Some Thoughts On The British Elections

As I write this, with the returns of yesterday’s parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom all but finalized, it appears certain that the ruling Conservative Party has fallen short of an outright majority, thereby forcing a coalition government with one of the several minor parties in Britain. I have a few thoughts on the results, and what they mean for Britain, the European Union, and the United States going forward:

First, the results, coupled with the overall election process, seem to highlight a simple fact of modern democratic governments—parliamentary systems are inherently less stable, and are less suited to leading strong national governments on the world stage, than more structured democratic systems such as in the United States. In America, a pattern of regularly scheduled elections, coupled with the historical irrelevance of any third parties, make for a more predictable and organized political system—even when, as in 2016, the ultimate outcome of those elections is unexpected. In Britain and other countries with parliamentary systems, meanwhile, elections can be called at any time (with a few limits on frequency), and complicated coalition governments are common. These arrangements often lead to weaker and more transient governments than are common in the United States and some other countries—yesterday’s election results being a prime example of that fact.

Unsurprisingly, the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, no longer holds even a single seat in Parliament, a dramatic reversal from the growing influence of the party just two years ago. The reason is simple: Brexit was the party’s single animating feature, the part of its platform that differentiated it from all others. Now that Brexit has been achieved, and the only real debate among the parties centers on the precise terms of Britain leaving the European Union, UKIP has been robbed of that which made it special. A similar phenomenon is often seen in American politics, where a single-issue minor party will enjoy some short-lived success based on the strength of one particular argument, but will quickly disappear once one or both of the major parties co-opt that argument, or the issue itself fades in relevance.

And finally, the results themselves will likely not affect American foreign policy in any meaningful way, at least in the short term. Britain will still withdraw from the European Union, although the negotiation process has just become more difficult for them. The Conservative Party is still the dominant political party in the U.K., although likewise their hand has been weakened. It would have been nice to see a right-wing party enjoy some success across the pond, but direct repercussions from yesterday’s results will probably be limited.

Still, what those results do show is the fickleness of voters in any democracy, the foolishness of declaring a political opponent to be finished, and the dangers of being seen as not delivering substantive reform. That may be the most important lesson for Americans, and the Republican Party in particular.

Is Populism Dead, Or Has It Already Won?

As everyone knows, 2016 was a banner year for populism in the West. Voters in the United Kingdom stunned the politicians, the polls, and the financial markets by voting to leave the European Union. Not six months later, across the Atlantic, American voters elected Donald Trump as the 45^th President, in what has been described as the greatest political upset in U.S. history. In between, nationalist (here I use the terms interchangeably) parties gained strength in many parts of Europe, including Austria, where a populist leader came tantalizingly close to winning the presidency, and Hungary, where voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of a referendum limiting immigration (though low turnout meant that the measure was not adopted).

But 2017 has so far seemed to be a year of setbacks for populist candidates. Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands had a disappointing finish in that country’s parliamentary elections. The main populist party in Germany seems to be struggling, as well. And, though Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff in the French presidential elections, the current polls suggest she will lose in a landslide (though that lead may be dwindling).

I’m not going to make any predictions about whether the polls are right and Le Pen will actually go down in embarrassing defeat. Last year’s presidential polls are still fresh in my mind. But the record already seems to suggest that populism has struggled to gain additional traction since the banner year of 2016.

Has it? Geert Wilders may not be the Dutch prime minister, but he remains a major player in Dutch politics, and his campaign forced the major parties to shift to the right and adopt some of his anti-Islam, anti-immigration arguments. A similar phenomenon has played out in Germany, where Angela Merkel is no longer nearly as pro-open borders and pro-immigration as she once was. And Le Pen is already set to turn in the best performance ever by a National Front politician in the presidential election, and her opponent’s lead, while still in double digits, is closing by the day.

Politicians across the West, even those who have campaigned most strenuously against the rise of populism, have gradually been forced by political reality to adopt a few of the populists’ key demands—greater national sovereignty, stricter immigration controls, and the like. Even the leadership of the European Union is now saying that they may back off some of their most strident calls for greater European integration, made in haste over the past few years. The twin blows of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are still causing shockwaves through the system, shockwaves most noticeable in Europe.

They will recede in time, absent other populist victories, but for now the assorted nationalist movements across the West are gaining policy victories even without major triumphs at the ballot box. They may not have achieved total victory, but the assorted components of the current nationalist-populist movement are far from finished.

The Status Quo Can't Last Forever

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, against all the odds, brought home a reality that was already becoming apparent: the world is changing, and the old order of the past sixty years cannot last forever. The 2016 election has not been the only indicator: Brexit and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France are two others, which most prominently demonstrate the continuing populist surge across the West. Even the Arab Spring of several years ago could, in hindsight, be seen as a early sign of the dissatisfaction with the established order sweeping the globe.

