Brexit v. Clinton-Trump

The recent unbelievable and irrational vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union should be a warning shot across the bow of the Clinton campaign for the Presidency of the United States. There are significant differences between the two countries that will ameliorate a direct comparison but there are enough similarities to warrant a cautionary outlook.

It appears that the vote in Britain is the result of a large turnout, over 70% of the electorate voted, with the older generations voting predominantly to leave while the younger portion of the electorate voted to remain in the union. It is just that they did not turn out in sufficient numbers to win although it seems that the vote could have gone the other way had they done so.

The correlation between the Brexit vote and our Presidential vote is not a direct one but rather one that can somewhat accurately gauge the sentiment of much of the electorate. I don't think that I have ever seen an electorate so riled up and disgusted with the inability of government to get things done. That frustration is expressed in different ways and in favor of different solutions and candidates but the root cause can be traced to a common source. For over 30 years now the middle class has been under attack from what seems to be all directions. It is a complex set of equations that have led us to the point that both of our political parties are claiming the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and statistics support that. The richest 1% of the population controls over 80% of the wealth in this country and they have convinced many that it is the result of government regulation. They have convinced people that anyone can realistically aspire to achieve great wealth and many of those people resist regulation designed to return a portion of that wealth to them.

Great Britain and much of the rest of the world is no different. The richest 62 people in the world control more wealth than the entire remainder of the world. You may say, “well, they worked for it” and that is most certainly not the truth. They have attained great wealth by using their wealth to convince legislators and others to pass favorable legislation to ensure more profits and the people know it. Voters in both major parties are upset that the representatives that they elect pay them no heed when it comes to voting for legislation that has the opportunity to make lives better. Even though the disaffected from both parties are disgusted they see the solutions to their problems differently. Indeed, they see the causes for those problems differently which gives rise to the virulent nature of the campaigns.

Those who identify as conservatives see immigration as a major issue. They love it when Trump calls people names and threatens to deport them all. When he stokes the fires of nativism they see our culture as being under attack from all comers. When there is an attack by terrorists anyplace in the world they see red that we still allow Muslims to enter our country even though we are forbidden to consider religion as a discriminating factor.

Those who identify as liberal see the wealth gap and the presence of great sums of corporate money as a cancerous influence on our democracy that results in favorable treatment for the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and those who would aspire to that classification. They see greater government regulation as an answer and a return to higher taxation of the wealthy as a means to begin to restore infrastructure and create jobs for the people.

It is uncommon for there to be such anxiety and furor among the people and yet see so wide a disparity in the range of solutions. In the past it was simple to identify an issue and candidates were obliged to define policy solutions to address those issues. In these days the system for political campaigns has been turned topsy-turvy and we, as a people, have not figured out how to deal with it. The people have expressed their displeasure but their representatives choose to ignore them confident that they can push the correct buttons to achieve reelection. They perceive, correctly, that as long as they can keep a public persona that appeals to their electorate they are free to do whatever they wish as legislators or even nothing at all. Rather than being good at one's job the defining criteria for reelection has become more one of public relations.

No one, including me expected Donald Trump to be in the elevated position that he is but, believe it or not, here he is. Just about everyone expected Hillary Clinton to be in the position that she is despite a strong and spirited run by Bernie Sanders which revealed the underlying anger of the Democratic Party.

So, here we are, barely more than four months from electing a new President, and the electorate is in turmoil. We certainly can't expect most media outlets to be useful in helping us to make decisions since media is also in the game of public perception. Turmoil and conflict are the lifeblood of their ratings and service to the republic, the reason they were granted such extraordinary protection by our Constitution, cannot be expected.

So, where does that leave us? My Take is that we are left in a position to try and understand issues that are complicated and internationally important. A job that we, as individuals, are poorly suited for. It will be incumbent upon us to be reflective and uncommonly sensible, something that we are not particularly known for. Anything else and we will look like Great Britain but exponentially worse.