The historical context behind America and “shithole countries”
February 13th 2018 | Chicago | Xavier Ward
Illustration by Lyne Lucien
The Trump administration is hardly a stranger to controversy. It has run the gauntlet of accusations of racism, collusion with foreign governments, obstruction of justice, public misinformation, authoritarian rhetoric, and most recently: using a slur to describe an entire continent and two other countries.
The Emperor has no clothes
Yet, Trump himself has — despite swaths of public acrimony and an abysmal public approval rating — remained largely unscathed. The Republican controlled House and Senate have made it easier for Trump to say and do as he pleases with no more than media scrutiny.
His latest mishap came during a private meeting on immigration, in which he allegedly branded the African nations, El Salvador, and Haiti as “shithole countries”, questioning why we should allow immigrants from these places and suggesting that we try to attract people from countries such as Norway. He had just met with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg the day before these disparaging remarks.
Moreover, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin claims that Trump used the word “shithole” repeatedly throughout the meeting. The story has been broadly confirmed from multiple sources.
Photograph by Jonathan Ernst (Reuters)
Trump denied using the slur against African countries and claimed he never said anything derogatory towards Haiti, touting a “wonderful relationship with Haitians” in a tweet on January 12th.
He did, however, admit to using “tough” language in the meeting.
The African Union’s spokeswoman, Ebba Kalondo, told the Associated Press that they were alarmed by Trump’s comments. “Given the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the United States as slaves, this statement flies in the face of all accepted behaviour and practice.”
The United States also has a complicated record with Haiti. If Durbin’s account of the meeting is true, which now seems to be the case, then the President must understand the United States’ historical role in upholding devastating conditions there.
Duvalier and the United States
When discussing the difficulties that Haiti faced for many decades, one would be remiss not to talk about how the U.S.’s complicity, and (at times) support, of the Duvaliers perpetuated those impoverished conditions and the murder of Haitian nationals.
François “Papa Doc” Duvalier came to power in 1957 on a black nationalist and populist movement. Shortly after, he became “President for Life” in a sham election in 1964 and ruled until his death in 1971.
After his death, he was succeeded by his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, who ruled until 1985 when a rebellion unseated him and he fled to France, only to return in 2011.
“In his first speech on October 22, 1957, President Duvalier promised government unity, reconciliation, and financial redistribution. However, within weeks, he began to destroy all past or potential opposition in order to centralize power in himself and remain in power” — according to Dominican Republic and Haiti, a Library of Congress report.
Diagram by The Economist
“President Duvalier reigned supreme for fourteen years. Even in Haiti, where dictators had been the norm, François Duvalier gave a new meaning to the term. Duvalier and his henchmen killed between 30,000 and 60,000 Haitians,” the report read.
All the while, the U.S. was supplying roughly $15 million in aid to Haiti, most of which would line the pocketbook of Mr. Duvalier.
That aid was not cut until his sham election in 1962.
“By 1961 Duvalier had received US$40.4 million in foreign assistance, mainly as gifts from the United States,” the report states. According to that same report, former U.S. President John F. Kennedy cut the aid after Duvalier refused to diverge what it was being used for. Still, he secretly received U.S. funds, and after Kennedy’s death, aid money began to flow openly again.
All the while, the Haitian people languished. Following his death, his son was no kinder; Jean-Claude had come into a fortuitous — albeit violent — political situation.
Shortly after coming into office, he declared Haiti would always be an aid to the U.S. in its fight against communism, and the relationship between the two continued as it had before.
A legacy of death and violence
“Bolstered by the U.S., the regime operated with impunity. Government funds were embezzled and siphoned out of the country, which later enabled Duvalier to live well in exile. Poverty, environmental decline, and poor health conditions in much of the country went unaddressed,” The New Yorker’s Laurent Dubois wrote of the situation, shortly after Jean-Claude’s death in 2014.
While Jean-Claude boasted of an economic uptick due to foreign companies setting up shop in Haiti, thus branding it the “Taiwan of the Caribbean,” the anguish endured. Political opponents were imprisoned, tortured, or exiled. Those fortunate enough to escape to the United States set up communities, and there the anti-Duvalier sentiment boiled, but American aid to the dictator who was living up to his father’s namesake persisted.
It was not until 1985 that he was ousted in a military rebellion and fleeing to France the following year. In 1987, former President Ronald Reagan ordered the remaining U.S.-based assets of the Duvalier family frozen.
Photograph from Bettman/Corbis
Nonetheless, the U.S. government’s seeming affinity for the dictator did not stop there.
Despite Jean-Claude’s legacy of destruction, he resurfaced from exile in France in 2011, shortly after the devastating earthquake. It was seemingly a slap in the face to Haitian citizens who had suffered under him. While a court did decide he could be charged with crimes against humanity in February 2014, he died October of the same year.
