Understanding Brexit, Bernie, and Trump

I have not talked about politics in public in over a year, as I was tired of that being a focal point of my Facebook feed. That said, having been in London during the Brexit vote, and watching the collective shock and hangover of the vote, I started thinking about why people voted for Brexit and for Trump or even Bernie. Note that these are my thoughts, but I am trying to be external to any of my actual political beliefs, so please do not assume I agree with any of the reasons that I’m citing here. I’m just stating what I’ve observed people thinking an believing.

A vote of protest

A vote for Brexit, Bernie, and/or Trump is a protest vote against the establishment. It’s a vote to encourage chaos, much as the Occupy, Pirate, Libertarian, and Green votes are. In general, centrists believe the current government and system is serving them well, whereas people leaning further left and right do not — but they disagree on what ails the status quo. Now, many people are probably reading this and thinking of a retort for why I should not bundle Bernie with Trump or Brexit ever, and I’m not saying they are the same at all. Rather, I am saying that these voters share one major thing, which is dissatisfaction with the status quo and a healthy distrust of their government (You may be asking, why is this healthy? Because Snowden).

Hangover effect

It’s pretty easy to to make a vote in protest, without thinking about the ramifications. So, Brexit happened, and now the UK is waking up to what that means. Most people I’ve talked to are now thinking “wow, that’s a lot of work to make this happen”. When your prime minister basically takes his ball and goes home, giving up in disgust, you know there’s a bigger problem.

Similarly, a vote in the primaries for Trump basically prevented any of the establishment Republican candidates from being elected. That’s a reasonable form of protest if you believe the establishment’s policies are wrong. Some dreamed of a Bernie vs. Trump election, with the perception being two outsiders that wouldn’t sell out, running against each other. Or at least that’s what they were led to believe.

Short-term-itis

So what is it that people are upset about? I would argue that the cause is a case of short-term-itis, basically that western democracy has very short terms and most decisions are not final.

Similarly, public companies report earnings very regularly and most companies bias their approach to appease quarterly results. This allows their share price to have enough volatility that there can be a market around their stock.

But how are these related?

Businesses know how to get what they want from government, by funding candidates and PACs and other mechanisms of having influence over government policy. The fear of losing office is a strong one.

Public companies themselves are generally managed by people who have little real control or ownership of an organization. It is not a coincidence that many of the high growth companies are run by founding management with a significant control over the organization. Other organizations are basically managed to shareholder expectations for growth, or even slowly gutted over time, effectively robbed of their long-term value by institutional investors. I think you can find examples of the latter in every industry.

There are many examples of companies with healthy profits, but if their management deviates from a plan of cost-cutting and then miss their projected numbers, then that management team will be replaced.

So what is the plan for management of companies? Aggressive outsourcing, offshoring, automation, and robotics to replacing people earning wages. For a while this was just a thing where jobs from the west would move to lower cost countries, but with automation and robotics, we’re seeing industries moving their factories back to the west, but with robots instead of employees.

There are many examples of organizations where a team creates something great, and then what they’ve created is moved to another country with cheaper labor costs. This leads to the population becoming disenfranchised with their government, because their long-term ability to survive and thrive is threatened. And they see their government’s enacting business-friendly global policies that allow businesses to reduce opportunities for the low and middle class.

Immigration

Immigration is a common scape goat for the Trump and Brexit supporters. This is because immigrants generally drive down wages for entry level jobs, and initially place a burden on welfare and social systems in countries where these benefits are offered.

Long-term, things are arguably different, as immigrants push to establish themselves and contribute to the economy. But if someone finds that their job has been sent offshore or has been automated out of existence, and they’re now having to compete with someone who will work for minimum wage, it’s an easy thing to focus on. Especially if the immigrant comes from a country that promotes terrorism or a drug war, which are easy targets to polarize people based on their differences.

Answers?

I do not claim to have any answers (and I don’t want that job!), but a reasonable first step is understanding the reasons why people are voting the way they are, and getting back to an environment where we respect each other and can discuss things in a civil manner, rather than just assuming they are stupid for voting differently than you would vote.

And of course, remember that a vote for or against an issue has far larger ramifications than just voting for it!