By Dale Franks
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
It’s been interesting watching the commentary about the
British electorate’s choice to Leave the European Union. In many ways it
reflects the pre-Brexit arguments of the Remain camp, which was essentially
that all right-thinking people should vote remain and that those who didn’t
were just racists and nationalists. That sort of analysis has even leaked into
supposedly non-political outlets like Jalopnik, one of whose stories about
Boris Johnson’s checkered career as an automotive journalist began with this:
Boris Johnson, the flop-haired
ex-mayor of London, has been an outspoken supporter of Brexit, or however you
call the thing where old scared racist people in the UK want to keep brown
people out of their country and think that ditching the shitshow that is the EU
is going to help them with that.
Well, there you go. A perfectly condescending dismissal
of any idea that leaving the European Union had any intellectual support at
all.
Less blunt was the New York Times, who began an article
about the residents of Sunderland, a strongly Labour constituency in northern
England that voted overwhelmingly for Leave, thusly:
Sunderland stunned the country when
voters overwhelmingly opted to leave Europe in Thursday’s referendum, by 61
percent to 39 percent. It was a far higher vote for Britain’s exit than
pollsters had predicted, and it was the first sign that Prime Minister David
Cameron’s gamble on staying in the bloc had lost.
Sunderland’s citizens seem to have
voted against their own interests. Not only has the city been a big recipient
of European money, it is also the home of a Nissan car factory, Britain’s
largest, and automobiles produced there are exported, duty free, to Europe.
The citizens of Sunderland seemed not to have been
impressed by this or other advantages, such as:
They can swim at the Sunderland
Aquatic Center, a £20 million project with an Olympic-size pool that the
European Union helped finance. They can send their children to the sleek,
modern Sunderland University campus, which also received union financing.
European Union money also helped
establish Sunderland Software City, a business center that offers support and
advice to aspiring software entrepreneurs.
Sounds great, except…
However splashy these projects may
be, they remain largely inaccessible to Sunderland’s working class. Many cannot
afford the £30 monthly fees at the Aquatic Center, and people in the nearby
Washington neighborhood said they had never set foot inside.
As for Sunderland University, the
tuition, which the government recently raised, is too much for many young
people.
The article goes on to note that Sunderland has one of
the highest unemployment rates in the UK.
So, how is voting Leave a vote against their interests?
Well, let’s hand wave our way past that question, which, really, no
right-thinking person would ask.
No, on second thought, let’s not, though to properly
unpack this, we have to consider many things.
There’s a growing sense, not only in Great Britain, but
in the US as well, that the elites, or the political class, or whatever you’d
like to call them, are incompetent and have been leading us astray. And the
response from elites is to call those criticisms illegitimate. Those doing the
carping are assumed to be racists or nationalists, both of which, of course,
are unpleasant, dirty types of people. Both the UK’s Leavers and the US’s
Trumpers share some commonalities. Among them are skepticism over free trade
and free immigration; concerns that elites dismiss as foolish and uneducated.
And, of course racist.
But perhaps the Leavers weren’t so concerned with brown
people because they were brown, but because they were concerned at seeing buses
being blown up in London, British soldiers being beheaded in broad daylight in
the High Street, and dozens of children being raped for years in Rotherham.
Perhaps, the British people have come to wonder about immigration because many
immigrants seem less interested in becoming British than they are in making
Britain more like the Middle East. And, maybe, just maybe, the Leavers prefer
to live in Britain, in the free and modern culture that has developed over the
last 1,500 years, rather than go back to live in the year 692. Maybe they
wouldn’t be any more interested in living in the 13th-century culture of
Richard the Lion-Hearted any more than they are in living in the Dark Age
culture of Middle Eastern immigrants.
When people come into your country from elsewhere, they
don’t do so simply as fungible economic units, but as real people, who bring
along cultural and political ideas that may conflict those that are traditional
in your country. It is almost at the point where elites cannot even conceive of
an argument that implies the superiority of one culture over another, so they
dismiss this argument as nationalism and nativism. But, the thing is, a free
society that continually imports immigrants who have no interest in individual
liberty, religious freedom, and political pluralism, will eventually have none
of those things. The problem isn’t race. It’s culture.