North Korea seems to grow more belligerent by the day, faced by a United States no longer satisfied with détente and endless rounds of failed negotiations and sanctions which seem to do little good. Iran, too, seeks to become a regional power, spreading their influence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. The movement of greater European integration, begun after the Second World War, is stalled, and perhaps is in full retreat already, depending on one’s point of view. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin seeks both to cement his own power, and return Russia to the imagined glory of the old Soviet Union. And the time of Venezuela’s “Socialism of the 21^st Century” may be reaching its inevitable conclusion.

It is a tangible truth, so much so that one can almost feel it in the air: the second decade of the 21^st century is a time of great, unprecedented change, the past two years especially so. The old order is gradually giving way to something new. What ends up replacing it will not become clear for a long time yet, but its shape is slowly emerging.

All the issues we increasingly struggle with today—from North Korea to immigration and globalization, all the way to the exploding national debt—will be affected by this change. The current, decades-old balance of power in the Korean Peninsula cannot last in perpetuity. Neither can America’s current rate of borrowing and spending. Neither can the European struggle between integrationists and nationalists, and the centralization of power in Brussels. Changes across the world have been gestating for a long time, and many are finally coming to a head.

Change is in the air.

A Victory for Liberty in the U.K., That Was Heard Around the World

Yesterday the citizens of the United Kingdom scored a victory for freedom, democracy, and the future of their nation. By voting to leave the European Union, voters stood against the political establishment of both Britain and Europe, as well as many foreign leaders such as President Obama, who sought to interfere with an internal political debate over the future of Britain.

It was shameful for Obama, as the head of state of one of the U.K.’s closest allies, to seek to manipulate the results of the referendum by threatening that future trade deals and other diplomatic arrangements between the two countries would be put in jeopardy if Britain voted to Leave. The truth is that the United States and United Kingdom share a common heritage and a special relationship, one that cannot be erased regardless of whether the latter chooses to stay in the E.U.

But luckily, British voters didn’t allow Obama’s meddling to influence their decision. The truth is that, while we as Americans didn’t have a formal stake in the results of yesterday’s referendum, we are by nature pleased whenever principles of liberty and independence win out over a more collectivist argument. We want what’s best for the U.K., and our special relationship and many shared interests ensures that result will ultimately be best for America, as well.

To be sure, there will be some uncertainty for Britain in the weeks and months to come. The members of the European Union are already bound tightly to one another, and as the first country to leave the U.K. will be in uncharted waters. The leaders of the E.U., no doubt furious at the result of the referendum, will do nothing to make the transition easier, in an attempt to quell further talk by other countries of making their own exits. Already, calls are growing louder for France, Sweden, and the Netherlands to hold votes of their own.

And well they should. A majority of the British people yesterday recognized what many critics of the European Union, both in Europe and internationally, have been saying for years—that the Union is, at its heart, an undemocratic entity that suppresses the will of the people in favor of the will of unelected bureaucrats, who offer only ever-expanding regulations and a gradual stripping away of national sovereignty in return.

Member nations of the E.U. are subject to a loss of control over their own borders, replaced by enforced immigration quotas over which neither ordinary voters nor elected officials have any direct say. While our own country struggles with an ever-intrusive federal government seeking to impose new regulations every day, over nearly every conceivable aspect of daily life, we at least have the advantage that they are imposed by our own bureaucrats and elected officials. Citizens of the U.K., as members of the E.U., are subject to laws and regulations voted on neither by themselves, their own national Parliament, nor even by bureaucrats in their own country, but rather by unaccountable decision-makers in Brussels.

Rulings by national courts and congresses in any of the E.U.’s member nations may be superseded by decisions of the European Commission or European Court of Law. Even in some select cases where provisions of national constitutions conflict with European law, the latter takes precedence. Concepts like these are abhorrent to most Americans, and freedom-loving people around the world, but are accepted as part of life by those living within the 28 member nations of the European Union.

Soon to be twenty-seven. The scale of the victory for the British people, for the ideals of freedom and self-government, can hardly be overstated. The system of government currently in place in Europe is a dangerous one, and it is always good to see such systems contract rather than expand, lest they one day serve as models for a future government of our own.

Over two centuries ago, the American colonists stood against Great Britain, won their independence, and created a new government to stand as a beacon for liberty. Yesterday we saw the United Kingdom shine as a similar beacon for the other nations of Europe. It is not an exaggeration to say that yesterday truly, June 23, truly was—as Vote Leave campaigners promised it would be—the U.K.’s own Independence Day.