On June 1st, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. It was not necessarily unexpected given his previous train of Obama-era policy reversals, but nonetheless his decision was met with widespread criticism from politicians, environmentalists, and business leaders around the world. Yet, his own party members have either continued to praise the decision to withdraw or remained silent on the issue.
For the political party that has heralded global climate change as a non-issue, natural fluctuation in the climate, or – as the President has said – a “myth” conjured by the Chinese, this response, much like the President’s decision, was unsurprising.
According to Article II, The agreement aimed to keep global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius below pre-industrial levels, decrease greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not halt food production, and carve a financial pathway consistent with those aims.
Nearly all scientists – at an overwhelming 97% of peer-reviewed studies – agree that global climate change is real. Through recent research, we have been able to tie human activity and industrialisation directly to this unprecedented global rise in temperatures.
Diagram from NASA
Ever since the second industrial revolution, planet Earth has been facing the most dramatic rise in climate change and pollution that human civilisation has ever witnessed.
Now, with the new millennium’s rapidly increasing trends of globalisation and consumerism, the threat of reaching a “tipping point” caused by positive feedback loops in the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) looms dangerously close.
Since its establishment in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has continuously upgraded its synthesis of the scientific community’s opinion, most recently stating that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause” of climate change due to the anthropogenic release of GHGs.
Failing to meet the Paris Agreement’s vision could result in a range of catastrophic consequences, including failing crop yields, melting glaciers, decreased water availability, damaged coral reefs, rapid extinction, and extreme weather events.
So, knowing all this, why were Republican lawmakers under the Trump administration elated at the decision to withdraw from this agreement? What element are we missing from this equation of facts?
Lobbyism is the likely answer. After all, the oil industry’s campaign donations and close relationships with the GOP are no coincidence. They are the manipulators of a deliberate and long-standing strategy to undermine climate science at every opportunity, and the results thus far have been disastrous.
Yet, it was not so long ago that a Republican, not a Democrat, ran a presidential campaign with a pro-environment agenda. As The New York Timesreported shortly after the president’s decision to withdraw from the accord, it was Republican Senator John McCain who had run against former President Barack Obama on a climate change platform in 2008.
Photograph from Democracy Now!
McCain touted himself as the man who stood tough on climate change in the face of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. And more recently, he suggested that America should uphold the Paris Agreement, citing the death of the Great Barrier Reef as a symptom of global climate change.
He has since been diagnosed with a rare, aggressive form of brain cancer. Unfortunately for the 81-year-old senator and Vietnam War veteran, treatment options are limited. However, he is not alone as a Republican in the fight against climate change.
Other politically vocal Republicans – politicians or otherwise – have also articulated concerns about climate change. In March, 17 Republicans introduced a resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledging climate change as a real, man-made phenomenon.
“We want the caucus to act as an ideas factory for climate change solutions,” said Carlos Curbelo, Florida Republican Congressman who co-chairs the Climate Solutions Caucus. “We will be modest at first, but I think you’ll see more and more ideas.”
Nevertheless, when Trump decided to withdraw, Republicans were largely united in their praise of Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement.
When did that become a trend among Republicans? And why must Republican politicians either oppose climate change or remain silent on the issue?
When his decision was made public, Trump cited the “draconian” nature of the agreement, stating that it set in place arbitrary climate goals that hurt U.S. workers and businesses.
Photograph from C-SPAN
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the President said in his speech. He then stated that he would personally call the leaders of Britain, Germany, France and Canada to reassure his commitment to trans-Atlantic relations and tell them that he wished to negotiate a better deal for Americans.
Only minutes later, however, the leaders of France, Italy, and Germany issued a joint statement stating that the climate standards set in place by the Paris Agreement were non-negotiable.
Withdrawal from the agreement marked a victory for former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, who both reportedly urged the president to withdraw behind closed doors.
Coal is doomed
The isolationist and job-centric justification that Trump gave for his decision, all while decrying the empirical findings of climate science, is in-line with much of the other rhetoric witnessed during his campaign and throughout his early days in office.
On the campaign trail, Trump gave an impassioned decree to the people of Pennsylvania that he would bring coal workers back to the mines and steel back to Pittsburgh.
The rough-and-tumble industries that built the area are now struggling, and many of the workers in the formerly lucrative industries spend their days sending out résumés rather than hauling coal or refining steel.
Photograph by Mark Lyons
Still, his lavish campaign promises struck a chord with workers seeking to remedy a dying industry. Just enough to get their votes. It’s no coincidence that Trump won Greene County, Pennsylvania by a whopping 40 points, where John McCain and former President Obama nearly tied in the presidential election.
Coal jobs are projected to their lowest numbers since 1978, and roughly 30,000 jobs have been lost in the past few years. Withdrawing from the Paris accord will not bring jobs back to these industries, and therein lies the issue with his justification for leaving.
According to a survey from The Solar Foundation, jobs in the solar industry have soared in past decade, showing aggressive job growth since 2010 with around 260,000 Americans employed in that ecosystem.