National sovereignty means
something. At the very least, it means that the people of a country have the
absolute right to restrict immigration to the sort of people that will, in
their judgement, benefit the country, and, once the immigrants arrive, to force
them to assimilate to the country’s national culture more than the country
accommodates the culture of the immigrant. No obligation exists, in any sense
whatsoever, that requires the people of a country to allow entry to immigrants
who desire to transform the country into something different. It is entirely legitimate
to reject calls for sharia in the UK, just as it’s entirely legitimate to be
upset by seeing political protestors in the US waving Mexican flags or wearing
“Make America Mexico Again” hats, explicitly letting us know where their
primary political allegiance lies. Nor is it illegitimate to wonder why such
people are in this country, and not in the corrupt shithole of a country that
they so obviously prefer, yet so oddly fled.
Even on an economic level, questions of culture and
country aside, people know whether they are better off today than they were 20
years ago. That’s true whether you’re an unemployed shipbuilder in Sunderland,
or a textile worker in North Carolina, where about 650 textile plants closed
between 1997 and 2009. A carpenter in Norwalk, CA, where low wages due to
nearly uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and points south have made it
impossible to raise a family on a tradesman’s salary, can see it happening,
just as a plumber in Lincolnshire can see his wages drop as an influx of Polish
tradesmen pour in.
One of the interesting demographic results of the Brexit
vote was that people over 50 years of age were overwhelmingly in favor of
Leave, while people under 30 just as keenly supported Remain. The standard
explanation, as Jalopnik presented it, is simply that older people are
reflexively racist against “the brown people”. Conversely, I submit that the
older people have a breadth of perspective that enables them to judge what the
country was like prior to submitting to the EU, compare it to the country’s
situation today, and determine whether the result is an improvement. They’ve
seen industry leave the north of England and an influx of immigrants who either
don’t seem all that interested in becoming British or whose arrival has depressed
wages for working people. Apparently, they’ve decided that’s not the Britain
they were promised in 1975 or the one they want to leave to their children.
Perhaps their children disagree, but those children have never had the
opportunity to learn that things could be different. Indeed, they’ve been
constantly taught the opposite by an education system and popular culture that
characterizes Euroskepticism, as well as skepticism about free trade and
unrestricted immigration, as aberrant and racist.
Now, it may be true that free trade is a net benefit. But
even in the best of circumstances, such as assuming that NAFTA and the WTO are
actually free trade agreements—a dubious assumption—the benefits of free trade
are widespread and diffuse, while the closure of textile plants and steel mills
leave highly visible victims and long-term job losses for certain communities.
That’s a political problem, not an
economic one, and it’s one that elites haven’t addressed well. As a result,
it’s biting them in the ass, whether it’s an unexpected Leave win for Brexit or
an unexpected presidential nomination for Donald Trump. Remember, the Leave
vote won even in the traditionally Labour-voting constituencies of northern
England. Either working people don’t understand what’s going on in their own lives, or the promises of
the elites haven’t been borne out by their actual experience. Which is more
likely?
But let’s go even further. Even if you could prove that,
on balance, free trade is an unquestionable economic benefit, people might still prefer to be measurably poorer if
that’s the price that must be paid to maintain their traditional social and
political cultures. (This has even more relevance in the case of the EU,
because the EU actually has power.
Imagine if NAFTA had an unelected Commission in Ottowa or Mexico City that
could impose laws on the United States.) Perhaps people don’t regard their
economic interests as important as their national or cultural interests. It
doesn’t matter what elite opinion thinks the people’s most important interests
are. In a democratic society, ultimately, it
only matters what the people think they are. People get to determine their
own priorities, and not have them dictated by elites. The people get to answer
for themselves the question, “In what kind of country do I want to live?”