In 2011, around the time Jean-Claude resurfaced, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for the presidency of Michel Martelly, whose rule just ended in 2016.
Martelly’s presidency paled in comparison to the authoritarianism of Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier, but he did utilize the power structure put in place by them for his own benefit, welcome Jean-Claude’s son into his regime, and do so with blatant U.S. support.
The United States has a habit of sticking its nose into dictatorships and failing governments.
Take the Arab Spring for example. One could argue that the U.S.’s intentions were noble, but its track record of successfully changing the tide in other countries is lackluster at best and near-criminal at worst.
The story is no different in Haiti. If Trump did indeed brand Haiti a “shithole”, then his administration should also acknowledge the United States’ role in making it one.
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.
A recent article in The New Yorker painted a troubling and vivid portrait of the opioid crisis facing many areas of the nation. In her piece, Margaret Talbot details a number of graphic overdoses that have taken place in West Virginia, the U.S. state with the highest rate of opioid overdoses per 100,000 people (39.3). What is the cause of this phenomenon, and what can be done to alleviate it?
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that in 2015, there were more than 52,000 Americans killed by drug overdoses – or one every 10 minutes.
According to The Economist, about 33,000 of those can be attributed to opioids, the most common of which are prescription painkillers and heroin. While major cities feel some of the weight, it is actually areas such as Midwest America and Appalachia which are being truly devastated by this crisis.
In certain parts of the country, including Talbot’s focus of Berkeley County in West Virginia, overdoses are a daily occurrence. They seem to be taking place almost anywhere and at anytime. “Many addicts are collapsing in public – in gas stations, in restaurant bathrooms, in the aisles of big-box stores”, writes Talbot.
Graphic by The Economist
The number of overdoses has shot up dramatically around the country over the past several years as heroin has started to be laced with powerful prescription medications such as fentanyl. In the 21-country area surrounding Toledo, Ohio, there were only 8 overdose deaths in 2010. In the first six months of 2016, that same number was 127 deaths.
The burden placed upon paramedics has been so extreme that even entire teams of paramedics working 24-hour shifts are unable to reach every overdose in a timely manner. In those cases where they do, the main course of action is to administer a potentially life-saving dose of Narcan – a drug used to counteract the effects of an opiate overdose. Classes are now being offered to average citizens in areas with high overdose rates so that they know how to administer the drug themselves should the situation arise.
The issue can be traced, at least in part, to the explosion in powerful prescription medications in the United States. In 1991, the number of opioid medications (Oxycontin, Vicodin, etc.) supplied to pharmacies was 76 million. In 2011, that number was 219 million.
Perhaps even more telling is the fact, according to The Economist, “in 2002 one in six users took a pill more powerful than morphine. By 2012 it was one in three.” Pharmaceutical companies and doctors have begun scaling back the prescriptions for painkillers, but that has turned people already hooked on opiates towards drugs like heroin instead, which is substantially cheaper than any prescription opioid.
Photograph via Getty Images
Certain officials, such as Governor Hogan, have pledged money and attention to the issue. Even U.S. President Donald Trump commented on America’s “terrible drug epidemic” during his speech before Congress in February, and in one of his few positive moves he set up a commission on drug addiction and offered $500 million to combat the problem.
Making matters worse is the aforementioned fentanyl, a synthetic painkiller that is 50 times more powerful than heroin. The result is a dramatic increase in fatal overdoses in a number of states. In Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency after the combination of heroin and fentanyl killed 1,468 Maryland residents in the first nine months of 2016, a 62% increase from previous year.
It is not as if this is a problem we are mentioning for the first time. Highly regarded publications, including those cited in this article, have offered enormous spaces devoted to discussing this enormous issue.
Among others, The Economist firmly advocates the decriminalization of all drugs to replace America’s deeply-flawed policy of prohibition with a focus on health treatment and safe use centres:
Banning drugs is not just ineffective, it is also counterproductive. Fentanyl is a nasty substance, but prohibiting all illicit drugs, whether they are new or established, prevents the research that could distinguish between those which are more and less harmful. It also leads to topsy-turvy outcomes. Marijuana, which cannot lead to overdoses and which can be used as an effective pain-relief medicine, is classified by the federal authorities in America as a more dangerous drug than fentanyl, which is used in very controlled doses by cancer patients and abused fatally across the country.
It takes guts to legalise drugs when so many are dying from them. But it is better that addicts take safe doses of familiar substances under sanitary conditions than for them to risk their lives enriching criminals. Switzerland followed the legalisation path after a heroin epidemic in the 1980s, treating drugs as a public-health problem. Since then drug-taking and drug-related deaths have fallen. America should follow suit.
