Trump and Brexit: What has happened to the world?

Pogue Mahone said:
In terms of what a nation should aspire to achieve, priorities don't get much more important than trying to give every citizen an equal opportunity in life and to not permanently destroy the environment while you're at it.

I get that these issues aren't clarion calls to people who've been fecked over by life but it's a shitty state of affairs when a nation chooses instead to believe in a tissue of lies fed to them by shysters whose main priority is personal power and glory. And when they make that choice they deserve all the scorn they get. All the more so if they're stupid enough to think that giving two fingers to "SJW's" they argue with on the internet is reason enough to give such an odious scumbag the nuclear codes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Pyrrhic victories all around.
 
Bobcat said:
They still are to the left of the conservatives, but the core politics have shifted away from issues that regular people care about in pursuit of loftier goals that most people don't really bother with at an every day basis. Even worse still is the fact that they have had this air of moral superiority and almost contempt for diverging opinions which again has either pushed people voters away and galvanized the right even further.

It's no coincidence that at the same time, we have seen a resurgence of far right all over the world. Would strongly recommend the article, as it's pretty much spot on

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/sneering-response-trumps-victory-reveals-exactly-won/
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. Their core policies, especially under Corbyn, are traditional left. Both sides recognise that lower earners are suffering. The right wing know it's not migration that's causing the misery but they still use it to win votes

I don't see how you wouldn't be moraly superior to people who blame migrants for all their ills
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think the point is that this is how they're perceived by people who either don't know or don't care about the actual policies of the various parties. Other than what they read on Facebook and the rabble-rousing broad strokes shite being promised by the right. We'll make America great again. Just don't ask us how.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Post truth politics.

The madness of Trump supporters is that he's done everything he campaigns against, dodges taxes, uses illegal migrants, invests abroad. And hes also a member of the elite, inherrited hundreds of millions. But it doesn't matter
 
I think another way to look at this in terms of the left-right discussion is as a backlash against a largely left-driven campaign reaching back around 50 years now to cast doubt on and question the fundamental myths which are the backbone of nationalism in the West (and everywhere else for that matter). This campaign has mostly been driven by uncovering uncomfortable truths and a desire to atone for past sins such as the real legacy of colonialism, but there has been an element of it that is perceived by the right to demand they surrender their identity, or at least apologise for it, while at the same time they're expected to tolerate and even celebrate the mythology surrounding often newly imported national cultures. Whatever the right and wrongs of all this, nationalism requires the maintenance of certain myths to sustain itself, and Brexit and Trump, and what seems likely to follow in the rest of Europe, is an indication that a major portion of the West is standing up and saying that they won't be the first to abandon their national identity, especially given the obvious reluctance of places such as Russia, China, India, Turkey, Israel - basically the entire non-Western world - to abandon theirs.
 
SteveJ said:
Yeah. I started off thinking 'this is going to be a load of alarmist nonsense'...and was then given pause. Sobering stuff.
Click to expand...

Definitely not alarmist.

We are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination
 
It really doesnt matter if they're actually part of the establishment themselves Trump and Farage represent as close to a F.U as they have available.

If people dont feel like the current political class is serving them how can anyone be suprised that this is their reaction. Telling them this political establishment politician will be better isnt going to cut it. Even Bernie supporters on the other side of the political spectrum felt that.

I must say even as a Corbyn supporting leftie i find the reaction has been pathetic and sneering. Im not sure they care about the people who feel they had to vote trump as much as they do about their own ideals and world view. No wonder the world is increasingly divided.
 
Ubik said:
Kinell, couldn't get much more on the nose.
Click to expand...
Full quote here
Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dreamis that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.
Click to expand...
Pretty much gave up listing to anyone else's analyses of Trump after reading this, Rorty was you said spot on.
 
Not sure if it's been covered already but what's the caf opinion on the celebs that said they'd move to Canada or Spain if Trump won?
Cue lots of moving vans and applications for foreign citizenship - or lots of backtracking?
 
They were so sure Hillary would win. Now that she hasn't.They should be deported ,especially Cher
 
utdalltheway said:
Not sure if it's been covered already but what's the caf opinion on the celebs that said they'd move to Canada or Spain if Trump won?
Cue lots of moving vans and applications for foreign citizenship - or lots of backtracking?
Click to expand...

They just sound v arrogant that they think anyone gives a feck about where they live. And of course they will back track they aren't ditching California to go and live in the cold. Gather them up and drop them off in the Yukon.
 