Of course, I would argue that we don’t have truly free
trade or, increasingly, a free economy in the United States. The
Progressives always look at the rising
income inequality and maintain that it’s the inevitable result of capitalism.
That’s hogwash, of course, and Proggies believe it because they’re dolts. But
the problem in this country isn’t free trade—we have precious little of it—or
unrestricted capitalism, since we have precious little of that as well. The issue
behind rising income inequality isn’t capitalism, it’s cronyism. Income isn’t being redirected to the 1% because
capitalism has failed, it’s happening because we abandoned capitalism in favor
of the regulatory crony state and its de
facto collusion between big business/banking interests and a government
that directs capital to favored political clients, who become “too big to
fail”. It doesn’t matter, for instance, whether the president is a Democrat or
Republican, because we know the Treasury Secretary will be a former—and
future—Goldman Sachs executive.
Indeed, what we call “free trade” nowadays isn’t the
Theory of Comparative Advantage in action. It’s corporations being allowed to
ship jobs to low wage countries overseas to offset the cost of regulatory
burdens in the US that restrict competition from new entrants to the market.
That works great for large corporations.
Not only do they get to offset the regulatory costs by overseas
production, but slower job growth in the US flattens domestic wages, too, and
sends millions out of the labor force altogether. For working people, the
biggest financial rewards from the current “free trade” regime seem mainly
reaped by large business and banking interests. Again, people know if their own
lives are better or worse than they used to be, and if the promises of elites
have been borne out by their own experience.
The game is increasingly stacked against small business.
We’ve made it harder and harder for working people to start or stay in
business, restricted their access to finance and capital, and forced them to
knuckle under to onerous regulatory burdens. Even with flat middle class wages
keeping labor costs in check, the regulatory burden restricts small business
formation. As a result, working people have begun begin to feel trapped. They
see no way to improve their lives and they can see their own incomes stagnating—as
middle class incomes have, in fact, been stagnating for at least 20 years.
Add to that the additional downward wage pressure that
everyone agrees is the inevitable result of increasing the supply of labor
through large-scale immigration. Then top it off with immigrants refusing to
assimilate to culture of the host country in seemingly greater numbers. Now you
have all of the necessary elements for a political revolt by the people the
elite see as the rubes and hayseeds in flyover country. Rather than foreseeing
and trying to ameliorate the results of these trends, the elite have chosen to
ignore them at very least, or dismiss them with contempt at worst.
Most people, most of the time, are perfectly happy to let
elites run the country. After all, it seems to make the elites happy to run run
things, and as long as they’re reasonably competent at it, and do it reasonably
unobtrusively, no one much seems to care. But when elite competence is
compromised by faulty ideology and cronyism, people become unhappy. And when
the elite response to complaints is dismissal or insult, political problems
begin to bloom. People begin to think
about politics. They begin to do
things. It is no coincidence, as our Soviet friends used to say, that the last
decade has seen the rise of the TEA Party, the Occupy Movement, and the Trump
phenomenon. People of all political stripes are becoming unhappy.
I think we’re about to watch the elites start paying a
price for their incompetence, inattention and contempt. Euroskepticism is on
the rise elsewhere in Europe. If EU membership were put to a popular vote in
the Netherlands, Spain, or Sweden, there is a good chance that Leave would win
there, too. Indeed, it’s possible that a vote to leave the EU might even win in
France, the nation for whom creating and strengthening the EU has been the
primary policy goal for 60 years.
Perhaps the “Vote Remain, you virulent racist!” PR
campaign for staying in the EU needs a bit more thought.
So, too, does the idea that Donald Trump supporters are
all rubes and hayseeds. However much we might dislike the messenger, and Trump
is certainly dislikable, and however slim his personal characteristics make his
chance of winning the current election, the fact is that his message has gained
much more ground than most thought possible a year ago. The key elements of
that message are the same ones that resulted in a Leave vote in the UK. In the
hands of a more astute politician, how much more effective would that message
be?
I leave it to you to ponder the answer to that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment