When the dust settles over the election of Donald Trump and the furore dies down somewhat, those, like me, who spoke and wrote against his candidacy will have to examine the factors that lie behind his success. There is no single, simple explanation. I wrote here in the last few months about some of the risks, including the danger of complacency, the unreliability of polls, and the capacity of one slip by Hillary to deliver the election to Trump.
But this weekend, I am convinced that one of the most important factors in last Tuesday’s outcome is a growing worldwide alienation from economic globalisation.
Millions upon millions of people in the developed world see themselves as victims of a new world order in which international capital demands – and obtains – the dismantling of tariffs, trade barriers, domestic regulatory capacity, and social protections. So the wealthy can become wealthier while the coping classes become more and more economically stressed and the poor become more marginalised and helpless.
For many in the developed world, the “trickle down” wealth effect simply evaporates in the searing heat of a harsh new world order. Zero-hours contracts and minimum wage incomes are the lot – or the feared lot – of an ever-growing social class that is alienated, angry, and losing hope – but gaining the confidence to resist at the ballot box.
The classic defences of global free trade ring hollow in the ears of those who fear that they -and especially their children – seem destined or already stand condemned to become part of an excluded lumpenproletariat.
I offer you this thought – when liberal economics parts company with liberal social politics in the developed world, the new landscape increasingly resembles the bleak, harsh and polarised zone of conflict envisioned by Karl Marx.
While the very term “liberal” had become a dirty word in the US political lexicon long before Trump, we in Europe know that the only hope of a decent society lies in marrying social and economic liberalism. Otherwise, society disintegrates into social and economic cantons where the reality of citizenship is radically different for differing classes and the “fraternity” aspect of the classic republic is totally lost.
In a democracy, the people will fight back – through the ballot box – at elections and referenda, as we in Ireland well know. It follows that we can expect growing resistance to any attempted dis-armament of the voter.
Blind acquiescence of the EU and its member states, including Ireland, to the TTIPS transatlantic trade pact is a case in point.
Is it really in the interest of the majority of the Irish people that we should now collectively render our state liable to be sued by foreign corporations in proceedings before an international economic arbitration court or tribunal for alleged infringement of a supra-national trading regime in whose formulation and interpretation we have little or no say and over whose amendment we have absolutely no say at all?
Why should we, as a sovereign independent state, agree to the EU creating a new world order in which we are to rank equal to a multinational corporation in disputes concerning our implementation of our own economic policy? Is this really what 1916 was about?
I recently protested strongly in the Seanad about being informed that I, as a legislator, would only be allowed privileged admission to a sealed room where the TTIPS draft treaty documents were lodged on absolute condition that I could not copy anything in them. I rejected this wholly arrogant and undemocratic stricture over my right as a legislator to know about, and consult with the Irish public on, a proposed treaty by which they were to be bound and shackled.
It is an unspeakable conceit that a matter of such importance could be negotiated in total secrecy from the peoples of the European democracies – and then become a fait accompli. This is Aldhous Huxley’s Brave New World come true.
And, curiously, it was Trump who vowed to rescue us from TTIPS! What an irony is that!
International capital has established and enthroned itself at a feudal court whose annual “royal progress” proceeds to Davos, where self-selecting mogul courtiers preen themselves while inter-acting with the carefully chosen, house-trained representatives of nominally sovereign states. To quote Trump: “Give us a break!”
For whom is this international economic order run? In whose interest is it designed, regulated and reformed? By whom can it be controlled? I am not arguing that free trade is bad. On the contrary, it is very often the optimum. But it cannot become an ideological absolute. It has social and economic consequences – and some of those consequences need to be countered. In a developed democracy, the balance must be chosen by the people
In this brave new world, the only bastion of the citizen’s right to make real choices is the independent, sovereign, constitutional state.
I was glad that the Seanad defied the government recently to oppose the Canadian free trade deal. And I was not appalled by the Wallonian revolt against it. And I will not be appalled if the Dutch people get to have their say on it in a referendum.
I do not believe that the member states of the EU should surrender their rights on trade deals to the EU commission and their toy parliament. The “sealed room” offer for the TTIPS agreement offer convinced me of that.
A few weeks ago, I reminded you here of the daft but insatiable tendency of the EU federalists to latch onto every event to justify their madcap EU super-state fantasy projects.
Bang on cue, they are at it again.
First out of the traps, the former Italian premier and EU Commissioner, Mario Monti claimed on Wednesday that Trump’s election means that we need “more Europe”.
The next day Jean-Claude Juncker claimed that the goal of an EU Army had been given fresh impetus by Trump’s victory.
But nuttiest of all, Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy “High Representative”, announced on Thursday that there is now – wait for it! – a “demand” that the EU should become “ a principled global security provider, … a super-power that believes in multilateralism and co-operation”.
“In a changing global landscape, Europe will be more and more an indispensable power”, said Federica. “This is the time to take on our responsibilities and to respond to that call and we can only do this as a true union”.
Precisely who is making that “demand”? Precisely who has voiced that “call”?
The federalists are hearing voices yet again, it seems.
Europe needs their Esperanto army like a hole in the head. Would it fight? Whom would it fight? Who would exercise its political command and control? Who would lead it? The Germans? Where would they lead it? The idea is a joke – especially coming from the Italians.
Donald Tusk has repeatedly warned that talk of an EU army and an EU super-state simply alienates European people. Add that particular alienation to alienation from economic globalism and we have a heady brew.
“Hearing voices” has two distinct meanings. Which meaning applies to Europe?
