Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Have the Right and Left Converged?
To my surprise, and somewhat to my puzzlement, the American right seems thrilled by Brexit. And so does the American left. For very similar reasons. Indeed, the reasoning seems so similar that it’s hard to tell the editorials apart: If you didn’t know the ideological leaning of the publication, you wouldn’t be able to guess. Broadly, both right and left think this represents a blow against globalization; the proper comeuppance for pointy-headed elites, academics, bankers, and journalists; a victory for people everywhere who think immigration is out of control; and a rebuke to European snobs. I think all of that’s incorrect — and both sides are wrong — but help me to understand what’s going on with the American right that it sounds the same, these days, as the left. Perhaps we’re not as polarized as we think?
For evidence that they sound the same, here are some recent opinion pieces about Brexit. Try to guess if the author is right- or left-leaning:
- The failure of the economic arguments to sway the vote may spell the end of economic rationalism which began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It may be that the vote against the EU was in part a protest vote against the long term changes in economic structure of the UK economy which has destroyed many working and middle class lives. … Insofar as the decision represents a retreat to economic nationalism and closed borders, it may highlight the diminishing appeal of globalisation. Free movement of goods and services, lowering of trade barriers and cheaper foreign labour has not benefitted everybody. Conservative American politician Pat Buchanan’s observation in Pittsburgh Post Gazette on 3 January 1994 remains uncomfortably accurate: “ … it is blue collar Americans whose jobs are lost when trade barriers fall, working class kids who bleed and die in Mogadishu … the best and brightest tend to escape the worst consequences of the policies they promote … This may explain … why national surveys show repeatedly that the best and wealthiest Americans are the staunchest internationalists on both security and economic issues … ”
- I am enjoying the tantrum of Britain’s elites as much as anyone. From listening to the BBC on the radio, it seems like Britain’s fanatically pro-EU elites are building an alternative universe where they ignore survey research that shows little support for a second referendum, and instead focus obsessively on anecdotal stories about Leave voters begging forgiveness from bankers and professors. Forgive them oh Chancellor Merkel, for they know not what they have done. …
- I’ve been watching the TV coverage to get my fill of MSM reaction. And what you say of [Gillian] Tett [of the Financial Times is typical of what Lambert rightly labels the credentialed class — that 5% (some would put it higher at 10 or even 20% but I think the real paid-up members of the credentialed class are in that bracket) who explain to the proletariat what the elites are doing and Why It Really Is In Your Best Interests — they are simply struck dumb. There’s something you don’t see every day.
- Most of all, Brexit is the consequence of the economic bargain struck in the early 1980s, whereby we waved goodbye to the security and certainties of the postwar settlement, and were given instead an economic model that has just about served the most populous parts of the country, while leaving too much of the rest to anxiously decline. Look at the map of those results, and that huge island of “in” voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced it has effectively fallen over …
- Yes, Brexit was a rejection of Thatcherism and the rest of the neoliberal twaddle … but that doesn’t mean Scotland would actually be better off in 2020 in the EU separate from UK. …
- Stafford, Cannock, Wolverhampton. Different towns, same message: “There’s no decent work”; “the politicians don’t care about us”; “we’ve been forgotten”; “betrayed”; “there’s too many immigrants, and we can’t compete with the wages they’ll work for”. Nobody used the word humiliation, but that’s the sense I got.
- The current panic reveals a clique of embedded London journalists. The debate, such as it is, has been entirely antagonistic, veering between scaremongering and sanctimony. Often I wonder who is being addressed. A lot of us are not. … When people say: “Why is my pay so low? Why can’t I get a doctor’s appointment? Why is there no school place?”, the answers cannot merely be abstract nouns such as “austerity” or “globalisation”. We may as well blame the weather.
- Brexit is an expression of English — more than British — nationalism and is part of a decades-long decline in British unity. But the England that wants out of Europe is the England of vanished industry in the north, rural poverty in the southwest and people clinging to middle-class lifestyles in the suburbs of once-great cities that feel increasingly alien to them. Scotland has shuttered factories of its own, of course, but frustration at that fueled Scottish nationalism. English nationalism was reinforced by resentment of Scottish nationalism. But it grew and took on a populist character in reaction to real problems that seemed to have been brushed aside by many leaders in all major political parties. Brexit is a rejection of “Cool Britannia,” the 1990s branding of a cosmopolitan, creative and united Britain as a part of a happy vision of globalization.