Every day that passes, 78 Americans die from an opioid overdose. And every day that passes without real solutions to this very real problem, those deaths will linger over the heads of those that have seen the problem, acknowledged it, and then decided to mire in inaction and rhetoric.
US foreign policy and the birth of neo-conservatism
July 26th 2017 | Indiana | Russell Hall
Graphic by Eva Bee
When former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski died on the 26th of May, liberals mourned his loss and praised his accomplishments. Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter called him a “superb public servant”. Barack Obama offered similar praise, stating Brzezinski’s “influence spanned several decades, and I was one of several Presidents who benefited from his wisdom and counsel”.
This reaction is hardly surprising. An early opponent of the Iraq war and a critic of unilateral military intervention, Brzezinski was a hero for many on the left. In a 2012 interview with CNN, Brzezinski blasted Republican presidential candidates, stating “I literally feel embarrassed as an American when I see those people orate”.
When asked to comment on Republican claims that “America is number one, this is an American century, we should just assert our power”, Brzezinski replied: “The last three Republican presidents [said] God chose America and history commissioned America to be playing that kind of role. And that kind of rhetoric is just divorced from reality to the point of absurdity, actually to the point of danger for us.”
Photograph via The White House
But Brzezinski might not deserve our praise. The tragic fact is that his policies under Carter paved the way for the neo-conservative nightmare that has wreaked havoc across the globe. In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president on a promise to make human rights “the soul of our foreign policy”. It was a revolutionary statement, an acknowledgement that the Soviet Union was not the only source of evil in the world. America was as well.
In the name of freedom, America had overthrown freely elected governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973), provided military aid to repressive regimes guilty of genocide, and defended pro-American dictatorships when criticized by human rights groups. At the time, it looked as if America would finally move towards incorporating human rights as the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
In retrospect, Carter’s mistake was to appoint Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor. A Cold War hawk, Brzezinski saw the world as a game of chess – on one side was America, and on the other the Soviet Union. All other countries were the pawns of these two powers. If a pro-American dictatorship fell in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, or South Vietnam, it was the work of the Soviet Union.
“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during the 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. […] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: we now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War.”
When asked if he regretted supporting Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski replied: “What is more important in world history? The Taliban, or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems, or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”
Since the end of World War II, U.S. foreign policy had been based on the idea of containment. America was propping up anti-Communist dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, but avoided overthrowing governments that were already aligned with the Soviet Union.
Although the US did try to overthrow Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Castro had not officially declared Cuba to be a Marxist-Leninist state until after the incident. While hardly humanitarian, the strategy of containment placed a restraint on American military power. It forced U.S. policymakers to use diplomacy instead of military threats when dealing with Communist governments.
Photograph via The National Archive
By waging war directly against established pro-Soviet governments, Brzezinski ushered in a new and more aggressive form of foreign policy known as ‘neo-conservatism’. Harry Targ, a professor of International Relations at Purdue University, defined this as the belief that the United States “has the right and responsibility to impose its wishes, its vision of government and public policy, and its institutions on the world. If people resist […] the United States should impose its domination by force.”
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 only increased the appeal of neo-conservatism. As the last remaining superpower, the United States used its military power to remake the world in its image. So far, the consequences have been deadly. Besides the lives and money lost from failed military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States’ decision to dominate the world has only increased anti-American sentiment in the modern age.
Human rights vs. hegemony
Are we being too harsh on Brzezinski’s foreign policy decisions? Could one argue that American interventionism was necessary against the threat of fascism from the USSR? Considering the implications of hegemonic stability theory and the 21st century’s resulting success as the most peaceful era in the history of humanity, that may be a valid justification.
One might also argue that, by historical standards, Brzezinski’s views were simply a reflection of what most members of Carter’s cabinet were thinking – but that would be a false conclusion. In fact, one of Brzezinski’s biggest critics was Cyrus Vance, who was Secretary of State at the time. Moreover, Carter’s campaign manager Hamilton Jordan once said: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as Head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.”
Diagram by The Economist
Mr. Jordan did not quit, but he was right. The moment Carter became president, the two men battled for influence. Unlike Brzezinski, Vance shared Carter’s belief American foreign policy should be guided by human rights. As the Carter presidency wore on, Vance grew increasingly frustrated with Brzezinski. In his 1983 memoir Hard Choices, Vance wrote:
“I supported the collegial approach with one critical reservation. Only the President and the Secretary of State were to have the responsibility for defining the Administration’s foreign policy publicly. Despite his stated acceptance of this principle, and in spite of repeated instructions from the President, Brzezinski would attempt increasingly to take on the role of policy spokesman. Eventually, as divergences grew wider between my public statements and his policy utterances, Brzezinski’s practice became a political liability, leaving the Congress and foreign governments with the impression that the Administration did not know its own mind.”
