Its gonna be President Trump ..!!! ??

[DulwichFox]

It amuses me that people who voted for Brexit are being told they should go and live in a dictatorship..

Let us remind ourselves that both the Brexit vote and Donald Trump being elected President of the USA are a result of Democracy.

For some, Democracy only works if the vote goes their way..

DulwichFox

[Earl Aelfheah]

This wasn't primarily about the working classes who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's of different reasons of course), the bigger picture in both cases is one of older, relatively comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing until they focussed relentlessly on immigration. Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti establishment'. It was the result of a successful campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back against progressive social changes which have sought to erode some of the traditionally white, male Establishment privilege. We should see it for what it is - and it's far from a working class revolution.

[malumbu]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this

> may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of

> different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's

> of different reasons of course), the bigger

> picture in both cases is one of older, relatively

> comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse

> today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> until they focussed relentlessly on immigration.

> Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> establishment'. It was the result of a successful

> campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount

> Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the

> ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back

> against progressive social changes which have

> sought to erode some of the traditionally white,

> male Establishment privilege. We should see it for

> what it is - and it's far from a working class

> revolution.

Think thae sums it all up nicely. I'll be quoting many of your words. Thanks.

[Jules-and-Boo]

??? An aging white population, voting for the days gone by? Get a grip.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It amuses me that people who voted for Brexit are

> being told they should go and live in a

> dictatorship..

>

> Let us remind ourselves that both the Brexit vote

> and Donald Trump being elected President of the

> USA are a result of Democracy.

>

> For some, Democracy only works if the vote goes

> their way..

>

Er .....

It's somewhat more complex than that ....

[Jules-and-Boo]

no, I'd agree with DF.....

The voters who didn't get the result they wanted are not accepting of it. That's pretty factual, Sue

[snowy]

Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Romney in the last presidential election.

More people voted for Clinton than Trump, but the election isn't a FPTP process.

[red devil]

The right to protest is a fundamental tenet of a democracy, so we're going round in circles on that one...

[rendelharris]

One thing all parties, here and in the US, need somehow to address is voter apathy. I was astonished to see these figures this morning:

231,556,622 eligible US voters

46.9% didn't vote

25.6% voted for Clinton

25.5% voted for Trump

1.7% voted for Johnson

Really almost more worrying than the fact that a quarter of Americans voted for Trump is the fact that in a country which prides itself on its democracy, which has as strongly defined a notion of citizenship as any free nation in modern history, nearly half the electorate couldn't be arsed to vote.

[Louisa]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this

> may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of

> different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's

> of different reasons of course), the bigger

> picture in both cases is one of older, relatively

> comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse

> today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> until they focussed relentlessly on immigration.

> Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> establishment'. It was the result of a successful

> campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount

> Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the

> ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back

> against progressive social changes which have

> sought to erode some of the traditionally white,

> male Establishment privilege. We should see it for

> what it is - and it's far from a working class

> revolution.

I'm sorry rah but I couldn't disagree more. By making this alienating assumption, you are falling for the centre left mantra the likes of 'the guardian' love to hammer home with pride, with no solid foundation in reality. Older people of all races and social classes who have experienced life and it's realities, have tended to swing to the right in later life, that's always happened. Nothing new there.

The poorest communities of all races have suffered under institutionalised powers from above, nothing new there either. The difference is, manufacturing in the poorest regions has collapsed, and the centre left political parties who used to be the 'go to' destination for poorer communities, has for a number of reasons fallen apart. These people in these places have consistently been failed by the people who they and their parents and grandparents have naturally voted for over decades. The gulf left by the centre left and social democratic parties of the western world has given people like Trump and Farage a free for all on them. As an example, Clinton recently at a rally said she would come down hard on miners and those who produce coal. This is not going to win over a poor family who've lost their livelihood and life as they knew it, they will of course look elsewhere for answers, and did.

It's a sad reality that most on the centre left can't acknowledge the above and then look for answers to win these people back. They seem pre occupied trying to justify Trump et al via some 'wealthy white male' loss of power through globalisation. All the time they continue with this rhetoric, people like Trump will soak up disaffected post industrialised communities, the western world over.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

The thing is that People did not bother to vote to stay because they thought Brexit could NEVER happen.

That is why Cameron called for the referendum.. He too believed it could never happen.. and why he had to stand down.

The people who voted for Brexit never thought it would happen.

In the states no one beleived Trump could EVER win. He was 150/1 (money to be made there) bet Trump backed himself .

Thats's how Millionaires become Billionaires

Foxy

[Earl Aelfheah]

There seems to be a confusion about how politics, discourse and democracy work. If Labour win an election for example, do conservatives supporters say "well that's sorted, end of discussion, let's dissolve the party"? It's exactly the same with Brexit. Whatever side you're on, you will continue to have a view, and in a democracy, you are free to express it. You should, if you believe it strongly, continue to try and persuade others of the strength of your arguements, I would say it's your duty to. This is not anti-democratic, it is the fundamental basis of free political debate and a central plank to a functioning democracy. Clearly democratic decisions should be accepted in the sense that must not be overturned by force, through coercion or by illegal means - but there are all sorts of other reasonable, peaceful, lawful and democratic routes for influencing and persuading others. The idea that you have two opposing ideas, that one 'wins' and then all further debate or discussion must be silenced, is ridiculous, anti-democratic and frankly childish.

[Jules-and-Boo]

No one's saying they are.

What the issue is - with non acceptance of democracy - is trying to have the vote re-worked so it can alter the outcome. That is outside the democratic process.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> > who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst

> this

> > may be a part of the story, (there were lot's

> of

> > different people voting Brexit / Trump, for

> lot's

> > of different reasons of course), the bigger

> > picture in both cases is one of older,

> relatively

> > comfortable, white men, who feel things are

> worse

> > today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> > until they focussed relentlessly on

> immigration.

> > Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> > misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> > establishment'. It was the result of a

> successful

> > campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch,

> viscount

> > Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and

> the

> > ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick

> back

> > against progressive social changes which have

> > sought to erode some of the traditionally

> white,

> > male Establishment privilege. We should see it

> for

> > what it is - and it's far from a working class

> > revolution.

>

> I'm sorry rah but I couldn't disagree more. By

> making this alienating assumption, you are falling

> for the centre left mantra the likes of 'the

> guardian' love to hammer home with pride, with no

> solid foundation in reality. Older people of all

> races and social classes who have experienced life

> and it's realities, have tended to swing to the

> right in later life, that's always happened.

> Nothing new there.

>

> The poorest communities of all races have suffered

> under institutionalised powers from above, nothing

> new there either. The difference is, manufacturing

> in the poorest regions has collapsed, and the

> centre left political parties who used to be the

> 'go to' destination for poorer communities, has

> for a number of reasons fallen apart. These people

> in these places have consistently been failed by

> the people who they and their parents and

> grandparents have naturally voted for over

> decades. The gulf left by the centre left and

> social democratic parties of the western world has

> given people like Trump and Farage a free for all

> on them. As an example, Clinton recently at a

> rally said she would come down hard on miners and

> those who produce coal. This is not going to win

> over a poor family who've lost their livelihood

> and life as they knew it, they will of course look

> elsewhere for answers, and did.

>

> It's a sad reality that most on the centre left

> can't acknowledge the above and then look for

> answers to win these people back. They seem pre

> occupied trying to justify Trump et al via some

> 'wealthy white male' loss of power through

> globalisation. All the time they continue with

> this rhetoric, people like Trump will soak up

> disaffected post industrialised communities, the

> western world over.

>

> Louisa.

Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The data doesn't support the prevailing narrative. Whilst I agree that there are major issues with how globalisation has effected the poorest and in particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It wasn't the under thirties. The problem with pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite' vote is that it ignores the fact that the most powerful and affluent people - the likes of Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the real issues that have resulted from the loss of high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to say paint this as a working class revolution is simply wrong.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There seems to be a confusion about how politics,

> discourse and democracy work. If Labour win an

> election for example, do conservatives supporters

> say "well that's sorted, end of discussion, let's

> dissolve the party"? It's exactly the same with

> Brexit. Whatever side you're on, you will continue

> to have a view, and in a democracy, you are free

> to express it. You should, if you believe it

> strongly, continue to try and persuade others of

> the strength of your arguements, I would say it's

> your duty to. This is not anti-democratic, it is

> the fundamental basis of free political debate and

> a central plank to a functioning democracy.