The only energy industry that still employs more than solar is oil & petroleum, which constitutes 38% of the country’s energy workers.
Trump’s commitment to job growth may seem noble at the surface level, but the reality is that the industry is dying. Human workers are being replaced by machines, old methods are being swept aside by new technology, and mines all across coal country are closing.
Photograph from WindEurope
Despite the apparent facts, Republican lawmakers still praised the President’s decision to leave this historic agreement with 195 countries committed to fighting climate change together.
In the Trump era, U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is the archetype of the Republican establishment. He was a vocal critic of Donald Trump on the campaign trail, and even rescinded an invitation to speak at a major event in his home state of Wisconsin after tapes emerged of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women and entering their changing rooms during a pageant.
However, when Trump actually secured the votes he needed to claim the office of the President, Ryan said that Trump had done a great thing for the Republican establishment by giving them control of all three branches of government.
Time is running out
Since he took office in January, the Republican establishment has grown ever more congruent with Trump’s agenda. Whether it is for fear of voter backlash or out of general unwillingness to break from establishment ideology, the GOP continues to add fuel to the fire of Trump’s rhetoric against climate science.
The result is a nation filled with people who are in denial of the facts: climate change is the greatest existential threat our species has ever faced. Politics can always change, but the environment only has one chance.
If you want to protect yourself, protect journalism
February 17th 2017 | Wisconsin | Xavier Ward
Illustration by Mike Reddy
Freedom of press is a fundamental tenet of the United States and is even written into its Constitution. Its purpose was to monitor the operations of government, protecting the people from tyranny creeping up on them before they could realize it.
Journalists are often tasked with taking the humdrum language of statutes, bills, and meetings and translating them into common, easily understandable language. This serves the essential purpose of allowing those who would not otherwise be aware of the inner workings of governmental bureaucracy to stay informed – at least to a certain level.
Fake news or no news?
When Thomas Jefferson was asked whether he would rather have newspapers without government or government without newspapers, he replied: “A government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”.
In Jefferson’s more eloquent, longer response, he goes on to spell out the importance of honest journalism. In short, it protects people from the government and allows us to actively participate in democracy without having to go through the pain of deciphering the language of bills and statutes.
Tweet by Donald Trump
It is no secret that the Trump administration has its qualms with journalists. Throughout his campaign, Trump consistently berated the media and reporters, calling them dishonest and unreliable as well as accusing them of adhering to a hidden agenda.
The phenomenon of fake news is particularly damaging. It is always good to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism, but complete distrust and disqualification is an entirely different story.
What he is doing is not simply puffing out his chest; he is creating mass distrust against major news sources which do not support his political onslaught. This is destructive, as it delegitimizes an industry that should be serving as a lookout for society.
Trump has long been subjected to an echo chamber of his own bigotry, and he does not like it. From the beginning of his campaign he castigated the media for any sort of negative attention, even when it was simply repeating what he said.
He has instilled a distrust in media to the point where many of his supporters no longer believe the news if it offers a conflicting viewpoint to their own narrative. This may be indicative of other issues plaguing the mind of Trump supporters, but that is another story entirely.
Tweet by CNN
This unprecedented behavior – tarnishing the media’s credibility – is far more destructive than making a mockery of a long-respected career.
Most recently, White House chief strategist and author of a number of the president’s executive orders, Steve Bannon, told the media to “keep its mouth shut”. This is not even a sly attempt at censorship: “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States”.
Later, when questioned about his concerns regarding White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s standing with the media, he responded: “Are you kidding me? We think that’s a badge of honor. Questioning his integrity – are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work”. This is dangerous and hypocritical language from a man who once ran a rather questionable publication called Breitbart.
Journalists typically avoid cliché as it tends to be less impactful than an original commentary and it can be easily dismissible, but sometimes it is too relevant to ignore.
In this case, the cliché of likening George Orwell’s fantastic novel 1984 to our current political situation is all too easy. It is low-hanging fruit. That novel is not supposed to be a manual, but it seems the Trump administration is hell-bent on giving it a good try.
Barely a week into his presidency, Trump ordered a total media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was suspiciously close in time to his executive order to push forward the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. It ordered all EPA agencies not to access social media or send out press releases, stipulating that any press contact must be approved by a member of the Trump administration.
Photograph from Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
“Incoming media requests will be carefully screened”, a directive said. “Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.” The Ministry of Truth would approve of these actions, but they are not conducive to a free and open society.
As of the first week of the presidency, Sean Spicer is not as loquacious as a press secretary should be when fielding questions from reporters. He has given a lot of short or dismissive answers, and in his first press conference he was reluctant to call on reporters from major news organizations.
The fine print of this action is far more frightening than it may appear. That is because journalism is more important than some care to admit. This unnecessary muckraking puts a strain on an already struggling industry, but whether you like it or not: you need journalism.