In time, Vance was marginalized and his influence began to wane. He finally resigned as Secretary of State following the failed operation to rescue American hostages in Iran, an operation he opposed but Brzezinski had supported. Near the end of his life, a reporter asked Vance how he wanted to be remembered. He answered: “I hope for being a reasonably decent, honest person who tried to do some things for the country that might have lasting effects and create a better life for a large number of people.”
Revisionist historian William Appleman Williams, in his iconoclastic book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, wrote that “the tragedy of American diplomacy is not that it is evil, but that it denies and subverts American ideas and ideals”. The same could be said about Brzezinski. As a refugee from Poland, he was a statesman for those who were still living under Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. To the rest of the world, however, he was a hypocrite. Throughout his life, Brzezinski criticized the Soviet Union for denying the citizens of Eastern Europe the right of self-determination, yet he refused to acknowledge what America did in Latin America and other third world countries.
By subverting Carter’s commitment to human rights, Brzezinski not only helped create the neo-conservative monster that haunts us to present, but also prevented America from becoming the humanitarian superpower that it has always claimed to be.
How patriotic populism empowers authoritarian politics
March 11th 2017 | The Hague | Melih Uzun
Photograph by Getty Images
Ever since Donald Trump was elected into office, critics have been suggesting that it is an indication of the global rise of right-wing populism, with similar rhetoric set to emerge victorious in European countries as well. The upcoming elections in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV) tops the polls, could prove to be a major trial for this hypothesis.
Islam and integration
Geert Wilders is arguably one of the most polarising figures in Holland. He is infamous for his outspoken anti-Islam views and has been a constant source of controversy for over a decade. The numerous death threats he has accumulated over the course of the years have even led him to require full-time police protection.
Besides religion, he is also often accused of inciting hatred against ethnic minorities – especially the local Moroccan community – over issues related to violence, crime, and lack of integration. In 2014, his Freedom Party held a meeting in The Hague that was illustrative of the polarising rhetoric adored by many, while leaving others trembling with indignation.
Having asked his audience whether they wanted to see more or less of the European Union and Labour Party, both questions were met with chants of “less, less, less”. He then went on to ask them whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans and – upon hearing them chant the same answer once again – ensured his supporters that he would “get it done”.
Photograph by Fabrizio Bensch
Hundreds of people filed police complaints and he was tried for charges of incitement to discrimination. Wilders was finally found guilty (but not penalised) in December – a decision which he vowed to appeal against.
Wilders enjoys the support of a substantial part of the population. However, he is also widely criticised for his evasive tendencies, for his preference of bold statements over elucidated plans (his election manifesto is just a single page), and for shying away from settings which would allow his agenda to be questioned.
He has withdrawn himself from public debate on two occasions, the most recent of which was caused by a feud with a media outlet. The hosting TV station had contacted Wilders’s brother earlier for an interview, which angered the PVV politician. Wilders, however, maintains that the boycott is a matter of principle, claiming that his privacy was violated and rejecting any allegations about him “dodging” the debate.
Make the Netherlands Ours Again
As much as Wilders is accused of being evasive towards the media, British journalist John Sweeney managed to land an invitation to interview him for BBC Newsnight. Upon meeting Wilders at the House of Representatives, he was quick to ask him a frank question: “are you going to do to Holland what Mr. Trump is doing to America?”
Wilders rejects the notion that he is merely a Dutch copy of Trump, but he has admitted that there was “indeed, a patriotic spring going on”. He considers Brexit to be a turning point, where Brits supposedly reclaimed their country “even though the political elite made sure to scare the people away from voting in favour of leaving the European Union”. The same applies to the US, where “despite all the rhetoric of the elite, Mr. Trump won the election”.
Furthermore, Wilders confirmed his admiration of Trump by stating that he hopes to “repeat the same thing, because once again, the people want to be in charge again”. According to his vision: “It’s not only America first; it’s also Holland first, and that’s what I’m trying to accomplish.”
Photograph by Yves Herman
In an attempt to gauge his stance on threats of terrorism other than those stemming from radical Islam, Sweeney asked Wilders what the biggest loss of Dutch lives (by terror) has been in the last few years. His response was that the Netherlands have been “lucky not to suffer the kind of attacks that Germany, France, Belgium, and even the United Kingdom” have faced.
Wilders was caught off guard by Sweeney’s prompt mention of flight MH17, referring to the Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down near the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, killing everyone on board. The lives of 193 Dutch citizens were lost that day, and Russia remains the prime suspect – despite denying any such allegations. Sweeney hinted at this attack to illustrate why he believes Wilders might be obsessed with “one element of the spectrum” (Islamic extremism) while ignoring more pressing issues such as “Russian fascism”.