- The Remain campaign tried to tamp down this anger with lectures, talking down to the rubes in the backwoods and explaining how they didn’t know what was good for them. This has been pre-eminent rhetorical technique among globalization enthusiasts for decades: that they would fix everything if the public would only listen. What they have fixed is a transition of wealth into financial centers and corporate coffers, and a denuding of societal character in favor of a global monoculture …
- A restless, beaten-down public has drawn the first blood in a rebellion against a neoliberal economic orthodoxy committed to globalization that has sucked the life out of whole communities and blighted the future of a generation. …
- The nerve of the leader of one of the world’s oldest democracies to actually let the voting public decide the future of the nation. … Cameron surely would have been much smarter to follow the lead of the political elites in other countries and to ignore the rising hostility to a union that seems to be stifling progress rather than increasing prosperity for all. Instead, he committed the unforgivable sin of allowing democracy to function, a debate to be held, and voters to choose. In doing so, Cameron has opened a Pandora’s box of insurgency against the political elite in Europe.
Tell me which quotes sound like they came from rock-ribbed American conservatives and which sound like they came straight off Noam Chomsky’s website.
After that, tell me what you think it means that it’s so hard to tell. Is it possible that the American right and the American left have found an issue about which they agree completely?
Do you think these views actually have anything to do with Britain or Europe? Or is the whole thing just a giant political Rorschach test?
Published in General
Agree. Capitalism depends on the individual liberty of its adherents to make choices how/when/where/why to deploy their capital.
Agree, but that doesn’t negate the drag induced by tariffs. The costs of routing around them breed their own rent seeking leeches reducing capital available to be deployed by freemen.
Except we don’t have free floating exchange rates. We have wildly manipulated regimes subject to the whims of central bankers that make EU bureaucrats look darn right humble and patriotic.
Center right?
And
It seems to me you’re confusing the elitists, et al., with us plebes. They still don’t speak for us, even though they publish their opinion pieces.
You’re also assuming, apparently, that the American right is monolithic; it’s not. There are many disagreements on the right that are more substantive than just tactics. On the matter of globalization, for instance, you seem to be assuming that to be a universal term, when it isn’t. Globalization is a matter of trade parameters; it’s a matter of political alignments, coalitions, alliances; and on and on. On the matter of trade, there are Conservative positions regarding free trade, bilateral trade agreements, protectionism, and so on.
On the matter of immigration, for instance, some argue for border control, out of which falls immigration controls; some argue for immigration control to control which nationalities, which ethnicities, etc might be allowed in or barred entry; some argue for tight restrictions on immigration altogether to limit absolute numbers allowed in.
Finally, random chance produces correct answers, occasionally. So it is with the American Left’s seeming alignment with the American Right on the meaning of the Brits’ going out from the EU. Further, it’s only a sounding the same; as the situation progresses, the American Left will resume its shrill disapproval of anything smacking of plebes acting on their own. See for instance the Labour MP arguing in all seriousness that Parliament should simply ignore the referendum’s outcome.
Eric Hines
There is a big difference between global regulations and governance (globalism), and the freedom to allocate one’s own resources in pursuit of freely trading goods and services (capitalism).
I haven’t seen a North-South divide; I saw, rather, a Northern Ireland/Scotland vs England/Wales divide, with some small, isolated and insular populations on the sidelines–the Shetlands, Orkneys, and Gibraltar, for instance.
Eric Hines
Those who try to tell us that Brexit will be seriously harmful to the European economy are just flat out wrong.
The European economy is in deep trouble and is on the verge of collapse. European Banks made a deal with the devil financing the European Welfare State far beyond it’s means in exchange for banking regulations that allowed those same banks to strip-mine countries and play the same “Capitalize the Profits, Socialize the Loses” shell games that have so ruined our economy here at home. The bill for this criminality is now coming due here and in Europe. Continuing these ways of Brussels and the Big European Banks will eventually lead to an extreme calamity, perhaps in the very near future.
Only strong genuine economic growth, coupled with a transparent financial system based upon sound banking principles can save Europe now.
Strong economic growth generated by new businesses, innovation and new jobs absolutely requires Freedom – the kind of Freedom Brussels detests and has continued to squelch.
Furthermore, a transparent fair financial system would end the Crony Socialist shenanigans the Brussels bureaucrats love, and will never give up of their own accord.
So the choice actually was very clear to the Brits- vote Brexit or die.
I think her being forced to resign had a lot less to do with her political opposition to the Treaty and a lot more to do with the political ambition of junior ministers and her fighting with members of her own cabinet. If people used the opposition it was most likely a pretext: something else would have been found if necessary.