This inherent distrust in the media is dangerous because it allows the new administration to act without discretion. Newspapers, and this newer generation of online publications, should serve as a watchdog for its readers.
Journalism is a flawed necessity
Trump has made a lot of wild, inflammatory claims; most recently that he believes 3 to 5 million people voted illegally during the election. This claim, like most others, is entirely unsubstantiated, and the fact that his investigation focuses on states in which he lost to Hillary Clinton seems to indicate that he is still a little sore about losing the popular vote.
However, his tendency to spit wild, unsubstantiated claims is exactly why we need journalism. His populous following will blindly adhere what he has to say, but the greater American people, and the rest of the world for that matter, have a right to know what he is saying, how he is, saying it, and whether there is any truth to it.
Illustration by Shutterstock
This is not to say media organizations are without flaw. Many popular news outlets are wildly biased and their content adheres to an agenda instead of laying out the facts. A good example of this was Breitbart’s attempt to discredit climate change, which was swiftly refuted by Weather.com. Breitbart cited one organization’s estimates, ignoring the plethora of other organizations giving exceedingly different assessments.
Another example is NowThis, a popular left-wing media source, which chopped up a video of one of Trump’s speeches in response to the Orlando shooting. Put side by side, the NowThis version shows a doctored and somewhat dishonest representation of what Trump said. In reality, it was far more moderate than it was made out to be. It is easy for media to enforce a certain narrative by presenting things out of context.
These organizations, by adhering to a biased agenda, have the same effect as Trump’s media onslaught. They create a distrust in media and contribute to the deligitimization of major news sources, lumping them all together with tabloids and profit-driven sensationalism.
Skepticism vs. deligitimization
It is true that one should approach all matters with a dose of healthy skepticism, and that rings especially true when consuming media in today’s world.
However, to attempt to entirely discredit an industry which was instrumental to sustaining democracy and is integral to governmental transparency stinks of something viler, and much more malicious than the surface level actions would have one believe. While some media outlets do express an inherent bias, trying to paint all conservatives in a negative light, this is not true of many major media outlets.
While the media as a whole is far from perfect, encouraging and protecting honest journalism is vital to protecting civil liberties. If you want to protect society from governmental wrongdoings – not just the Trump administration’s – then protect and support free media.
If you want to protect yourself, protect journalism.
January 31st 2017 | London | Juan Schinas Alvargonzalez
Graphic by Bartu Kaleagasi
Social networks are the defining innovation of this generation. They are a tool which has given us previously unimaginable levels of connectivity, as well as the ability to easily keep up to date with global news and specific issues that we care about.
Yet, in the midst of a discussion about the so-called “fake news” circulating throughout social media, little attention has been given to another serious problem: the detrimental side effect of our dependence on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and so on. Unknowingly, we have created – and consequently live in – digital political bubbles.
A polarisation of ideas
As many have noted, society has never been as politically polarised as it is today. In fact, studies show that we increasingly identify with a particular political party and view the opposite party as “dangerous”.
One reason for this phenomenon is that many of our choices in life are inherently political. We are less likely to be friends with people whose politics are wildly different from ours. We are less likely to live in a neighbourhood where our neighbours have drastically different ideologies from us. Income, background, and geography are all indicators of our politics. The more similar we are with those around us, the more we isolate ourselves from different political opinions. The result? We end up viewing these similar opinions as more “normal” than the rest, hence the polarisation.
Diagram by Washington Post
However, this is not the only factor in play. Even though this sort of polarisation has always existed, it is not an omnipotent force. After all, who has not been challenged on their opinions by colleagues, classmates, or old friends? In today’s world, social welfare policies mean that we no longer only interact with people from identical backgrounds and profiles. Middle class students go to the same public schools as low income students, increasing opportunities for minorities mean our offices are ever more diverse, and while racial segregation in housing is still present, it is much lower than it used to be.
This means that we interact daily with individuals who are quite different from us, being exposed to a variety of opinions. That is what makes for awkward dinners with everyone’s Marxist friend, and why at the end of the day we know and value different political standpoints from ours.
Social networks & algorithms
The advent of social networks has changed this dynamic of political tolerance. One of our most frequent and cherished pastimes is to scroll through our social network newsfeed, and with 2.32 billion people projected to own smartphones in 2017, the separation from political clemency could broaden.
This newsfeed, and our interaction with it, is of vital importance when it comes to our worldview, and hence, our political ideology. One might think that there is nothing political about funny videos or pictures from our friend’s night out. Indeed, not everyone’s feed is full of news articles. However, most social media users can attest to the fact that in between everyday posts, we also see content of a political nature.
Diagram by Dennis Jenders
Videos of refugees begging for help on the coast of Greece frequently popped up last year. So have articles about climate change and the need for action, and the day would not be complete without an article decrying the latest Trump buffoonery. The prevalence of this content varies depending on our individual preferences. However, even the smallest interaction is registered and used by the social network’s machine learning algorithms.