My observations are very simple:
  1. Obama didn't deliver the 'change' that people expected: African-American relations are low, Guantanamo is still open, the Economy hasn't rebounded in a way that people feel, Companies get away as much as before, no major tax legislation/simplification, Lobbyist still in WashingtonDC, $1b elections, etc.
  2. In a world where millenials have taken over and want 'instant' (Uber, Deliveroo, Facebook, Twitter, 24/7 news, etc) - Government seems painfully slow and incremental. Not addressing problems and tackling them head-on quickly (like Modi has in India re: making Rs 500+1000 notes non-legal tender overnight).
  3. When things go well (economicically) - like in the 1990s, 2000s, there is no 'uprising' or 'populist' movements (certainly as strong) - but you drain the financial stability and economic prosperity of a nation (or a trading bloc) and there will always be issues.
  4. Macro economic trends of manufacturing moving geographies to cheaper locations of the world, services too infact - the movement (outflow) of capital from these western countries to eastern ones - changes the balance of power. This affects people directly or (more realistically) indirectly.
  5. A lot of these countries (above) not actually playing by the global rules; Walmart can't just rock up and open a bunch of stores in China, India, Russia or S.Arabia - yet the west believe in the fantasy of a free economic world. One group that doesn't play by the rules, messes it up for all of them (could be banking where a bank over-leverages, or a football team spending more than income on players and constantly winning).
  6. Social integration issues: people feeling a lack of respect from people of other countries who fail to integrate, the strain on public services, the one-sidedness of the arrangement where the west opens up with open arms and other nations are closed and conservative. Magnified by economic downturn and therefore much more competition for their jobs by 'outsiders'.
  7. The Brexit group and Trump tapped into both left-wing and right-wing ideas and turned them into an appealing attempt to address some of the above. Even just outlining there was a problem at all, was enough for some.
 
[QUOTE="Member 5225, post: 20051762]
  1. The Brexit group and Trump tapped into both left-wing and right-wing ideas and turned them into an appealing attempt to address some of the above. Even just outlining there was a problem at all, was enough for some.
[/QUOTE]

Appealed to their sense of nationalism and some sort of socialism you might say?
 
JackXX said:
They just sound v arrogant that they think anyone gives a feck about where they live. And of course they will back track they aren't ditching California to go and live in the cold. Gather them up and drop them off in the Yukon.
Click to expand...
Fwiw, the same stuff was said when GW Bush beat Gore and afaik none left then either. When will they learn?
 
Member 5225 said:
My observations are very simple:
  1. Obama didn't deliver the 'change' that people expected: African-American relations are low, Guantanamo is still open, the Economy hasn't rebounded in a way that people feel, Companies get away as much as before, no major tax legislation/simplification, Lobbyist still in WashingtonDC, $1b elections, etc.
Click to expand...
But the problem is he was fundamentally able to because he was working against an obstructionist, hostile Republican party who made it their mission to remove him from day one and who tried to block just about anything he did that they didn't completely agree with.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Appealed to their sense of nationalism and some sort of socialism you might say?
Click to expand...
Well yes, I think people miss the point when they call Brexit/UKIP/Trump just pure 'hatred filled right-wing extremism' - I think they tap into socialist ideas too IMHO.
 
Cheesy said:
But the problem is he was fundamentally able to because he was working against an obstructionist, hostile Republican party who made it their mission to remove him from day one and who tried to block just about anything he did that they didn't completely agree with.
Click to expand...
But he implemented Obamacare? Apologies am not utterly clued up on the American system. But did he even attempt any gun-control measures in the same vein? And why spend all your political capital on such a divisive ideological issue?
 
Member 5225 said:
Well yes, I think people miss the point when they call Brexit/UKIP/Trump just pure 'hatred filled right-wing extremism' - I think they tap into socialist ideas too IMHO.
Click to expand...

Oh I was making a reference to National Socialism.
 
Member 5225 said:
But he implemented Obamacare? Apologies am not utterly clued up on the American system. But did he even attempt any gun-control measures in the same vein? And why spend all your political capital on such a divisive ideological issue?
Click to expand...

He did. The house blocked him at almost every step.
He tried to do a lot of things including emergency unemployment that was also blocked.
I didn't realize how powerful the speaker of the house is until Obamas second term.
 
2cents said:
I think another way to look at this in terms of the left-right discussion is as a backlash against a largely left-driven campaign reaching back around 50 years now to cast doubt on and question the fundamental myths which are the backbone of nationalism in the West (and everywhere else for that matter). This campaign has mostly been driven by uncovering uncomfortable truths and a desire to atone for past sins such as the real legacy of colonialism, but there has been an element of it that is perceived by the right to demand they surrender their identity, or at least apologise for it, while at the same time they're expected to tolerate and even celebrate the mythology surrounding often newly imported national cultures. Whatever the right and wrongs of all this, nationalism requires the maintenance of certain myths to sustain itself, and Brexit and Trump, and what seems likely to follow in the rest of Europe, is an indication that a major portion of the West is standing up and saying that they won't be the first to abandon their national identity, especially given the obvious reluctance of places such as Russia, China, India, Turkey, Israel - basically the entire non-Western world - to abandon theirs.
Click to expand...