Wilders chuckled slightly and asserted that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Therefore, he says “the Islamisation of Dutch society needs to be stopped, or we will cease to exist”. His critical outlook on Islam is reflected in the PVV’s ideology, which is further characterised by staunch Euroscepticism and nationalism.
These ideas became apparent once again in Wilders’s rebuttal of Sweeney’s concern about slogans like America First or Holland First, which he considers reminiscent of the zeitgeist of Europe at the brink of the Second World War. Wilders dismissed this as fearmongering by politicians to distract from the establishment of “another totalitarian institution, which is called the European Union”.
Fake news and fake Parliament
The BBC journalist was clearly taken aback by Wilders’s characterisation of the EU as a “totalitarian institution”, but perhaps remarks like these need not come as a surprise from somebody whom he likened to Donald Trump – a man who is no stranger to stirring up controversy.
By his own admission, Wilders admires Trumps victory against the “political elite”. This quintessentially populist pretence of aligning with the people as opposed to the elite seems to be a part of both of their success formulas.
Experts attribute Trump’s popularity to his unconventional ways that distinguish him from the archetypal politician. Despite being a billionaire, Trump won the hearts of millions of ordinary Americans by presenting an eccentric anti-establishment alternative to the tired, old, sophisticated-sounding candidates people had grown increasingly sceptical about.
Photograph by CNN
Likewise, the fact that Wilders is one of the longest-serving Members of Parliament doesn’t keep him from condemning the “political elite”, whom he deems to be ignorant of the life of the average Dutchman. On one occasion, he even denounced the National Assembly and its MPs altogether, calling it a “fake Parliament” that does not represent the will of the people.
Wilders’s position to lecture an elected parliament on democracy is questionable at best, as he is de jure the only member of his Freedom Party, allowing him to single-handedly dictate their entire policy agenda.
This statement bears another striking resemblance to Trumpisms, and more specifically to his unfounded denunciation of various media as “fake news”. Both politicians evidently see no issue in arbitrarily delegitimising institutions such as media outlets – or even the House of Representatives.
What makes this most worrisome is that this mindset, when sufficiently empowered by populism, could lead to dangerous forms of authoritarian politics. After all, if there is any common ground between the regimes of countries like China, Russia, and Turkey, it would be their aversion to voices of dissent.
Patriotic spring or Democratic autumn?
Whilst some may argue that it is a bit of a stretch to compare populists like Trump or Wilders to real authoritarians, there is much more to it than meets the eye.
In fact, concerns that have been raised thus far are arguably just the tip of the iceberg; an investigation initiated by the Dutch Bar Association uncovered a multitude of proposals from the PVV’s one-page election manifesto that were found to be detrimental to the rule of law.
Their programme was found to be at odds with EU and International Law (including the United Nations’ Refugee Convention), as well as the Dutch constitution, as it intends to endanger freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of education, and the right to a fair trial. One cannot help but wonder if Wilders was being ironic when he named his party.
Diagram by Peilingwijzer
His disdain for the establishment runs much deeper than his attack on parliament suggested, because his objection goes far beyond feuds with fellow MPs. He has publicly accused judges and prosecutors of being politically biased against him and his party, which is a straightforward denunciation of the entire justice system and the separation of powers.
There is no apparent limit to the lengths Wilders would go to in order to play the victim of an arbitrarily defined set of forces and institutions – or rather the “political elite” – who are unanimously set on conspiring against him and his beliefs.
With just a few days to go until the elections, Wilders’s popularity in polls appears to be stagnant, but his Freedom Party may still win up to 28 out of 150 seats. The PVV is matched with the governing Conservative Liberals (VVD), who have a fair chance at retaining the largest number of MPs, despite a projected decline from their current 41 seats.
However, the sitting government is a coalition of Liberals and the Labour Party (PvdA), and the latter is set to face an even sharper decline from 38 to a projected 14 or even 9 seats. Other parties who are expected to receive a considerable amount of votes on March 15 include the Christian Democrats (CDA; ~19 seats), the Liberal Democrats (D66; ~18 seats), the Green Party (GL; ~16 seats) and the Socialist Party (SP; ~14 seats).
Europe marches on
Most mainstream parties have vowed to exclude the Freedom Party from coalition talks. This offers consolation, as it seems their vision for the Netherlands will never see the light of day.
However, given the distinctly fractured state of Dutch politics, forming a coalition without the PVV might also prove to be a challenge. Furthermore, excluding Wilders from government will undoubtedly add fuel to the fire, contributing to his narrative of fighting for the neglected common man.
This seemingly prolific narrative, as employed by Donald Trump, may pave the way to a milestone for the Freedom Party in this election, as well victories for other right-wing movements like Le Pen’s Front National. But only time will tell if this patriotic spring, as Wilders calls it – a staggering resurgence of nationalist and populist rhetoric – will lead to an actual victory in the name of freedom.
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.
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.
During the 2016 US Presidential Election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server has been one of several hot button issues. However, it may be the one that is ultimately glossed over more than any other in the face of her bombastic, demagogic competition.
Clinton has been criticized from both the left and the right. Republicans have gone so far as calling her deliberately dishonest and a criminal, while more left-leaning Democrats have used this as a chance to offer their candidate of choice, Senator Bernie Sanders, a second chance — unfortunately for him, to no avail.
A serious threat to national security
As it stands, Hillary Clinton has officially clinched the Democratic nomination, and she will face no retribution for her failures. This, however, does not make the situation any less interesting.
The FBI investigation began in March 2015, when it was uncovered that her and her staff had been using a private email server, which could have created serious security problems were the server to be hacked.
Clinton’s email server was hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, NY, although this information was not disclosed to the State Department at the time. After its stay in her home, the server was then moved to New Jersey, and then to Denver, where it was finally investigated.
While it is highly irregular for Clinton to have her own server, the investigation concluded that it was not actually illegal. And while many claim that her server was undoubtedly hacked by foreign actors, the forensics showed otherwise.
Photograph by CNN
Whether the server was breached or not, it is difficult to deny that its mere existence posed a real security threat. The question then becomes: why was what Hillary Clinton did so wrong? And what does it say about the United States’ criminal justice system?
The FBI investigation’s final recommendation was not to move forward with any criminal prosecution against Clinton. However, it did shed light on her actions, stating that her private server was a legitimate security risk and calling her “extremely careless”. In a statement addressing the conclusion of the investigation, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI identified 7 separate email threads which contained information which had been classified as “top secret”.
Using a private server for such sensitive emails is in fact illegal, and could have given foreign states or actors access to information that could put US national security into a state of turmoil.
Gross negligence, but somehow not criminal
Despite these findings, the FBI’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton was justified by the lack of evidence that her actions had been intentional, as well as the lack of any evidence that the server had actually been compromised.
During his statements, Comey did say that Clinton had demonstrated gross negligence, and provided evidence which proved that her amended statement that she had “never knowingly sent or received classified emails” was a lie. This is damning information and, by all rights, she could have faced charges, but she did not.
Although Hillary Clinton’s political tenure is riddled with inconsistency, the criticisms against her never seem to stick. A few years ago, she claimed that her private jet had landed under a thicket of sniper fire in Bosnia, yet a video of the landing shows her smiling, waving, and shaking hands with children upon arrival. Despite having clearly engaged in dishonesty, she simply shrugged it off as a misstatement.
Photograph by John Moore
Clinton seems to be bulletproof from the public’s acrimony, and many critiques of her wrongdoings are immediately labeled as false or exaggerated, when it is clearly not the case. Perhaps this is a product of her Correct the Record campaign, which set out to create thousands of fake accounts on social media in order to push the narrative in her favor.
Her history of foreign policy decision-making is perhaps the most damning of all her missteps. Her attempts at state-building in the Middle East have played a direct role in the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, and she has found herself in league with donors from the Persian Gulf who, while supporting terrorist organizations, were also benefactors of the Clinton Foundation.
During her husband’s tenure as president, she pushed him away from intervening in a genocide in Kosovo to push her healthcare agenda. So why is she fit to be president?
Above the law, or above Donald Trump?
Comey’s testimony illustrated one thing very clearly: Clinton is too big to jail. One could speculate about the multitude of reasons why she was not charged, but the answer is rather simple.
Some have tried to do so by claiming that she has deep-seeded ties to intelligence officials and lies snugly in the pockets of the FBI, whilst others believe she has orchestrated some other grand scheme to avoid the reprisal of the American justice system.
Ruminating on these political motivations would be a fool’s game, and would also be ignoring the larger issue. What this situation really highlights is the way in which the US justice system treats such matters. US politics is somewhat of a “members only” club. Those who are deeply entrenched in it are hard to criticize, and even harder to reprimand. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of the systematic “armored plating” that exists all over the country.
Photograph by John Moore
Truth be told, in any other election, this may have had more severe consequences for Clinton, but Donald Trump is the best case scenario for her. Throughout the process of the election, his unbridled sexism, racism and mobilization of hate-filled Americans has made him an easy target and a person that this country simply cannot elect. Thus, it is the moral duty of free thinking Americans to keep him out of office, no?
That’s what a majority of Democratic voters would have you believe, and to a certain degree they are right. This dilemma is further explored in Bernie or Bust (TSH).
But, alongside the American justice system, this election cycle has also highlighted the shortcomings of the long-defended American two-party system. Freedom of choice has become the freedom to pick between a sociopathic businessman who represents authoritarian populism, and a self-serving career politician who represents corruption.
These are heavy accusations, but they hold true under any standard of intense scrutiny. Hillary Clinton may be the lesser of two evils in this election, but it is still important to understand who you are voting to lead our country when November comes around.
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.
June 12th 2016 | London | Juan Schinas Alvargonzalez
Photographs by Mark Lyons, Jessica Kourkounis, and Jewel Samad
As the Democratic primaries come to an end, a significant movement has been brewing among Bernie Sanders supporters: Bernie or Bust.
Those who advocate this approach argue that if Hillary Clinton is to win the nomination, voters should either write in Bernie’s name, or vote for a third party candidate like the Green Party’s Jill Stein. A minority of them also believe that voters should turn around and support Donald Trump in order to prevent an “establishment” candidate like Hillary from clenching the presidency, but that debate is for another day.
This piece is neither an argument against Bernie, whose campaign has exceeded all expectations since last year (TSH), nor in support of Hillary. Rather, it is an evaluation of the Bernie or Bust movement.
The flaws in Clinton’s candidacy
At its core, the movement finds its roots in the view that high-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), referred to as the establishment, have forced the election in November to be between “the lesser of two evils”.
Bernie or Bust supporters believe that they do not owe any loyalty to the Democratic Party, and that they are entitled to vote for whichever candidate represents them best. In other words, #sheepnomore.
They also describe the Democratic Party as having engaged in electoral fraud and voter suppression. In their view, the allegations and evidence suggesting manipulation of the primaries, as seen in states like Arizona and New York, represents proof that party elites are bending the will of the people towards their establishment candidate.
Whilst no conclusive investigation has been conducted on this matter, their mind has already been made up.
Photograph by CNN
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the movement has highlighted many aspects of her candidacy that appear rather visibly flawed in contrast to Bernie Sanders.
First, they point to her corporate fundraising networks worth billions of dollars and highlight possible undesirable effects that lobbyists could have on her future administration and policy decisions. This most notably includes her campaign contributions from the oil industry, as well as millions of dollars that she personally received for speeches to financial firms like Goldman Sachs, for which she still refuses to release the transcripts.
As a result, her campaign has been marred with public distrust in her relationship with Wall Street and the question of whether she would be able to regulate the financial industry adequately.
Second, they allocate partial blame to her for the negative consequences of Bill Clinton’s policies in the 90’s, including the controversial 1994 crime bill which increased incarceration rates in the United States disproportionately for African Americans.
Third, they argue that her foreign policy decisions are as “hawkish” as her Republican counterparts. They point to her vote in support of the Iraq War and her actions as Secretary of State as evidence for this assertion.
Finally, they claim that the numerous inconsistencies and policy changes throughout her political career, whether regarding TPP or the minimum wage, show that she is willing to “flip-flop” in order to pander to the electorate and gain more votes.
This suggests that she may not always keep her promises, especially with regards to progressive policy commitments that she made in response to the threat of Bernie’s campaign.
A matter of principle
To many Bernie supporters, Clinton is the epitome of the political elite, a candidate that is overly friendly with corporate lobbyists and inevitably influenced by multinational companies and rich individuals.
They see a United States that is controlled by big money interests, and a middle class that has been shrinking as a result of it. To them, Hillary Clinton is the representative of an America that they want to avoid, rather than a “Future to Believe in”.
Photograph by Matthew Gore
One of the movement’s key objectives is to bring the Democratic Party back to what they view as its rightful place in the political spectrum, the centre-left. They argue that the party has moved towards the right in the last few decades, and that therefore US politics does not have a truly progressive party to represent them.
Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly centre-right in the eyes of Europeans, but now it seems she may even be too centrist for many Bernie supporters. The argument follows that if Hillary wins the presidency, the country will continue to see the Democratic Party shift even further to the right, whereas a Bernie presidency would have a long-lasting progressive influence.
The Bernie or Bust movement doubles down on this idea, arguing that a Trump presidency would be so disastrous that from its ashes and through the movement that is growing at the moment, a genuine progressive party would emerge – a prospect they consider unlikely if Hillary won the election.
The Bernie campaign’s effect
It is important to note at this point that Bernie’s campaign has had a significant impact on public opinion, especially among his supporters.
During her tenure as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, Hillary Clinton’s favourability varied between 56% to 62%. It currently holds at 41%. Since Clinton has been in politics for more than 35 years, she is on record about most of her ideas and voters have had plenty of time to research her positions and character (having also run for the Democratic nomination in 2008).
Her decline in popularity can be seen as a result of both the Republican apparatus having demonised her in the wake of both legitimate and cooked up scandals like her FBI email investigation and the Benghazi attacks in 2012, as well as Senator Sanders’ campaign narrative.
Diagram – Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings
Bernie’s message offers a binary version of politics in the United States, an “us vs them” paradigm, which allows him to point out the evils of American politics without being considered complicit. This is further aided by his undoubtedly honest character and the steadfastness of his opinions.
His campaign against what he considers elites that control politicians, and a government that serves the wealthy, has turned Democratic voters against Hillary Clinton. To them, she represents all of these evils and more.
By no means is there a lack of arguments against Hillary Clinton, but clear heads do not always prevail during political campaigns, and especially one with such a strong narrative and polarised voter base.
One might wonder what Hillary’s likability would have been if Sanders had fixated less on her Wall Street speeches (which he was initially reluctant to bring up) and more on her policy flip-flops.
If not pro-Hillary, then anti-Republican
The Bernie or Bust movement has rightfully shined the light on some of Clinton’s disagreeable aspects. However, if Bernie’s supporters are revolting against a plutocracy as they say, then they should not stay at home in November.
If the United States is a plutocracy, it is quite clear whose fault that is. It is not the mere consequence of an elite class plotting to screw over the middle class. It is a direct result of misguided economic policies and regressive social ideology adopted by conservative administrations, at both the state and national level.
Bernie points out that the level of inequality is extremely high. It was Reagan’s administration that gave immense and disproportionate tax cuts for the rich in the 80’s and set inequality on an upward trajectory. It is also Kansas’s Republican governor who did the same in 2014, even though trickle-down economics had already been disproved many years ago. It is Republicans that have cut social programs to help the poor such as Medicare and food stamps.
Photograph by Tom Williams
He argues that Wall Street’s reckless behaviour was the cause the financial crisis. It is still part of the Republican Party’s platform today that deregulation of financial markets is beneficial for the economy.
He talks about campaign finance regulations and the corrupting influence of money on politics. It is Republicans who want to appoint a Supreme Court judge like Antonin Scalia, who himself voted in favour of “Citizens United v. FEC”, resulting in the complete removal of limits on political donations.
He argues for universal healthcare and points to the power of insurance companies over government. Republicans not only oppose universal healthcare, but they want to actively repeal the arguably modest scheme that is Obamacare.
He opposes the United States military apparatus and reckless spending. Republicans want to increase military spending and advocate for its frequent use in international operations.
He wants to give a path to citizenship to all illegal immigrants in the country. Republicans want to deport them.
As a campaign message, it may be easier to portray the state of affairs in US politics as the consequence of a greedy elite of officials and corporations, but it must also be understood as the consequence of several decades of flawed policies.
Bernie or Bust voters may rightly believe that Hillary Clinton has too many flaws to gain their vote. Yet, if they really do want to end corruption and elitism in US politics, a Republican, even if he is a muttering buffoon with an anti-establishment agenda, should be the last person they want to see in office.
Democratic platform or Trump presidency?
The Bernie or Bust movement is thus presented with two options: (a) vote for Hillary and attempt to influence the Democratic Party’s platform, or (b) vote against her and endure four years of Trump presidency for the opportunity to fight again in 2020.
Not voting for Hillary in November would inevitably result in a Trump presidency. However, the movement argues that Trump has proven himself to be as ineffective as he is inconsistent. The chaos that exists within the Republican Party, together with expected wins by Democrats in mid-term elections, could be enough to make a Trump presidency powerless and thus with little negative consequence. Then, after four years, the progressive movement would be able to take over the 2020 election and cement a permanent foundation.
The problem with this option is that Trump has aligned himself with very conservative officials, and he is running as the Republican nominee. So even if he himself is not as regressive in real life as his colleagues, the institutions that will carry him to the presidency and help him run the country definitely are, and they will want to see their policies turn into reality.
Photograph by Charlie Neibergall
The other option is to influence the Democratic Party platform and push Hillary towards the centre-left. Sanders has already been given some influence over policy at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia this July, and there is growing pressure on Clinton to pick progressive hero Senator Elisabeth Warren, a darling of the Sanders movement, as her candidate for Vice-President.
Bernie’s voters would rejoice at the idea of influencing the Democratic candidate, her future administration, and the party platform to introduce their ideas of economic, social, and environmental justice. However, the problem with this option is that the Democratic establishment might not be willing to change it self so easily in order to accommodate Bernie Sanders’ concerns.
If Bernie or Bust voters find themselves unable to trust the Democratic Party to fulfil their progressive objectives, their decision becomes rather complicated.
The November trade-off
There is no doubt that Bernie voters have raised legitimate issues about Hillary Clinton, but come November, he will most likely endorse her candidacy against Donald Trump in the general election.
Some of his supporters must now decide whether they will vote against their conscience and try to influence the party platform, or go through a Trump presidency in the hope of a better Democratic Party in the next election.
Is the cost of a Clinton presidency really higher than that of a Republican one, or does the importance of Supreme Court nominations for progressive legislation supersede all other considerations?