Our interaction with such political content determines the frequency with which we will see similar or relevant information again in our newsfeed. Our newsfeed “knows” what we want to see based on how we interact with it – perhaps the most prominent use of artificial intelligence in current times.
For example, I – along with only 46% of the world – believe climate change is the biggest threat we face today. I am interested in our fight for cleaner energy, which is why I frequently read and share information about it on social media.
My interaction with Facebook posts about climate change is extensive. Facebook’s algorithm can easily pick up on this and oh-so gracefully provide me the content I want in the form of relevant articles my friends have shared. It is unlikely that Facebook will show me articles shared by my friends that it deems less relevant to my interaction patterns. An article arguing against the closing of a coal mine, for example, is less likely to appear in my newsfeed. This is not simply because I do not follow pages that are most likely to publish it. It is because it will go against the “narrative” my clicks, likes, shares and comments have told Facebook I believe in.
Here lies the problem of our digital political bubble. Our perception of what is going on in the world is less influenced by everyday conversation with people who might not agree with us, and more influenced by the content of our social media which always agrees with us.
Photograph by Dominick Reuter
Our politics suffer from this dynamic because it inevitably reinforces our perception over others. I for one could read twenty articles on climate change in the course of a month, but not a single one on the negative economic and social impacts of environmental regulation (e.g. closing a coal mine in low-income areas). Am I not living in a bubble?
Let’s take another example, the previously mentioned refugee crisis. People reading this article will most likely have seen in their newsfeed a video of refugees stranded at sea; teary, desperate individuals trying to reach Europe’s shores. Or perhaps even a video condemning anti-refugee statements. A conservative voter in the United States, however, will have had a completely different set of information presented to them. They would have followed pages, people and newspapers that you and I have not. And their friends will have posted content that would not come across our screens.
The result of this disparity is that the perception these two people have over the refugee crisis is so vastly different, that is becomes almost incomprehensible to both why the other would have such an opinion. Thus, there is a direct link between our usage of social media and the current phenomenon of political polarisation.
Moreover, social networks like Facebook offer a platform for millions of media organisations to expand their content and bring in more traffic and revenue. This gives these news outlets and companies just one key incentive: to make us click on the article or video they just shared.
Studies have shown that the most reliable stimulator in our brain – the factor that is most likely to make us click on something – is anger. A video of a cat might make us think about it for a minute or two, but the emotion that it provokes is so minimal that it will not stay with us for long.
Article from Daily Mail
A video of a racist attack in the subway, however, will make us angry, and thus will have a far more significant impact. It will compel us to read about this episode in detail; to go see whether the attacker was apprehended, or whether bystanders helped. In other words, we will care more.
Generating anger is the most compelling way to engage with users. News sites who look to generate traffic through Facebook know this. That is why websites regularly post information that they know will make their readers angry, and prompt them to click, to “see more”.
The unintended consequence of this process, however, is that it serves to accentuate political polarisation. Not only do we perceive different realities through social media, but we also regularly see content that make us more impassioned and angrier.
United in diversity
The overall argument laid out is not one against the use of social media. Social media has been, overall, significantly beneficial for everyone involved. However, it is important to understand how websites like Facebook use our behaviour on their platform to predict what it is we want from them, and what will make us stay online more often.
While this may be good for us in some ways, since it allows us to see and read more content related to topics that genuinely interest us, it also means that we live in a digital bubble, shielded from wildly different point of views or arguments. The implications of these bubbles are serious. Many of the shocking political events we experienced in 2016 can be partly linked to voters dealing with a different set of facts, and therefore wildly different perceptions.
There is, however, a simple solution to burst our digital bubbles. We must make the conscious decision to listen to and read arguments which we do not agree with. The only way to do this is by inserting different content into our social media. Here is a list of conservative podcasts, pages and people to follow, and here is one for both conservative and liberal audiences. Enjoy!
You might ask yourself – how is this possible? How did a candidate who was widely regarded as a dangerous joke by the media, the establishment, and even among his own party members, clinch the highest office in the country?
When this country was founded, it was founded on the basis of freedom and equality for all. That idea is what made America “great”.
Yet, at that time, black Americans were kept as property, and women were seen as second-class citizens. America was not great, and America still is not great. The ideas espoused by the American constitution are valuable, but the nation itself still has a lot progress to make in the 21st century.
Photograph from Obergefell v. Hodges
Depending on your race, social class, and identity, there’s a good chance America is a place where you live in constant fear of being harassed, assaulted, and even killed.
Now, being faced with the results of the election, there’s a fear amongst these groups of marginalized Americans that their very livelihood is in danger. That fear is legitimate.
Donald Trump, a reality television star, real estate mogul and President-elect, paints a picture of America in which we see our friends and loved ones being hurt just because of their background or identity. Make no mistake, he doesn’t care about you or anyone else.
A Democratic failure
Trump’s opponent in the race, Hillary Clinton, was the biggest mistake in Democratic history.
