The spectacle of the Brexit vote and all the commentary by politicians on both the “Leave” and “Remain” sides reveal some deep truths about the current state of political communications and the underlying narratives at play today.
First of all, there’s the mendacity. Almost immediately after winning the vote, the leaders in favor of leaving the EU began to backtrack on various promises and timetables. Boris Johnson, who was favored as the next Prime Minister (until he wasn’t in the race anymore), after having pushed relentlessly for exit for months, suddenly started saying, “There’s no hurry.” David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, announced his resignation and handed off the problem of carrying out the will of the people to the next Prime Minister – after having promised speedy execution and deft handling of the exit for months. Nigel Farage, Britain’s Donald Trump in terms of politics, quit his own party leadership after pushing for Brexit for 17 years. And on the other side, various EU officials, after having asked the UK to stay for months, now suddenly were saying that the exit should be handled as quickly as possible.
Here’s Cameron:
I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.
This is not a decision I’ve taken lightly but I do believe it’s in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required.
That’s the statement of someone who is responding emotionally – essentially taking all his marbles and going home. Apres moi, le deluge, Cameron is saying. And he appears to mean both senses of the phrase – both chaos is coming, and I don’t care.
The general low esteem that the citizens of Western countries hold for their politicians of the opposite party is echoed through social media until it becomes widely accepted and no one bothers to hold anyone accountable. The least respected line of work in the modern era is the fact checker. Who needs them? What matters is how I feel.
Second, there’s the underlying discontent. The reason for the vote is profoundly similar to the Trumpian arguments on this side of the Atlantic. When times are tough for the middle class – and they have been tough virtually for a generation now – people look for a scapegoat and they want to hold someone responsible. The scapegoat is the Other – the immigrant, the unfamiliar culture, the late arrival. And the responsible party is the middle-of-the-road, sophisticated, globetrotting winner in the economic stakes of the 21st century. Someone who holds a passport and an executive or government position and looks comfortable and smug preaching the values of internationalism.
The questionable logic of this position doesn’t matter – it’s the emotional force that does. Someone who feels that life keeps getting tougher and who yearns for a former, golden age – that’s the someone who wants revenge and doesn’t care who brings it.
And finally, there’s the cynical hopelessness that the mendacity and discontent create. The Leave campaign can be forgiven for wanting to throw out the immigrant baby with the EU bathwater. Politicians have been promising for years to make things better and haven’t delivered. The same is true on this side of the Atlantic.
The lies that politicians tell have come home to roost. A new generation has discovered that a Prime Minister can’t stop the flow of immigration easily, despite having promised to do so. On this side of the Atlantic, Republicans promise to make government smaller and more accountable while actually making it bigger and more faceless. And Democrats promise to make society fairer while actually helping the rich get richer.
Here’s the low down: Donald Trump is not actually going to build a wall between the US and Mexico. Hillary Clinton is not actually going to solve addiction and substance abuse “once and for all.”
Surprised? I hope not. The problems we face are too big, too intractable, and too much of our own making for one politician or party to solve them. We get these problems because deep interests on both or all sides are relatively balanced. For every person who suffers, another one gains.
You’d be pardoned for throwing your hands up and despairing of the whole process.
But you’d be wrong. At a time when mendacity, discontent, and hopelessness rule, the first step is to bear witness. We need more YouTube, not less. We can’t put the political toothpaste back in the tube. Instead, we need to double down on transparency and truth telling. We need to put the logic and the fact-checking back into the public discourse. We need to pay attention to what is, not to what we wish was the case.
We need to let go of our past narratives about golden ages, simpler times, and Father knows best. We need to jettison what doesn’t work and get on with what does. To even begin to know what that is, we need to be brave enough to try new things, things that go against our wishful thinking, and to accept that we live in an era of new voices, constant change, and authentic witness.
The solutions will be messy, but to get to them we have to be willing to listen to one another. Our political narrative needs to include both the small government conservative and the interventionist.
We’re stuck with each other. It’s time to embrace that and make something magnificent out of all our differences.
Thanks for such a strong – but concise – breakdown of the events post-Brexit. As an Australian, I’ve seen similar middle/lower class sentiment play out in our most recent federal elections.
I see a huge challenge in how to communicate a moderate view point in this environment. The simplistic comments of “stop the immigrants/politicians/1%/big business” are getting extremely good responses, so I can see why leaders are using these more and more.
The question becomes how does a moderate leader influence a group in this environment? Simply stating the facts doesn’t work, nor does pointing out the lies of the “attack everything” groups. Is it even possible to persuade a large audience to be calm and positive in an exciting manner? I’m honestly not sure.
Thanks, Ben — to paraphrase Auden, the extremes are passionate and the center…well, the center can’t hold against the onslaught. It’s a depressing time for those who believe that reasoned debate on the facts is a better way to proceed!
Amen. And to your point, Nick, about the need for transparency and truth telling, may I offer a link to a timely talk I saw last week at TEDSummit, Of the over 50 talks we had the chance to hear over 5 days, this one ranks among the most important, provocative, & effective (a high bar indeed). Further, this Brit had only 2 days to prepare because he was called in by the TED team at the last minute, post Brexit: http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_betts_why_brexit_happened_and_what_to_do_next?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tedspread
Thanks, Andrea, for the comment and the link!
Another great article, as always Dr. Nick.
I have to admit that I really struggled with the “But you’d be wrong”, as well as the subsequent encouragement to engage in public discourse. Until your article I’ve chosen to despair of the whole process and to opt out of politics.
But your article inspired me to write an open letter to Hillary Clinton. The intent is not so much to sway her, but to hopefully add a different angle to the public discourse in the run-up to the elections:
https://medium.com/twenty-one-hundred/an-open-letter-to-hillary-clinton-make-the-impossible-possible-b5bb3b4d2e87#.nigc3c66g
Let’s see if this goes anywhere. Thanks again for a great article.
Thanks, Michael — great to hear that you’re engaging, not giving up. Good luck!