![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerYou can't fix a problem if you don't really understand it, and you can't get somewhere unless you know where you're starting from. So in order to try and work out some steps towards a better future, I've been thinking about _why_ people voted to Leave Europe (And also why people vote for Donald Trump, which I think is related).
It's far too easy to look at the demographics of the different voters and say "They're less educated, and older, and poorer, of course they voted against their best interests." - but it's (a) not as simple as that and (b) that doesn't explain _why_ those factors would lead to people voting themselves out of the EU. After all, if what we were talking about was simple ignorance then the results should be random at lower levels of education, not anti-Europe.
The problem as I see it is that there are groups of people who believe they have either gained nothing from the changes in society over the last few decades, or have actively lost out. Those people are now a large enough proportion of the population that their angry lashing out is capable of tipping the scales of power.
There were less of the disenfranchised during the Blair years because the economy was constantly growing, and therefore (nearly) everyone felt a little bit better off, and even if things weren't better _now_ there would clearly be opportunities in the future. But when the growth stops then you're either in a worse state than before, or suddenly realising that the current shitty situation is one you're stuck with.
And the problem is that nobody ever told them the truth. Nobody ever said that if we wanted Europe to be a success then everyone would have to pay for it, and that would mean us paying more than we got back - but it would be worth it for the peace and the possibilities it opened up. Instead we were told that everything we did would benefit us directly.
When, of course, we were told at all. If you weren't paying attention then it would be hard to tell that New Labour were working to improve poverty at all. They were - but it was all being done in such a hush-hush, don't let the Daily Mail find out that we're actually left-wing manner, that when they finally ended their winning streak it was remarkably easy for the Conservatives to roll things back, because almost nobody could see what we were losing. Unless they were directly affected, of course.
And, of course, they didn't sell the benefits of Europe either. Labour have been pretty content to just let Europe slide by in the background, not worrying about it. And, frankly, so was I. Because it felt remote, and had been around since before I was born, it was something I didn't really think about. Like, say, oxygen.
The problem with that, is that when it comes to taking a vote on whether we should have oxygen any more, I haven't actually thought much about why I care about it, and what it means to me. And when the anti-oxygen side keep pointing out that without it we'd have a lot less forest fires, you can't actually get the general population up to speed on why they should vote to keep it.
As usual, I see this at least partially as a democracy/voting issue. With the system we have it's easiest for Labour (for instance) to take anywhere that doesn't vote Conservative for granted, and not mention any policies/areas that might upset people. So even though the poorest people in rural areas might actually be doing badly, nobody is going and talking to them, and the resentment festers until it explodes when given a chance to "Teach them all a lesson". Given a system where people can vote for what they see as their self-interest, we might actually see parties working harder to include everyone, and to listen to people's problems. And a system that doesn't assume that because it works for the majority it can ignore those on the fringes.
You will, of course, always have some really racist people. But the majority, in my opinion, are going along with self-interest, wanting to protect themselves because they don't feel protected by the people who claim to represent them. If we want to defang the awfulness that we're seeing at the moment then we need a better understanding of the real reasons why they don't feel like the system works for them, and to improve the system so that it works for everyone, and is seen to work for them.
(For another take on this, see this article, which I found fascinating.)
It's far too easy to look at the demographics of the different voters and say "They're less educated, and older, and poorer, of course they voted against their best interests." - but it's (a) not as simple as that and (b) that doesn't explain _why_ those factors would lead to people voting themselves out of the EU. After all, if what we were talking about was simple ignorance then the results should be random at lower levels of education, not anti-Europe.
The problem as I see it is that there are groups of people who believe they have either gained nothing from the changes in society over the last few decades, or have actively lost out. Those people are now a large enough proportion of the population that their angry lashing out is capable of tipping the scales of power.
There were less of the disenfranchised during the Blair years because the economy was constantly growing, and therefore (nearly) everyone felt a little bit better off, and even if things weren't better _now_ there would clearly be opportunities in the future. But when the growth stops then you're either in a worse state than before, or suddenly realising that the current shitty situation is one you're stuck with.
And the problem is that nobody ever told them the truth. Nobody ever said that if we wanted Europe to be a success then everyone would have to pay for it, and that would mean us paying more than we got back - but it would be worth it for the peace and the possibilities it opened up. Instead we were told that everything we did would benefit us directly.
When, of course, we were told at all. If you weren't paying attention then it would be hard to tell that New Labour were working to improve poverty at all. They were - but it was all being done in such a hush-hush, don't let the Daily Mail find out that we're actually left-wing manner, that when they finally ended their winning streak it was remarkably easy for the Conservatives to roll things back, because almost nobody could see what we were losing. Unless they were directly affected, of course.
And, of course, they didn't sell the benefits of Europe either. Labour have been pretty content to just let Europe slide by in the background, not worrying about it. And, frankly, so was I. Because it felt remote, and had been around since before I was born, it was something I didn't really think about. Like, say, oxygen.
The problem with that, is that when it comes to taking a vote on whether we should have oxygen any more, I haven't actually thought much about why I care about it, and what it means to me. And when the anti-oxygen side keep pointing out that without it we'd have a lot less forest fires, you can't actually get the general population up to speed on why they should vote to keep it.
As usual, I see this at least partially as a democracy/voting issue. With the system we have it's easiest for Labour (for instance) to take anywhere that doesn't vote Conservative for granted, and not mention any policies/areas that might upset people. So even though the poorest people in rural areas might actually be doing badly, nobody is going and talking to them, and the resentment festers until it explodes when given a chance to "Teach them all a lesson". Given a system where people can vote for what they see as their self-interest, we might actually see parties working harder to include everyone, and to listen to people's problems. And a system that doesn't assume that because it works for the majority it can ignore those on the fringes.