When the Democratic National Committee (DNC) colluded with Clinton to manipulate the primaries against a widely supported progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders, it became instantly clear that this would lead to an inevitable Trump presidency.
Sanders’s supporters were already suspicious of her anti-democratic behaviour during primary season, but when Wikileaks released dozens of DNC e-mails in support of those claims, it was the last nail in the coffin. As a result of this monumental mistake, dangerous populism triumphed over corrupt liberalism.
Another dimension to the Democratic party’s failure is that they backed an establishment candidate during an election cycle where anti-establishment politics were spectacularly popular.
Hillary Clinton is a lifelong politician who personifies the epitome of American establishment politics. She speaks loudly and carries a small stick, so to say. In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, “she’s never met a foreign donor she doesn’t like”. The public distrusted Clinton from the very beginning for her past decision-making, both as Secretary of State and Senator.
Photograph by Bloomberg
In fact, Bernie Sanders issued this exact warning in August 2015, when he addressed the Democratic party and told them that her campaign could not possibly win the election:
“Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout.
With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful. The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics.
We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors. In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it.”
Although it may also reflect a general distrust for politicians, mostly because people are told they have many reasons to be angry, Hillary Clinton’s criticisms are not illegitimate.
However, when given the choice between a Clinton or Trump presidency, there is no doubt that she was the correct choice, or at the least the most acceptable choice to the reasonable voter.
The pitiful state of America
This election is telling of the state of the American mindset.
In the face of racism, sexism, homophobia, police violence, and islamophobia, half the country managed to believe that Trump wasn’t merely touting those issues as speaking points to get elected. We were wrong, and we will have to live with that decision for the rest of our days.
What Trump did was mobilize a group of non-voters. Americans who felt so far separated from politics that they would vote for any candidate who represents radical change. Trump’s running mate and Vice President to be, Mike Pence, the gay-bashing theocrat and friend of the Falwells, is really the cherry on top. In fact, he supports such a backwards agenda, that he and his wife have even funded gay conversion therapy.
Photograph by Michael Henninger
Considering that when John Kasich met with Eric Trump, Eric assured him that the Vice President would be making all real policy decisions, Pence will likely be the puppeteer pulling the strings. When Kasich asked what Donald Trump’s role would be, he simply replied “making America great again”.
Trump’s supporters, mostly uneducated white people, were energized by his charisma, can-do attitude, and general disregard for the rules. “He speaks his mind,” says the Trump supporter. It doesn’t matter to them whether or not his raucous incoherence is based in fact or fiction. It also does not matter whether or not Trump has foreign policy experience, whether he understands the intricacies of macroeconomics, or even if he’ll actually fight for them.
They simply heard an echo of their own bigotry. An echo chamber of American exceptionalism, the idea that we are inherently better, while ignoring any of our own faults.
With Trump comes an era where the truth literally does not matter anymore. Facts don’t matter. Science doesn’t matter. Rhetoric rules supreme.
The most immediate effects of a Trump presidency, coupled with an entirely Republican-held Congress, will be the complete unravelling of President Obama’s progressive policies, to be replaced with the GOP’s toxic agenda.
Republicans now effectively control all three branches of government (executive, legislature, judiciary). What can we expect from them?
Supreme Court: with a vacant seat already left from Republican obstructionism against Obama’s nomination, Donald Trump could potentially appoint 2-3 new conservative justices – leading to the overruling of many important principles like gay marriage.
Economy and society: regressive policies against almost everyone in society, including the repeal of Obamacare – leading to continued rapid decline of the middle class.
Perhaps what matters even more is that Trump’s hateful ideology has now received national recognition, it has been given a voice on the highest of podiums. This sort of bigotry is what first shocked people about Trump, but no one took it seriously until it was too late, and soon it will be represented by the White House itself.
Even Trump’s braggadocious remarks of sexually assaulting women were not enough to unseat him. This is who we have elected, a man who brags of assaulting women and gets away with it. It was written off as “locker room banter”, but really it is an absolute slap in the face to the millions of survivors of sexual violence in our country.
Since the announcement of his candidacy and the publication of his views, we’ve seen an unfortunate rise in hate crime. Videos have emerged showing Confederate flag-flying Americans berating immigrants and minorities with racial slurs and threats of violence. Muslims being beaten and harassed in a country which holds freedom of religion as one of its most fundamental tenants. This is a farce.
Progress is the future
We’ve seen the danger of allowing hateful rhetoric to rule a country’s policy-making. Open a history book and you’ll find a litany of regimes which were all birthed from a single idea: “make this country greater than the rest”.
We need to examine what a “great” country actually is. Trump does not want greatness for America, he wants dominance, and he wants to be at the head of this movement.
A “great” America under Trump is a global hegemon who rules with an iron fist. It is a fearless leader who charges head-first into battle and emerges victorious, regardless of the cost. This is an image out of a tall tale, this is not the reality of the world we live in.
For a country to be great it does not need to be a domineering world power, but rather a global team player that values the lives of all and actively tries to make the world safer for everyone. The race to be the number one world super power is a dangerous and frightful game, and what goes up must come down.
In the face of adversity, Americans have only one option: to unify and hold one another up. Donald Trump will not make this country great, but its people can.
June 29th 2016 | London | Francisco Morales & Bartu Kaleagasi
Photograph by Reuters
In the aftermath of the EU referendum that shocked the world, many are left wondering how it happened, and what will come of it.
The UK had been a leading member of the European Union since 1973, bringing both economic prosperity and global influence to the country. So how did almost 52% of British voters end up supporting Brexit, and what are the future economic and political implications?
A demographic divide
As the polls had suggested before, there was a large difference in voting patterns by age. Whilst almost 75% of young people voted to Remain, 60% of the elderly voted to Leave.
On social media, millennials have been voicing out their qualms with the way the results went down, and especially with regards to the older generation. As young voters are the ones who will face the long term consequences of this historic vote, for better or worse, they feel understandably let down by the outcome.
Diagram by BBC
However, youth turnout was also much lower than that of older age groups. Although this is not a surprising trend as far as elections are concerned, a referendum with repercussions of this magnitude should have as much informed input as possible in order for direct democracy to serve its intended purpose.
On the other hand, overall participation was much higher than in last year’s General Election, with 72% of the nation casting their vote. This was one of the highest turnouts in recent years.
United Kingdom or Kingdom of England & Wales?
Another notable difference was between the United Kingdom’s various countries and regions. Whilst England (53.2%) and Wales (51.7%) voted to Leave, Scotland (62%) overwhelmingly voted to Remain, as did Northern Ireland (55.7%).
In England, many cities including London, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, and Brighton voted to Remain, whereas less urban regions were mostly in support of Leave.
EU membership was one of the most important parts of Scotland’s vote to stay in the UK in 2014, and the Better Together campaign had even used it as their main argument against Yes Scotland. Our previous analysis on the issue can be found here.
Diagram by The Telegraph
In fact, just today, Scottish MEP Alyn Smith demanded that Scotland be given the right to remain a member of the EU, parting ways with its southern neighbours in disagreement over their future. Likewise, SNP MP Angus Robertson told Parliament that they have “absolutely no intention whatsoever of seeing Scotland taken out of Europe” and that they refuse to be part of a “diminished little Britain”.
Indeed, since the UK outside of the EU is not the same country as Scotland voted to stay in, it is likely that they will get another independence referendum in the next few years. On top of this, the prospect of Irish unification has also been gaining momentum, with Sinn Fein calling for a national poll on the day of Brexit.
It seems then that the EU referendum was fundamentally a choice between (a) the United Kingdom as a leading member of the EU, and (b) the Kingdom of England & Wales. Perhaps such a constitutionally significant decision should have required a super-majority of 60%, rather than having been decided by a simple majority margin of 3-4%, vulnerable to the whim of public opinion.
The immigration question
Immigration was perhaps the most contentious and important factor for voters heading into the referendum, and one in which both campaigns intentionally misinformed the public.
Many voters, particularly in the lower-income areas, appeared to believe that a vote for Leave was actually a vote for less immigration, rather than anything to do with the EU. Yet, the actual position that the UK will take with regards to immigration is uncertain at this moment.
Boris Johnson, likely to become the next Prime Minister, suggested that Britain would only make changes in its laws and taxation, claiming that immigration would actually be left untouched. Tory MEP and Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan also echoed similar sentiments, stating that free movement of labour between the UK and the EU would be likely to remain.
Photograph by Alamy
This strikes an odd chord among both Leave and Remain voters, as it seems almost impossible that the EU would agree to give UK the benefits of staying in, without any of the obligations that come with it. Britain would be enjoying an incredibly luxurious position within Europe, without having to take on many of the burdens that other EU nations do.
It is certainly regrettable that a lot of misinformation seems to have been bred by both campaigns, and it is even more regrettable that the picture on immigration is no clearer than before. The tensions that come from immigration in the UK seem to have been rising ever since 2004 saw the enlargement of the EU, whereby many Eastern European countries joined and were thus given the opportunity to move into Europe.
This growing resentment for immigration was then substantially amplified by the Syrian refugee crisis, and many people could not agree on the difference between war refugees and economic migrants. As it stands, the statistics suggest that there has been very little correlation, if any at all, between British wages and higher levels of immigration.
However, for many, the issue is also a matter of cultural clash between western values and foreigners, which is an argument with somewhat more merit than the economic one.
Trade and finance
One of the key concerns from people in the Remain camp was how trade would continue to prosper in a post-Brexit economy.
Leaving the EU would affect trade substantially, and that was one of the main reasons why Scotland voted to remain. Excluding trade with England, the EU is one of Scotland’s two largest trading partners, the other one being the US.
Now, with Brexit being a reality, Scotland will not only call for independence, but also seek to remove itself from the arrangement of leaving the EU. Nicola Sturgeon has already entertained the idea of the former, and she has confirmed that the latter will happen in whatever way possible.