Very good post.

Western liberalism's discomfort with the 'myths' and 'prejudices' which bind communities together, and allegiance to deracinated affectations which awaken no echoes in the human heart, open an unbridgeable gulf between them and ordinary people. If they can't resort to economic bribery to win their support, as they have in the past, they have nothing in common with the 'masses' at all.

The shift in working class political support from left to right is likely to prove permanent.
 
Wow, everyone has pretty much gone full godwin around here.

Has anyone considered that it wasn't Cleetus who voted? It appears the swing was the Obama voters who are definable not Cleetus.

Could they have voted for loftier goals like avoiding nuclear war and stopping killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims around Africa and the Middle East.

The very same Foreign Policy goals laid out about the next president.
 
DFreshKing said:
Wow, everyone has pretty much gone full godwin around here.

Has anyone considered that it wasn't Cleetus who voted? It appears the swing was the Obama voters who are definable not Cleetus.

Could they have voted for loftier goals like avoiding nuclear war and stopping killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims around Africa and the Middle East.

The very same Foreign Policy goals laid out about the next president.
Click to expand...

Yes, avoiding nuclear war and saving the lives of foreign Muslims were clearly the hot button topics that drove this campaign.
 
Will Absolute said:
The shift in working class political support from left to right is likely to prove permanent.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Nothing is permanent in politics. That was Fukuyama's mistake.

Even the peak idealism of the 60s eventually begat Reagan and Thatcher, who in turn begat Clinton and Blair. We're merely at a particularly high and reckless right sided swing of the pendulum. It will inevitably swing left again at some point. The only question is when, and how much...(unless you're advocating some kind of forced permanent Nationalist state?...Like, I dunno, a thousand year Reich, or sommin?)
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
No it isn't. Nothing is permanent in politics. That was Fukuyama's mistake.

Even the peak idealism of the 60s eventually begat Reagan and Thatcher, who in turn begat Clinton and Blair. We're merely at a particularly high and reckless right sided swing of the pendulum. It will inevitably swing left again at some point. The only question is when, and how much...(unless you're advocating some kind of forced permanent Nationalist state?...Like, I dunno, a thousand year Reich, or sommin?)
Click to expand...

Only if I can lead it. Heil Will has a nice ring to it!

By 'permanent' I meant for the next few election cycles. As you say, nothing is truly permanent in politics. People forget, or die, or their circumstances change. I'm sure even the corpse of communism will rise from the ashes of history to misrule once more.
 
The thing about the UK and the US is that both countries are first world nations which have always been (more or less) competently run.

I think a lot of people voted for the most jarring, anti-establishment option because they thought 'feck it, what's the worst that can happen in a country like this?'

It's part of the reason turn-outs are so low. There's a general feeling that individual votes don't matter and, the only time they do, is when you vote for something that undercuts the whole process. I'm not sure know how you can counteract that beyond better education.
 
Last edited:
Will Absolute said:
Only if I can lead it. Heil Will has a nice ring to it!

By 'permanent' I meant for the next few election cycles. As you say, nothing is truly permanent in politics. People forget, or die or their circumstances change. I'm sure even the corpse of communism will rise from the ashes of history to misrule once more.
Click to expand...

I think the death of the last great war generation actually has a lot to do with the current rise of far-right politics. So it'll probably take the death of the last Communist generation to see that re-emerge. So.. another 40/50 years?

That said, you'd hope that the far greater modern proliferation of historical media and data would safeguard against a total repeat.
 
As I just said in the Trump thread (this thread is probably a better place for it):

I still think people are failing to see the bigger picture here (globally).
People are hurting, they want change, they want instant change...
If B.Sanders had got the nomination, and/or J.Corbyn had followed his (publicised) instinct and gone against the 'establishment' properly and supported (and maybe eveb led) Brexit, then we'd be talking about the rising of the left.
The right (namely Farage and Trump) were in the right place at the right time and played a very smart game IMO. No point demonising them per se.
 
Leo Varadkar T.D.
The Sunday Times published my article yesterday on the election of Donald Trump. Here's what I wrote:

The election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States was unexpected. The tight result and low turnout of barely 50% was no landslide. Rather it reflects a deeply divided country and a population significantly disengaged from politics. Even though Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, Trump had a clear victory in the Electoral College by winning a majority of States. As a consequence, he will be the next President. If we respect democracy we have to respect its results.

True this is the fifth time in American history - and the second time in this century alone - when the person winning the popular vote has not won the election. But that is the way the US system works. Perhaps President Trump will change it. After all, he tweeted in 2012 that ‘the electoral college is a disaster for democracy’. Or perhaps not.

This weekend is a good opportunity to pause, and recall that the cultural, economic and familial ties that bind America and Ireland go back centuries. These ties are far more important than the identity of any office holder on either side of the Atlantic. We will maintain those ties and we will strengthen them.

The election, of course, raises questions and perhaps also teaches us some lessons. In many ways the campaign and its outcome has echoes of Brexit. It mirrors the shift to nationalism and populism in Poland and Hungary. It may yet presage serious developments closer to home, such as a challenge by Marine Le Pen to become President of France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

Traditionally, politics divides left and right. That is still true, but less so than in the past. A new divide is emerging internationally between modern, global liberalism on the one side and nostalgic, often populist, nationalism on the other.

The first group believes that globalisation and migration are good things on balance. They warm to multi-culturalism, want more free trade, fewer borders and barriers, approve of international institutions like the EU and UN as the only means to tackle transnational problems like climate change and threats to international security, and they seek to empower women, LGBT citizens and minorities. They generally like the world and want more of it.

The other group has different priorities. They are not to be dismissed, but to be understood. These people haven't benefited so much from the enormous economic changes underway. They may fear or disagree with cultural changes. In America, the UK and elsewhere, they include voters without a college education who find it harder to access the good jobs on offer in the globalised economy. Once they might have secured paid, pensionable and secure jobs in mining or manufacturing. Now it's low-paid, precarious jobs in the service industry.

They also include more conservative voters who are uncomfortable with the social forces that are reshaping our world. Many grew up in a world run by political, military and business leaders who were white, male and Christian. It had been that way for centuries. It is no longer.

The rapid shift in economic power to Asia, record migration, aggressive secularisation and even the rise of women into leadership positions does not sit well with them. They are neither racist nor sexist but are attracted by the nostalgia of an era when things were better for them, and much simpler. So slogans such as 'Make America Great Again' or 'Take Back Control' have a visceral and emotional appeal.

I think three lessons can be gleaned from the forces now guiding international politics. The first is that the public do not like or trust politicians. As we saw in the campaign, Trump could say or do almost anything and get away with it because he was a celebrity. Clinton, a career politician, was badly damaged by the controversy over an e-mail server, because it seemed to confirm, fairly or unfairly, underlying doubts about her trustworthiness.

For decades, politics has been governed by opinion polls, focus groups, big data and carefully calibrated and tested messages. Today, the public sees through all this and views it as phoney. They crave authenticity almost to a fault. Any sort of candour has become an attribute, even when it's uncomfortable and shocking. Perhaps the quick-witted ambitious First Lady of Arkansas, who shocked middle America in 1992 by saying that she excelled in law because she didn't want to stay home making cookies, might have had more appeal in 21st century America than the scripted, cautious, artificial Secretary Clinton who struggled to connect with voters and articulate their genuine hopes and fears.

Second, those of us who strive for a modern, free, globalised and liberal world need to stand up for what we believe. We must defend and promote our vision of the future, not apologise for it. Global free trade leads to jobs, growth and prosperity. We should never appease those who harbour hostile views about women, ethnic or other minorities. Rather than trying to imitate the apparent authenticity of Donald Trump, we should look to Obama, who eight years ago offered a message of hope that was thoroughly modern and forward-looking.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to respond to the fact that the changes in the global economy have not benefited many people. Achieving full-employment - unemployment is under 5% in America - is not enough. People need good jobs that provide a decent standard of living. They need security, a safety net when things go wrong, and access to a pension when they retire. Above all, they need to believe that next year will be better than the last.

This will require a shift in the international economic orthodoxy of recent years towards one that goes for growth and is more focused on raising living standards than other metrics. Some economists will no doubt point out the risks. However, not rebalancing policy in this manner will bring much greater risks.

Not all of this applies to Ireland. But some of it does. Brexit passed because Remain politicians failed to connect with voters, failed to respond to their hopes and fears or to persuade them of a better future. The same can be said of the recent American presidential election. We face both risks and opportunities in the years ahead. But if we recognise that the answer is to trust people with the truth, and have faith in them to respond through a genuine engagement with the issues, presented in an authentic way, then we need not fear the future.
Click to expand...

Irish politician in talking sense shocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.