You will, of course, always have some really racist people. But the majority, in my opinion, are going along with self-interest, wanting to protect themselves because they don't feel protected by the people who claim to represent them. If we want to defang the awfulness that we're seeing at the moment then we need a better understanding of the real reasons why they don't feel like the system works for them, and to improve the system so that it works for everyone, and is seen to work for them.
(For another take on this, see this article, which I found fascinating.)
no subject
Date: 2016-06-26 01:02 am (UTC)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11661898 (Apologies for the auto-play video.)
"The arguments to me are not based on economics, they are based centrally on xenophobia. And therefore I cannot see any pluses coming out of that for New Zealand."
The Leave arguments appealed to those with a "deep distrust, if not worse" for Brussels, Mr Bolger said.
"Most of that is based on the belief that we don't want people telling us what we should do. This is coming from a country that as an empire told most of the world what to do."
(After he was PM, he became NZ's ambassador to the US...)
The immigrants you received in the last century were due to that empire. And the 'immigrants' trying to get into the EU and Britain now are the result of the US empire's invasion of Iraq, an invasion of which the UK was the major supporter.
It's ironic, but those who dislike immigration the most are usually the ones who rah-rah on the wars on foreign lands, which tend to distribute people all over the place. (You'll note Trump's not saying he'll pull US troops out of the Middle East.) Racists get the world they deserve.
I think Britain's problem is pretty simple - it's still a class-based society. This would be pretty unlikely otherwise...
https://twitter.com/Shandypockets/status/746441650830872576
no subject
Date: 2016-06-26 04:50 am (UTC)I think that it is easy to wash away our opponents by calling them racist and xenophobic. And there certainly are racists and xenophobes within the Leave camp (just the same as there are certainly racists and xenophobes within the Remain camp). But I do not think that they defined the campaign by any stretch, aside from so-called progressive members of the Remain camp slamming that drum as hard as they could against the Leavec camp.
And the same thing is happening with the Trump campaign in the US. The extreme racists and xenophobes within his campaign are a very small minority. Sadly, it also includes the person leading the campaign. But the bulk of people supporting Trump are just scared people. They do not have a job. They can't feed their kids and they are scared. And a person lik Trump, regardless of what he is saying, appeals to them because he is from the outside and continues to remind people of that. Something about the road to hell being paved with something, that is the problem.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-26 10:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 08:37 pm (UTC)(Also, I can think of no other way of describing a rule that says that people should have their freedom of movement limited and should not be allowed to live in specific places because they had the bad luck to be born somewhere else, than xenophobia. You're discriminating against people because they aren't from around here.)
no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 09:59 pm (UTC)And what do you mean a deal no other country gets? You mean within the EU, I know that is the problem with the EU, they have restricted fundamental rights of the state as a collective of citizens. I know you are probably of the camp that statehood and nationalism are inherantly bad but you completely miss the mark on how humanity is organized if you take that (again) extreme view. Look at Canada and the US as an example. We have free trade together and enjoy a strong economic union as a result. But Canadians did not have to give up their passport and immigration policies in order to join this economic union...why should the UK or any other country for that matter, have to give up those state rights in order to access a common European market? That was the crux of the Leave campaign I would argue.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 10:20 pm (UTC)There is no inherent right to _anything_. Rights are concepts made up by people.
And yes, I believe that many of the ways that the world has been organised, for the vast majority of its places, and history, are bad.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 10:25 pm (UTC)They are frequently enforced by states. But they are also enforced by intra-state bodies, by inter-state bodies, and non-state bodies.
A right is an idea that people should be allowed to do something. It has as much to do with states as we allow (or don't allow) it to.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 10:34 pm (UTC)A right is most certainly not an idea that people should be allowed to do. I think I should be allowed to get free bus rides, I certainly do not have a right to free bus rides as a result. You position is absurd. Rights require the force of law which requires the approval of an elected body to be truly legitimate. Rights are completely the domain of states. The EU may very well have a free of free movement, but the EU should not be a state, so the fact that they are pushing rights that are not ratified by individual member states is undemocratic and against any principle of responsible government.
You said that terrible things have happened all around the world. And I agree. These terrible things happen because three things are not in place; rule of law, democracy and responsible government. Manage a way to get all three into every state in the world and you would have peace.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-27 10:50 pm (UTC)Hang on, are you talking about _legal_ rights.
Because I'm talking about _moral_ rights.
And the two are not the same thing at all, obviously.
A moral right is a belief that someone should be able to do something. A legal right is...well, whatever the law says that you can do (or are not forbidden from doing).
But I assumed that you were talking about "inherent rights" earlier, and clearly there's no such thing as an inherent legal right (because it's dependent on legal process, etc.), so I assumed that you had to mean moral rights.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-29 06:28 am (UTC)No, it's countries that are the made up concept. Birds, as an example, obviously have an inherent right to freedom of movement, which they exercise all over the world.
Freedom isn't given, but it can be taken away.
In the EU's case, the member states chose to give up individual control of certain aspects of their states in the hope of getting certain advantages. The most contentious issue for some has been the freedom of movement of people within the EU.
"why should the UK or any other country for that matter, have to give up those state rights in order to access a common European market?"
They chose to by joining and being a part of the EU. There was no 'have to' about it. Same as they were able to choose to leave.
Here's a nice problem for you to solve - find the oldest known immigration law. As I've just failed miserably! (Unless they began with the European colonization of the Americas.)