Resurrecting Democracy

Trump and Brexit

            Robert A. Levine   7-12-16

Given the terrible tragedies in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and St. Paul the last week, the ramifications of Brexit and the presidential contest may seem remote and of less importance to Americans at this time. But both matter in terms of how our nation will evolve over the next few years.

When Trump was first asked his opinion about Brexit, he initially did not know what it was.

Then when Brexit happened, Trump was in Scotland pumping his golf course, and said that the pound’s losing value would be good for his business. Trump also stated that he was in the midst of people happy about Brexit, though Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain in the E.U. He declared as well that Brexit would benefit Britain, though most economists believe it will negatively impact Britain’s economy and could lead to the nation splitting apart.

Given the surge in populism, the supporters of Brexit in Great Britain to a large degree mirror the people backing Trump in the U.S. Pro-Brexiters are more likely to have been from rural areas, small or medium sized towns, than from major urban areas, as is also true for the Trump advocates.

Many of those pro-Brexit and pro-Trumpers are uneducated white working men, who are unemployed or underemployed, and feel left behind by globalization. The left-behinders are angry at the “elites” who they feel have benefitted economically from the new order while they have suffered. Supporting Brexit and Trump are metaphorical punches in the nose to those on top politically or economically, showing them that white working men still count. And of course the left-behinders are against immigrants who they blame for the loss of jobs and decreased wages. In England it is the eastern Europeans and in the U.S. it is Hispanics who are accused of taking jobs. The white working men don’t see that automation and increased factory productivity has changed manufacturing forever, and that education is the only way out for those left behind.

There is also a big divide from the standpoint of age between pro-Trumpers-Brexiters, and those who disdain Trump and those who wanted to remain in the E.U. Older people are generally in the Trump-Brexit camp and the young are more likely to be anti-Trump and anti-Brexit. The young tend to be more cosmopolitan than their elders, more educated, have travelled more and are more at ease with different nationalities.

After Brexit passed, the leaders of the movement took back the promises they had made, saying that they had been wrong. However, these messages had convinced many of the English to vote to leave. But the financial benefits were seen to be a mirage, and open borders for E.U. citizens will have to remain if Britain is to keep the E.U. as its favored market.

If Trump is elected president, his promises will be seen to have been lies as well. A wall will not be built between Mexico and the United States, and Mexico will not pay for it. Actually, immigration is now reversed, with more migrants going back to Mexico than coming into the U.S, so a wall isn’t even necessary. Trump will also not deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. That would be enormously expensive to accomplish and would badly damage the American economy. These workers are needed for agriculture, hospitality, restaurants, landscaping, and so forth, jobs that many Americans would not take.

Trump will also not abandon all the trade pacts that have been signed and start trade wars with the nations we do business with. Congress would not allow him to do this, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American businessmen are already berating Trump over this idea. He is also not going to order surveillance on all Muslims, as that would be unconstitutional. And torture of suspected terrorists and killing their families can be considered war crimes, so Trump is unlikely to follow through on those promises.

A wave of populism and nationalism has been sweeping the world and Trump has been riding its crest. Brexit was also the result of populism and nationalism, though economically it made little sense. Though Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate for president, she would be far better as an occupant of the White House than Donald Trump, the narcissist and populist-in-chief, whose campaign promises have been a pack of lies. Hopefully, people will realize this before it is too late.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Photo by Shutterstock

Short and Sweet

            Robert A. Levine    5-19-15

No matter what you think about the results of the recent British election, you have to be impressed by how short and sweet it was. And inexpensive. If you contrast the British campaigns with those of the Americans, you realize how lucky they are not to have years of political advertisements clogging the airways and mailboxes for their general elections. The elections for Parliament must take place at least every five years, though they can be called earlier if the governing party or parties is so inclined and dissolves Parliament. 

On the other hand, Americans have elections for Congress every two years, with every politician continuously campaigning and continuously raising money to pay for his or her campaigns. You can imagine how much time that takes away from what should be his or her primary jobs, the businesses of writing laws and running the country. 

In the United Kingdom, the duration of the general campaigns are very short by American standards, usually six to seven weeks after Parliament is dissolved. The spending allowed in the election for an individual’s seat in Parliament is well under $100,000, with the parties limited to tens of millions in total. This can be contrasted with the billions of dollars that are spent on America’s presidential, Congressional, and senatorial elections combined. 

And instead of America’s election campaigns getting shorter and less expensive, the nation has been going in the opposite direction with much longer and more expensive campaigns. A huge waste of money and time, the nation’s election process contributes to governmental inefficiency. It also allows lobbyists and special interests to insert themselves into the government, by giving and raising money for the candidates and helping them to write the laws. 

While Britain’s election campaigns are short, sweet, and inexpensive, the way the results are tabulated and the 650 Parliamentary seats distributed are not representative of the total number of votes each party receives. Several organizations in Britain have been working for electoral reform to make elections more equitable and the number of seats a party wins in Parliament more in line with the votes they have tallied. A proportional voting system where seats in Parliament correlate with a party’s overall vote count has been one of the reform measures suggested. Currently, Britain has a first-past-the-post system or single member plurality deciding the member-of-Parliament from each district. This allows parties to lose the general election even if they have the largest number of votes nationally, but concentrated in fewer districts than another party which has won more districts. For instance, the Scottish National Party won 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats while receiving 50 percent of the Scottish vote in the recent election (which indicates there will probably be another referendum on independence in the near future). The S.N.P. will be the third largest party in Parliament even though it garnered only 5 percent of the total votes in the election.           

America’s lengthy campaigns and huge expenditure of time and money does not make its elections fairer, or the distribution of its votes more representative of the people’s will. In fact, the system in place for the national elections may show no correlation between the total votes a party has accumulated nationwide and the way that translates into members of the House, Senate, or even the winner of the presidency. For instance, Al Gore tallied over 500,000 more votes than George W, Bush in the 2000 election, yet Bush won the presidency because of the arcane Electoral College system that determined the winner. In 2012 (and other elections), the Democrats polled more total votes nationally for members of Congress than the Republicans, yet the Republicans won more individual races and control of the House. This was the result of gerrymandering which makes some citizens’ votes count more than others. The same is true in Senate races, where votes in rural states with fewer citizens count more than larger states like California, Texas, and New York with more citizens in electing senators. 

But let’s get back to short and sweet. Though both England and the United States don’t accede to the concept of equity in their voting systems that would make their nations truly democratic, England makes their elections short and sweet and inexpensive. It is time for America to do the same, limiting the funds that can be spent and the time that can be devoted to campaigning. In addition, increasing the terms of House members from two years to three years would help a bit. It is unlikely that reform will come from the nation’s current duopoly, reinforcing the need for a centrist third party devoted to reforming America’s dysfunctional political system.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com