Regardless, my point is that if the speech quoted was from 1975 to argue that nothing in the nature of the EU which did not in fact exist in 1975 and certainly did not exist as a supranational bureaucracy able to impose laws and regulations on an unwilling populace without their being able to veto those laws and sucking up billions of pounds is a bit besides the point.
While there are principles that conservatives espouse as bedrock truths, the importance of a superstate is not one of them. In my opinion the conservative movement embraces small government precisely because we oppose remote leadership as being ineffectual and unable to address specific issues on a case by case basis.
We have only to look to Greece (and Puerto Rico for the U.S.) to see the consequences of remote governance and how it can alter decision making processes for the worse.
Additionally, we needn’t look much further than the Federal Reserve or ECB balance sheet to know that we are practicing something more akin to Crony Debtism rather than capitalism.
No, the Tories really were for the EU. That dedication cost the loser who succeeded the Great Lady his position as PM. He’s still for Remain now. It’s true that Tories are backstabbers on principle, the most moral men in Christendom, & that’s never fully free of unholy ambitions, but nevertheless…
I don’t think the primary argument is efficiency. The primary argument is democracy.
Why does everything have to be cosmically analyzed for some deeper meaning? Britain just wants to try something else. Who am I (or you for that matter) to tell them otherwise?
From a purely “freedom” point of view, Brexit sounds like a good experiment. It might work, it might not. That seems to depend on how Britain handles the exit procedure.
But your reflexive disdain for their desire to try it is dismaying. Are you suggesting (if I may read between the lines of your post) that Britain cannot possibly succeed without full membership in the EU? Surely they will try to keep the good and abandon the bad as the supposed two year exit moves forward.
Democracy is a process, not a principle.
There’s nothing necessarily undemocratic about us scrapping the state, county and city governments and making the only government in the U.S. the current federal government or changing to a parliamentary system instead. People would still elect representatives who would still go to a legislature and pass laws or (more likely) pass the buck to a bureaucracy.
It would however a very bad idea to do so because it would limit liberty by necessity by creating too many one-size-fits-all regulations which would prevent people from ordering their lives as they saw fit. I’m not for small/local governance because I trust state politicians more than national politicans – they’re all rotters who have to be watched like a hawk.
Claire,
The answer to the question is very simple. When the train is pulling out of the station everybody wants to get on board. Arepublican Global Governance has run its course. It had 8 years in the White House and it produced the Unaffordable Care Act Disaster, the Zero Growth Economy, and the Arab perma-frost Iran Deal. Everyone wants rid of Brussels and the whole mentality that created it. When you get a lecture on Free Market Economics and Pro-Brexit Reality from an Italian something must be up.
https://youtu.be/2Futxf1U2f8
Of course, that Chomsky is on board with Brexit is still a very great mystery. Maybe he just misses those old John Wayne movies.
Regards,
Jim
What freedom in particular do you think Brussels detests and squelches?
The freedom of people to find their own way of making a living. Watch this, for a great summary.
I endorse this post!
How many silly EU regulations are there? Didn’t they just publicize some rule about forbidding electric tea kettles that they kept under wraps because they were afraid it might sway voters for Brexit?
And speaking of unanimity in changes haven’t they held referendums repeatedly to get the “Yes” vote they want? I think they did that in Ireland with the Nice treaty at least.
These are all commentators, which is what they have in common. None of these are ordinary people. None of the writers has any idea what they are talking about. No one knows what will happen, or what the vote actually means. And all of the commentators are confused. The Left and the Right haven’t reached any consensus. They wouldn’t do that just on ideology. That none says anything coherent, making it hard to tell which is which, is not surprising. On any given day, the same occurs on about every topic these talking (or writing) heads address.
I think it is good thing that Britain is free. It is very corrosive of Democratic values to be able to blame a super state far away for your problems at home. The EU made course corrections extremely difficult for individual countries with a great deal of policy taken out of the hands of the local politicians.
You can still observe this effect in the old Soviet Republics were local leadership always blamed Moscow for their corruption and problems. When Moscow was no longer in charge the elites continued their corrupt ways but had no one to blame so the countries often opted for less then Democratic solutions to stay in power. Britain having politicians directly accountable to her own people again will be a good thing.
On the other point aspects of the Left and Right have been converging for a while now as Trump thinks he can unite his supporters with the Sandernistas to beat Clinton. Language and emphasis is a bit different but must of Sander’s stump speech could have been delivered by Trump or vice a versa. So I think that the disquiet with Technocratic rulers does blur the lines between left and right as you have observed on the issue of Brexit.