> Clearly democratic decisions should be accepted in

> the sense that must not be overturned by force,

> through coercion or by illegal means - but there

> are all sorts of other reasonable, peaceful,

> lawful and democratic routes for influencing and

> persuading others. The idea that you have two

> opposing ideas, that one 'wins' and then all

> further debate or discussion must be silenced, is

> ridiculous, anti-democratic and frankly childish.

This would be very good but there is a huge tendency on the left to demonise those that don't agree with their orthodoxies - much of the left is deeply illiberal

[Earl Aelfheah]

... It's actually not so much a class issue at all. It is (in my opinion - and I believe the data bear this out) a kick back against what I would call social progress (those on the right, might claim it is 'political correctness'). This is not exclusively, but predominatly from older, white men.

[DulwichFox]

It's like..

1 - 0 ,1 - 1 ok Best out of 3.... 2 - 1.. errr no lets do Best out of 5

Foxy.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Quids - I don't get your point. So you think there should be no debate of ideas because 'the left are illiberal'. There are people who will always try to demonise those who hold different positions to their own on any given issue. One might argue, you've just kind of done this yourself.

[nxjen]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One thing all parties, here and in the US, need

> somehow to address is voter apathy. I was

> astonished to see these figures this morning:

>

> 231,556,622 eligible US voters

> 46.9% didn't vote

> 25.6% voted for Clinton

> 25.5% voted for Trump

> 1.7% voted for Johnson

>

> Really almost more worrying than the fact that a

> quarter of Americans voted for Trump is the fact

> that in a country which prides itself on its

> democracy, which has as strongly defined a notion

> of citizenship as any free nation in modern

> history, nearly half the electorate couldn't be

> arsed to vote.

I'm not sure it's a case of voter apathy but that many voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for either candidate. I very nearly didn't vote in the last GE for the same reasons.

[jaywalker]

I think it is a mistake only to look at socio-economic classifications to determine voting patterns. What after all are such classifications an artefact of?

It seems unlikely, as with Brexit, that the binary trump-rejoice : trump-despair division is determined in that way (of course there are many factors certainly including decline of traditional industries but they affect only some voters and do not catch at the complexity).

I think one has to think about the reasons why there is an upsurge in populism more generally. What might one mean by this term? Not 'having a majority in an election'. And certainly not 'democracy' - which should only have one meaning in my view: Chantal Mouffe's state of open discursive (not physical) antagonism (or Ranciere's state of dissensus). That is, a recognition that none of us has the same interests and that it is good to have these expressed. Populism is the CLOSURE of this as an expression of collective will (thus the interests of the good - in Trump's case, those who are citizens - are all the same). (The establishment does a similar closure - which makes populism look superficially attractive - by, for example moving towards heteronomy with regard to potentially antagonistic institutions such as parliament, the judiciary). Populism as general-protest is fermented and reflected as legitimate by a commodified press, and resistance to it is greatly weakend by a commodified education system (and that process began decades ago). Populism can be expressed in an election but this does not make it democratic in this sense. Of course populism collapses what one might mean by democracy to populism as part of its closure.

Sometimes such closure is warranted. For example in cutting of the head of a tyrannical king, or in a protest against the commodification of the education system: one comes together to express outrage, and this must be on the basis of the same (i.e. the good of democracy is exchanged for the good of protest) until everyone goes home. Cromwell's mistake was to believe that he could express a general will in government rather than (quite rightly) in revolution (hence the settlement in the Glorious Revolution that the High Court referred to contra May).

There is a recognition of this in the regrexit phenomenon: the protest gives way to the return to the reality of antagonistic interests (these have to be expressed in the resulting negotiations! It is impossible for the expression of general will - brexit=brexit=brexit - to express the particulars that were given up in the populism). The real evil is when those who have the responsibility of government cannot see that it is wrong to try to implement that will, and take it on themselves to express it. Almost certainly Trump (not Putin) knows this - certainly, one prays so. (It is also of course the reason that May has for trying to keep negotiations secret, hoping to be able to suture the varied interests in a new expression of will after achieving agreement - but this is a mistake: parliament is there to be an expression of dissensus that works towards democratic rather than populist government).

