow they become more complex. this creates new problems that require administrative solutions that increase the complexity. this continues until the consequential costs of the solutions outweigh any benefits.
tainter's language is more technical -- "continued investment in complexity as a problem solving strategy leads a declining marginal return" -- but the effects he documented in past complex civilizations are all evident now: institutional authority and control breaks down, the political mainstream loses power, new home and infrastructure construction decline, public spaces become privatized, trade is tariffed, localities and regions become self sufficient and increasingly independent ... and so on. problems don't get solved, or not without creating new problems -- an environment of zero sum problem solving where solutions necessarily define winners and losers.
in this view, it should go without saying that populism won't solve our predicament for anybody, only accelerate the collapse. we can't understand what is happening globally through a political, demographic or sociological lens. the collapse is structural and inevitable and accelerated by "growth".
history shows we will just have to muddle through the coming collapse ... and hope there is still a livable planet left on the other side.
9
@drollere I call it the chewing gum effect. The more you chew it the stiffer it gets until finally when your jaw muscles start to ache, you spit it out.
If only we could spit out the bad part and keep the good.
It happens to my computer. As the various linkages and background tasks start taking resources, the convoluted complexity of it torturous path eventually slows it to a near halt.
2
From my perspective, what we experiencing now goes back to the upending of our social order and any semblance of a safety net under Reagan and Thatcher.
When our leaders believe the government they, themselves, work for is the problem, then the entire system is upended and resources start flowing away from citizens and public investments and into private hands.
More and more residents now have to fight over less and less resources. Of course we are going to lash out at those who put us here, from Reagan/Thatcher on down the line -- particularly now that we have such widespread access to information on how few control so much.
Sadly, by lashing out at the corporate Democrats, this country has put us in the hands of an even worse offender and his friends, stealing from the already poor to give even more to the already rich.
Unless the Democrats can come up with a solution to not only slow but reverse these trends, this cannot end well.
35
@avrds The bricks are finally being thrown by people who have nothing left to lose.
3
The Tear-It-All-Down is nothing new and have always been part of the furthest right and left.
Instead of finding solutions to issues they just want to demolish it.
An old slogan the Socialist Communists were given in Denmark was “Tear it all down and to hell with the rest”
Whether it’s Frances Yellow Vests, British Brexiters or Trumpists the mentality is the same. Actually creating or building something is not in their vocabulary.
11
@Steen So, my question, is what do the citizens who want to "Tear it all down" want to replace what they have torn down. IMHO, without institutions, we will have anarchy or a dictatorship.
1
The problem is the demise of conservatism in all political parties. Rip-it-out-by-the-roots Politicians are radicals, no matter the political party. True conservatism advocates slow change and due deference for precedent. However, slow change doesn’t sell and it’s certainly not populist. If you want votes, go for farce and drama, not slow, deliberate progress.
Britain should negotiate a Remain not a Brexit.
15
@Tim - "Slow change" works pretty well when things are relatively stable, so I really can agree with you there.
However, the idea that "gentle tweaking" is somehow going to fix the sorts of problems that we find ourselves in now, is a proposal that doesn't cut the mustard.
1
@Tim Suppose the Brits don't want to run THEIR country the way you tell them?
@me They would be following well established precedent.
Timely, well written column. One phenomenon that seems to have helped fuel this culture of opposition is the reluctance of people to critically think about, and develop possible solutions for, current problems and social ills. It's easier to become simply become agitated, to get out and "fight", to protest. When a person becomes bored with an issue, it's onto another issue with which to repeat the agitated, fighting, protesting cycle. The immediacy of so-called "news" spread by social media adds to this phenomenon strength.
It's much harder and more time consuming to study an issue, develop informed options, and develop and propose solutions.
24
"I don't know what I want
but I know how to get it:
I wanna destroy the passerby."
- Sex Pistols, Anarchy in the UK, 1976.
5
We’re pretty vacant, and we don’t care.
3
Wow, a long article about voter distrust of the ruling establishment that manages not to mention corruption even once.
Inequality is rooted in corruption. Elected representatives are paid bribes by the corporate and oligarch classes to enact the narrow agenda of the rich and powerful. Why would there be any mystery behind why voters are disgusted by this?
The media have yet to fully reckon with their insular and ignorant coverage of 2016, rooted in apathy towards the anger of the masses at presumed beloved establishment figures.