If it invokes Article 50, the UK will have to seek the advice of its best legal and financial experts in negotiations with the EU. The clause, which finds its origin in the Lisbon Treaty, triggers a 2 year period in which the member state must negotiate its deal to leave the union.
If no deal is reached within that time frame, the UK must leave the EU without any trade agreements, reverting back to WTO standard tariffs. Essentially, the economy would collapse. However, this period can be extended upon mutual agreement between the UK and the EU, so that scenario would be unlikely.
Photograph by Georg von Wedel-Goedens
Evidently, striking a deal with the EU which will please the general public is going to be a difficult task, and particularly so in a time frame of just 2 years. It is likely that the UK will negotiate to stay in the single market, much like Norway, accepting all of the EU obligations that come with it.
The United States, who had previously claimed that Britain would be at the “back of the queue” to strike a trade deal with them if they chose to leave the EU, has now softened their stance and expressed eagerness to co-operate. With trade partners like China, Britain is not limited to trading within the EU, but it is almost certain that both the EU and the UK will still need each other for economic prosperity.
Another worrying issue with the post-Brexit economy is that of the financial services industry – banks, accountants, corporate lawyers, and investment managers – all of which will be unable to provide their services to the EU without the UK’s membership. London could risk seeing its status as Europe’s financial centre be taken away by others like Frankfurt, and its global reputation be taken over by others.
Unless some sort of exemption is granted to London, Brexit presents a huge risk and danger for the same industry that provides 12% of Britain’s GDP. To that end, it is certainly no surprise that London voted emphatically to remain.
It is worth noting, however, that Britain’s trading power is certainly not a small one. The aftermath of Brexit only gives evidence to such, as financial and trade markets crashed all over the world.
Since Monday morning, the pound has continued to fall, despite assurances by George Osbourne, the Chancellor, that the economy would stabilise. The level of fear and uncertainty prevailing over financial markets has given Leave supporters further cause to pause their celebrations in the meantime. A country in isolation, in a world of increasing globalisation, may indeed find itself struggling to keep afloat.
Photograph by Reuters
Yet, some economists have spoken out against these observations and suggested that the economic effects will not be as drastic as the Remain camp makes it sound. In their view, the British economy has faced far worse in the past, and so has the Pound itself, as seen in the 1970s when it fell to a third of its value.
Reassuringly, a multitude of large firms have remained resilient in continuing to do business in the UK and braving out the effects of Brexit. This comes after a period where even HSBC, one of the UK’s most prominent banks, were in talks to move their headquarters to Hong Kong.
As it appears, the economic future of the UK and the EU may not be as bleak as some regard it, but there is no conclusive answer at this moment in time. It will depend largely on what sort of deals are negotiated, and how much international business the UK can continue to attract.
Over the weekend, several anti-Brexit protests took place, with millions voicing a strong sense of dissatisfaction at the Leave campaign’s misinformation, at tabloids for their highly anti-EU and dishonest approach towards the referendum, and at the false promises of prominent campaigners.
For instance, the Leave campaign’s pledge to spend Britain’s weekly EU payments on the NHS was refuted by Nigel Farage, sparking public outcry at the perceived change of position.
Whilst it is worth noting there were very realistic and noble reasons to vote Leave, it appears that a large amount of the public were grossly misinformed on issues like immigration. Both the UK and Europe are seeing an increase in xenophobia, racism, and populism, and Brexit appears to have only exacerbated this hostility. As of last Wednesday, the police and media have reported a large spike in the number of hate crimes targeted at foreigners living in the UK, particularly in England.
Whose fault is it, however? As Krugman pointed out, it appears “the big mistakes were the adoption of the Euro without careful thought about how a single currency would work without a unified government, the disastrous framing of the Euro crisis as a morality play brought on by irresponsible southerners, and the establishment of free labour mobility among culturally diverse countries with very different income levels, without careful thought about how that would work”.
Photograph by Jeff J Mitchell
Perhaps a Remain win would have dampened criticism of the EU, but not for long. It appears that some of the long-term issues which exist as a result of the European project have far-reaching consequences that Brexit only brought to the forefront of discussion.
Inside Britain, political turmoil is afoot. Among the Conservatives and Labour, campaigning for either side of the referendum has divided the parties in two. This was clearly evidenced by David Cameron’s resignation as Prime Minister, as well as the Labour Party’s coup against Jeremy Corbyn, which saw over 25 resignations and a vote of no confidence by a margin of 172 to 40 MPs.
Politicians from both camps are now treating each other as traitors to the British public, at a time when unity is most essential. As support for the two main political parties continue to dwindle in the face of modern challenges, a worrying cloud is cast over Europe.
Perhaps a new form of politics is necessary to see this wave of nationalism and rejection of globalisation through. The solution may in fact come from Britain’s youth, who have shown interest in leading a unified Europe.