As a cosmopolitan liberal I tend of course to pigeon-hole this particular populist protest (as with Brexit) as a phenomenon of ressentiment (economic, few opportunities for social inclusion etc). This must partly be the case I think - and the tragedy is that to the extent that either brexit or trump's promises are implemented they will disadvantage precisely those who were crying out in pain. It is dismaying when this ressentiment is expressed against ethnic groups or migrant workers.

But this is an expression of my personal socio-economic and cultural-education privilege I think and so a little particular. I wonder if we should think much more broadly and take Trump's strategy seriously (as a serious protest about something that appealed well beyond the economically disadvantaged). I find it difficult to express what that is. But it has something I think to do with the nature of subjectivity in a commodified world - that it cannot be properly expressed. Trump exposed a kind of suffocation that is implicit in heteronomous political correctness. It was expressed as claims of 'corruption' but I don't think that should be taken literally.

I realising I am struggling for coherence here.

[Jules-and-Boo]

there were more than two candidates... and a vote for a third would have won it - if ALL non voters had voted the third option

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one's saying they are.

>

> What the issue is - with non acceptance of

> democracy - is trying to have the vote re-worked

> so it can alter the outcome. That is outside the

> democratic process.

If you want to stick to the letter of the democratic process, the referendum was totally non-binding on government and they could legally completely refuse to implement its demands if they wished. Even though I don't like the referendum result, I accept that would be wrong, given the undertakings given beforehand. However, allowing parliamentary scrutiny of any deal made by government is not outside the democratic process - allowing a small cabal of cabinet ministers to agree on a deal and force it through without due scrutiny from our elected representatives, that would be truly undemocratic.

[uncleglen]

An American black woman on the news said that she voted for Trump because Obama had failed to deliver on his promises to the black community in his 2 terms.

( 25-49 year olds in the UK -44% voted leave according to the YouGov exit polls, under 25s- 25% leave- big difference- nice graphs here http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum)

I agree with Louisa personally.

Don't forget the effects of poor education...the rhetoric may very well have gone over the heads of many people and they have voted according to what they have been experiencing in every day life (the well-off and educated did that too, purely out of self-interest, and then started to scream racism, xenophobia etc)

[Earl Aelfheah]

@ Louisa: I actually think the 'centre left' are absolutely pushing the same narrative which you seem to support - That this is about disaffected post industrial communities. That it's the 'uneducated working class' protesting against the establishment. It's a convenient story, but fundamentally wrong. Look at how people voted when broken down by income: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Look at Viscount Rothermere, Rupert Murdoch, the right wing of the Conservatives and those funding the Eurosceptic cause - look at Fox news and the Billionaire property magnate. I don't know who the 'elite' is if it's not these guys... apparently it's the 'middle class', or anyone who works in an office!??? I don't buy it at all. Plenty of very affluent people voted Brexit / Trump.

[Louisa]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the

> majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The

> data doesn't support the prevailing narrative.

> Whilst I agree that there are major issues with

> how globalisation has effected the poorest and in

> particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It

> wasn't the under thirties. The problem with

> pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite'

> vote is that it ignores the fact that the most

> powerful and affluent people - the likes of

> Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right

> agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and

> misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the

> real issues that have resulted from the loss of

> high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to

> say paint this as a working class revolution is

> simply wrong.

Too simplistic again rah. The key to this election was the swing states, especially the 'rust belt'.

Those without a college degree in Pennsylvania, mostly white, earning less than $35,000 a year, voted for Trump over Clinton 2 to 1. The same happened in Ohio, and I'm sure this could be repeated across these northern states. These are the heartlands for the Democratic Party. These people swung this election, and something similar happened in the north of England in Labour heartlands during Brexit.

The situation elsewhere may have been statistically different and I'm sure you could throw those figures at me too, but crucially those figures are irrelevant outside of the all important swing states, particularly in the US Presidential election.

Louisa.