125
@Xoxarle The media have to reckon with their complicity in getting the delusional Narcissist Trump elected. All that free publicity gave him and his coterie of ill-advised voters more than the 15 minutes of fame they craved. Of course, 24/7 of attention is not enough for the big baby Trump, so the more he craved, the more craven he became, and we all ate it up. Such fools we are.
8
@Xoxarle Well, there was some mention of that. But it's part of the broader claim the article is making: the grievances might be real, but is a politics based on opposition solving them? Not really. It's making things worse. It's become very easy to slap a label on someone and not have to deal with their ideas at all, nor to really have to think through your own, because in simply identifying the problem, real or perceived, it's as if you've already found a solution (using "you" in general terms here). But identifying a problem is not the same as solving it.
3
Great article. Certainly pieces together my confusion of the Brexit fiasco.
Britain, like a Terrible Two-year old, only knows how to say No these days (unless you count voting for Brexit as a yes).
1
Q: Which Brexit options are Britons against?
A: Any that can't deliver on Brexiter's fantastical promises of a "Leave" vote.
... which just so happens to be all of them.
5
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Churchill
Some of the most penetrating things ever said come from that era. Remember Roosevelt's phrase, "Economic Royalists"? These expressions are taking on a renewed bite in our time.
8
Hillary is right. The immigration issue has made a mess out of western politics. Maybe she should run for president again, since she has a handle on the most important issue. You can't say the same for any of the current or prospective Democratic candidates.
4
The author identifies many key issues at play but shies away from the obvious - the real damage is coming from the right wing. Fact free, xenophobic and conspiracy theory adherents have pushed brexit, Trump, France etc.
All of these are right leaning governments. I can’t think of a single country in the West with a left leaning government that is being overrun by this nonsense. Sure - it’s there, but not out of control. Remember Obama? The republicans could gnash their teeth, but things were generally smooth sailing.
There is a desperate play at equivalency in the media, but the reality is simple - the right wing has gone totally insane globally. And this is because their ideology is diametrically opposed to life in the West in 2019 (if their ideas ever made any real applicable sense).
109
@M The human inhabitants of our planet seem to have lost any common sense of decency they may have had in common and have chosen the poorest of leaders possible. Many in the west have no sense of how good their lives are and think they can be improved by tearing it all down and somehow improve by rebuilding. It's kind of like the crowd at the bottom of Sinai in Mel Brooks' History of the World Part 1 melting all the gold into the proverbial calf they were worshipping by the time Moses came down the mountain. As some may recall he was carrying the 15 commandments which were reduced to 10 when Moses dropped the third tablet. I'm still waiting for Part 2. I'm not kidding but you have to laugh to keep from crying. People seem be losing what minds they have left. Please - somebody - something - wake me from this dream that is turning into a nightmare for humankind.
2
You're right. Things are going swimmingly in Venezuela...
Everyone wants steak--they want exactly what they feel entitled to and nothing less. No one will settle for the chicken.
2
@J c Posted, no doubt, by someone who dines on steak every day...
@me
We'd like steak, we'd happily settle for chicken but all they want to SELL us is diet soda.
Winning by stoking fear and division with no clear goal to address an economy that is being upended by a tech revolution; where the majority of citizens can no longer afford even the basics - housing, education and healthcare - leads to hopelessness and rage AND demonization of “the Other.” Revolutionary change, one way or another, is inevitable.
6
It's not revolt against everything, unless your everything is a two party system that takes turns furthering the interests of an ever shrinking pool of global conglomerates and holders.
Doh i guess that is our everything.
3
And this is a good state of affairs, because politicians have chosen to ignore the Will of The People for far too long.
6
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
We are fearful of the future fueled by our corrupt political system that only has contempt for working people.
5
Good article. I found these missing from it:
BeLeave, funded by a Russian oligarch, which overspent illegally on its campaign.
Nigel Farage of UKIP, hanger on in the Trump election victory celebration, fomenting xenophobia with rhetoric and posters showing hordes of foreigners about to invade the UK if it stayed in the EU. (a lie)
Boris Johnson and others wandering the countryside in a double decker bus with a sign on it's side proclaiming that 350 British pounds a week sent to the EU would be spent on the NHS instead (a lie.)
No mention of the investments by the EU in the UK being part of the referendum campaign.
The fact that the campaign was forced upon a weak PM, Cameron, who set an advisory referendum without any threshold beyond which the referendum would become binding, and the next PM, May, who bowed to the far right within the Conservative party who demanded the UK leave the EU.