Since the fallout of Brexit, despite Cameron’s statement that there would be no such thing, a second referendum has been petitioned by those unsatisfied with the result, reaching over 3 million signatures over the weekend.
In media, several reports have surfaced of Leave voters who seem to be regretting their decision, many of whom voted out of protest, rather than actually expecting to win the referendum. Once again, there comes the argument that constitutional decisions should require a qualified majority of at least 60%.
Parliament is sure to be discussing these matters shortly, but developments on this front seem unlikely. As Cameron is set to step down in October, whoever steps into his shoes will seek to invoke Article 50 and start negotiations with the EU. If Boris Johnson is indeed the next Prime Minister, his over-optimism about the future, as evidenced by his latest column on the referendum, is bound to hit the brick wall of reality.
Photograph by European Parliament
On the other hand, many commentators suggest that Brexit will never actually happen, despite the referendum’s result. In that view, both the UK and the EU have simply too much to lose, and the margin was too tight for such a drastic outcome.
This points towards several possible scenarios: (a) Parliament simply votes against invoking Article 50, (b) Parliament calls for an early General Election, giving Labour and Liberal Democrats a chance to reject the referendum, or (c) Parliament negotiates with the EU, and then announces a second referendum on the precise terms of exit. In the latter case, it is likely that Remain would win by a substantial margin.
Unfortunately, direct democracy only works if everyone is well-informed and rhetoric is shot down by facts. For now, one thing is certain: the EU will continue its project to improve the lives of 400m+ people, regardless of the UK’s outcome.
On 11 September 2015, every eligible Singaporean will be able to vote at a polling station, and most will be deciding between the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and alternatives like the Workers’ Party (WP). For the past 50 years, the PAP maintained a stronghold in Parliament, steadily winning the vast majority of seats in every GE until 2011.
The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who led the PAP until the 1990s, was a charismatic and strong-willed leader who believed that ruling leaders “must have the iron” in them. His foresight in economic matters and foreign affairs has been hailed as the key reason for Singapore’s rapid growth from third world to first. With Mr Lee’s passing earlier this year, GE 2015 will officially usher in a new political era and be a major testing ground for current Prime Minister and PAP leader, Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
Recent changes in the political landscape
In GE 2011, Singapore’s most recent “watershed election”, the dominant opposition party, the Workers’ Party (WP), won 7 seats including 1 group constituency, creating an unprecedented crack in the PAP’s strong walls.
GE 2011 also saw the retirement of Mr George Yeo, former Minister for Foreign Affairs and PAP candidate, from the local political scene. It was a difficult decision for Singaporean voters in the Aljunied constituency, not unlike the decisions that may be made in this GE’s “hot” constituencies, including the East Coast and MacPherson constituencies. Was choosing WP the right move? With rigorous debate over the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council saga dominating the early stages of GE 2015, the jury is still out.
Although the political scene in Singapore is relatively young, it is evolving. In GE 2015, there have already been some obvious changes. Opposition parties, including smaller ones like the Singapore People’s Party and Democratic Progressive Party, are now fielding more educated candidates with distinguished professional backgrounds than ever before, touting them as competent spokespersons for the people.
Diagram by Channel NewsAsia
Certain opposition candidates, such as SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, have also been emphasising that their parties offer many viable alternative policies to those currently in place by the PAP. A more regular use of statistics and studies to back up such policies has given the impression that they are well researched, albeit not tried and tested in Singapore yet.
Compared to previous elections, the number of credible alternative media websites has increased substantially, allowing the electorate to have a more informed understanding of all political parties and candidates.
Divisiveness and debate
At the end of the day, the PAP’s narrative is simple. The PAP is a cruise ship: vote for the PAP, and the party’s competent and incorruptible leaders will continue to make Singapore an exceptional nation. Vote for the Opposition, and you will get “a mouse in the House”.
In response, WP’s leader, Mr Low Thia Khiang, agreed that the PAP is a cruise ship, but “[its] name is Titanic” (alluding to its fallibility). In this regard, the PAP has repeatedly emphasised in its manifesto and rallies that it has a strong track record and has delivered on its promises to the people.
Regardless of who is correct (or wrong), this divisiveness in politics and policies has generated great interest in opposition rallies, and accordingly, the crowds have been large.
What lies ahead?
In all likelihood, the PAP will continue to form the next government. The election is more a matter of how many opposition members and parties, if any, Singapore will see in its new Parliament. Will the people continue to trust and support the PAP, or will the desire for cross-party checks and concerns over pensions, cost of living, and immigration policies prevail?
GE 2015 will be hard fought. In three days, Singaporeans will either witness yet another renewal of the PAP’s legacy, or a continuing shift in the tides of political control. However, to many, these are empty words; perhaps the bread-and-butter issues are the only real concerns.
Ultimately, to vote for the Opposition is to take on a certain risk – it is to depart from the familiar and enter new territory. Whether this is a risk worth taking remains squarely up to the judgement of Singapore’s increasingly vocal and astute electorate.