Though I think that most Leavers like the free trade zone and even freedom of movement of EU citizens, not immigrants, but they could not stomach the “ever closer union” approach of EU politics.
I assume the freedom to have the tea kettles they want would be important to the British.
In order for self-government and democracy to function, civic engagement must be high.
In a representative republic, civic engagement is maintained by a complex network of small groups electing someone to represent them who then goes on to meet with the next-higher group on the organization chart. When the decision-making authority is too far away from the small groups of individuals on the bottom, civic engagement declines. “Why bother? My opinion and my vote don’t matter.”
Continental Europe has always struggled with fostering civic engagement. The Brits have understood it much better, going all the back to their colonial days.
England actually allowed and encouraged a modicum of self-government in its colonies that France and Spain did not. That’s why British colonies always thrived economically.
England persists in this self-government, keep-it-close-to-home thinking. England is famous for its civil service. But it has made its civil service successful by responding to voter dissatisfaction: it has established and empowered “neighborhood councils.” A truly brilliant idea.
The English Channel is a psychological barrier to civic engagement for the United Kingdom and continental Europe. It always has been. England developed a “we’re on our own” mentality that has frankly served it well for centuries.
The Brits have voted wisely this week. The more empowered its individual citizens are, the better life will be for them.
And the more people participate in government, the more content they will be with government.
Claire’s headline kind of made me laugh. For once in my life, both the liberal and conservative sides of my brain are celebrating. :) No argument here!
The video basically ends the argument of whether Brexit was rational. I don’t think Claire has a leg to stand on in that respect. She doesn’t seem very well informed on Britain’s grievances, but I’m certainly open to refutation.
Claire, given that you are apparently forthright in your support of the EU, I would be quite interested in whatever rebuttal you have to the above video.
This kind of personal remark shuts down the conversation.
And to suggest such a thing about the author of There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters is ridiculous.
A near-perfect design, poorly implemented, is usually a disaster.
The EU was never a near-perfect design, unless a major design goal was the creation of a new aristocracy that would be unaccountable to and remote from the hoi polloi. The borders are being swamped, the Bear is loose, and they bicker over toasters and tea kettles.
As others have said, she was speaking in favor of a free trade agreement, not subjugation of British laws and interests to foreign bureaucrats.
The problem with Jacob’s argument is that if Britain wants to trade with the rest of Europe on preferential terms, it will have to accept all the regulations he finds so onerous — just as the US insists that to have MFN status, other countries must enact regulations they often find onerous, e.g. on copyright law.
No one is forcing Britain to adopt those regulations. They are, however, the cost of access to the single market. Farage and the Leave campaign are now frantically insisting that Britain must immediately secure for itself access to the single market. But the price of access to that market will be adopting the regulations Jacob finds so onerous. As Norway does, for example. And now Britain really won’t have democratic representation in the EU, and really won’t have a say in shaping those regulations.
It is overall — in my view — a bad deal. Britain will either gain access to the single market now on disadvantageous terms or suffer a major contraction of its economy. It will probably be a poorer country in the long run. It’s bad for Europe, too: Europe would better off with Britain in it. And in so far as a peaceful, prosperous, and united Europe is a key American security interest, it’s bad for us.
A poorer Britain will have less money for the Atlantic alliance. Britain will be completely distracted by this for the next decade. And it very much looks as if it will cause the breakup of Great Britain, too. That’s would be quite tragic.
One reason that Europeans see the EU differen from the way that the British see it is that British “subjects” have typically had more freedom WRT their own government, whether King or Parliament.
Whereas most of Europe may merely have traded one gang of thieves for another, Britain suffered a loss of liberty, and they are from whom we derive our taste for it.
Except that in being part of the EU, one must not only accept the regulations at entry, but accept all future regulations over which one has very limited control, as detailed by Mr. Rees-Mogg’s argument. So it is markedly different from MFN status in which the goalposts are not constantly moving.
The observation, “No one is forcing Britain to adopt those regulations,” I assume encompasses voting themselves out of the EU, which they did. Fortunately there is apparently a clause in the governing statues allowing such secession, so there will be no WWIII over this.
Even if the EU cuts off its nose to spite its face (in order to exclude and punish the UK) it is not at all clear that the UK will be worse off. It depends critically on what the UK itself does now and how it relates to the rest of the world.