Then there's the decline in social services due to the austerity budgets of Rees-Moggs, so much so that a UN report on poverty within the UK was damning in its findings of a serious increase in poverty, homelessness, malnutrition and rickets among the population outside of the London area.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/16/key-points-un-envoy-philip-alston-report-poverty-britain-uk
This isn't tearing things down just for the sake of it. This looks like opportunists taking advantage of the anger over inequality.
65
@Heather Inglis
How big is your echo-bubble?
@Heather Inglis
Strongly agree with this as an explanation (although some of your details are incorrect, for example it was George Osborne who inflicted the austerity, and the EU investments were mentioned but the leave campaign promised to replicate them.).
2
@Heather Inglis
“Then there's the decline in social services due to the austerity budgets of Rees-Moggs,”
austerity was the sole domain of George Osborne (the Chancellor responsible for its introduction and continuance) and Cameron.
Rees-Mogg has never been near the purse strings, although as a multi millionaire hedge fund wallah, he would have had no problem with the unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible policies that played their part in this debacle.
1
Democracies, Monarchs, Communism etc. all have winners and losers. Over the last 50 years it seems more losers than winners. People get tired of these elites and their sense of entitlement at their expense.
If you don’t want revolts you have to throw the masses a bone now and then.
7
This rings true. And yet, I think a different picture would emerge if you focus on the goals of the Remainers and Democrats - not the elected officials but the citizens in those groups.
Pete Buttigieg appeals to voters who want someone who champions basic decency, tolerance, building people up and empowering them instead of tearing them down and keeping them down. He's doing pretty well just now. Democrats are the party of affordable education and universal health care that are tools to let individuals better their lot - all individuals who try.
Look at the diversity on the Democratic side of the House of Representatives and how much of it appeared in the midterms. We're breaking through the barriers that keep people apart and working toward democracy for all.
That said, I think too many in Congress are beholden to the special interests. Until we find a way around that, we are rudderless - the 99% versus the 1%. When the piece of the pie doesn't grow for many or even shrinks, it's understandable when people circle the wagons to try to hold on to their little piece.
I think many in Britain and in the US and in France are tired of the chaos, the hatred, the destruction. Climate change demands we work together to survive. We need governments that allow for compromise to work again, that have things in place - say, 2/3 to confirm a Supreme Court justice, no gerrymandering, etc. to facilitate a way back to democracy for all.
9
" Fear and distrust." Two very powerful words that perhaps an improved public education system could help overcome. Sadly, the GOP and Betsy DeVos continue to defund and weaken at the expense of our democracy.
4
Agree, very good article. A theme I've seen all my life is the inability of us humans to manage change. We don't seem to have a working model for pulling it off.
5
Thanks for the great article.
I think the most important elements leading to Brexit, and Trump too, are ignoring the working class.
With both, their vote was a revolt: in the North of England, far from London's wealth, they felt their voice was not being listened to; in the Midwest, industrial and low-wage Walmart-esque workers were ignored.
The result?
Brexit and Trump.
The challenge with Brexit for England is that it has no real political representation, or rather, since it cuts across both parties, there is a standstill. Many Tories want out, but so do many Norther Labour voters.
But a note to those who make compelling--and right--arguments about the financial fallout from Brexit.
Voting goes beyond "logic" and money.
For example, separatist movements in Scotland, Catalonia and other areas may not be financial windfalls, but it is a cause they are passionate about.
Ignoring any group of people who feel disenfranchised is a grave mistake.
54
@Steven W. Giovinco
Ignoring a group of people etc.
You’ve nailed it!
3
I take your points, but as someone who lives in the North, there is an astonishing unwillingness to know more about the consequences of a Leave vote — at least from the Leave voters with whom I have spoken. When or how do you ask people to be accountable for their political decisions?
18
@Steven W. Giovinco
"Ignoring any group of people who feel disenfranchised is a grave mistake."
Here, in the US, everyone who's not in the 1% feels 'disenfranchised.' This is exactly why this trope (i.e. idiocy) has caught on.
The greatest and perhaps fatal weakness of democracy is its lack of safeguards against mobocracy. So, the Democrats are tearing down the last bastion, electoral college.
4
Excellent column that clearly posits the global nature of political dissatisfaction in many ‘democratic’ countries.
20