With the way our political discourse has declined post-9/11, I'm not surprised about Brexit. People in the West are more analytical and more hardened with the political discussions we do and don't have. Analytical as in data-driven, but also as in more calculating and selfish. We've had a post-World War II consensus - more pluralism, more multilateralism, more inclusion, more mobility - but that consensus has been fraying for years. We didn't really see that (or didn't care) until the Great Recession and Brexit was the unfortunate moment where the resentments and frustrations of the British public could be leveled against global institutions and norms that they're alienated from.
The idea (or hope) that we're all in this together has been undermined by knowledge of issues like the makeup of our armed forces during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the burdens of that war have been more visceral for certain families and certain communities. The idea that there's always an opportunity to move up has been undermined by what Americans think of income inequality and the reality. When less than 70 people have as much wealth as over 3 billion people, what can empowerment or equality of opportunity even look like? And even if you didn't know that, you can feel that it's harder just to maintain your quality of life, let alone increase it. And no, hustling just a little more - resume edits, coffee chats, and mock interviews included - doesn’t lead to work that you like, work that you're good at, and work that pays well. How many people can claim all three? How many people even hope for all three anymore? With advice like this, not many.
I'm often bewildered by the rhetoric I hear frequently and the facts I don't. It's as if we, citizens of democratic societies, took a vote years ago to be less informed and less tolerant but more drastic and reactionary. Trade moral imagination for data, but then ignore data that signals the need for a more equitable, livable society. Where was I for this vote? Was I sleeping in that day?
Brexit didn't happen in a vacuum. No one just votes to exit a multinational alliance after 40 years anymore than someone just decides to leave their marriage after any number of years. When people feel disempowered and angry, they will use whatever means are available to them to express that anger. "Having a dialogue" can only do so much, and even those don't happen enough for different groups of people. I haven't seen the vote breakdown, but I suspect that London was reliably "Remain" while smaller cities and rural areas were in the opposite camp. Surprised? If so, think about this: Where were you most likely to attend a conference on the evolution of the EU or a university seminar on the relevance of the EU in the 21st century? If you had to choose between such an event in London or York, which location would be more likely to host an MEP, EU contractor, or EU scholar on the panel? Just as people in New York or DC are likely to have fonder, if still critical, regard for the UN and World Bank than people in the rural US, you can't assume that because people in a bubble assume the status quo is the status quo that people outside of the bubble will assume the same.
Concerns about the tactics of some “Leave” campaigners or the commitment of some “Remain” campaigners aside, I never once saw a clear, concise assessment of what the UK has done for the EU and what the EU has done for the UK. The “Remain” campaign could have really benefited from publishing listicles and infographics targeted to different populations and communities. How were the livelihoods of British farmers better with access to the EU market? How many young urban British professionals could claim that a formative internship or entry-level job was gained by moving to an EU country? What innovations were British universities or companies able to implement because of EU resource sharing? Don’t know? Want to know more? Well, there you go...you can’t ask people to vote for something because “It’s the right thing to do” or because “That’s the way it’s been”. If you want people to have a stake in something bigger than themselves, articulate how that stake makes their lives better in the near-term and long-term.
Analysis of Brexit by establishment figures will fall into two schools of thought: we should advocate harder for multilateral solutions to political/economic/social challenges so voters are more informed OR we should limit opportunities for people to vote directly on an issue of this magnitude in the future. Be wary of the latter school of thought. It seems enlightened - People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't participate in the conversation! - but it's a line of thinking, promoted mostly by people of a certain socioeconomic set in urban areas, that has facilitated the rise of Trump in the US, the Independence Party (UKIP) in the UK, and nationalist, nativist groups in other Western democratic countries.
More forums on the positive local impact of the EU and more panels/debates with less jargon and more substance may or may not have reversed the Brexit vote. But if people, even people who don't read The Guardian or The New York Times or don’t know/care much about about what "the international community" thinks, are not convinced that something is meaningful to them - school, work, EU membership, whatever - why will they reaffirm their support for institutions that promote that something? How can you reaffirm support for a project you don't fully understand and that no one has asked you about outside of an MEP election?
This idea of "I will support something that benefits others even if I'm not sure how it benefits me" is noble, but it's been dormant for a while. Maybe not dead, but dormant, because noble ideas without clear outcomes can't pay for basics like school or rent or healthcare, let alone for “extras” like conference fees or a mortgage or a vacation. It’s clear by now that humans don’t make decisions solely for the betterment of others and we tend to be skeptical of people who claim to do so, so any political/social campaign that operates on the opposite premises is bound to be underwhelming. People are tired of just being part of something bigger than themselves, of having any seat at the table. They demand more direct access and more immediate benefits in exchange for participation. And when they don't have that, they'll choose not to participate in the (even slim) hope of a better option coming along, either by voting "No" or not voting at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment