TRUMP IT ALL

TRUMP IT ALL
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

A few weeks after President Donald J. Trump was officially vetted by the Electoral College, hours after he took office and more than two months after the election, the world is still resonating with the same cries of post-mortem passion. After Brexit, the sweeping victory of the Republicans offered by the most unorthodox candidate, the failure of Renzi, and the rise of Le Pens across Europe, many are asking where do we go from there.

Andy Warhol used to say that when you see a gruesome picture over and over again, it does not really affect you in the end. The biggest risk with the recent events, is probably that people might get used to the situation and that in the end they do not feel affected by it. The risk is that they might get used to scapegoating, ramping populism and mainstreaming of hate speech… and eventually find it the new normal. The Trump election is the perfect example of a lose-lose scenario: if he does all the horrible things he promised he would do during his campaign, it will be very bad; and if he does not keep his word and does not go forward with all the things he said, it will make populism appealing to more people who might think “it is not as bad as we thought.”

These events all have in common the rejection of the establishment, the fear of deeper global integration at all levels – national, European and international – but also the unhealthy belief that the past few decades can be undone as easily as you can delete a few posts on Facebook. Social media have satisfied and exacerbated some of humans’ most basic traits, including but not limited to the comfort of being surrounded by like-minded individuals. Indeed, the so-called echo-chamber phenomenon is what makes most of us – often not consciously – read, watch, listen to things and people we agree with and avoid confrontation with – or even information from – those we disagree and/or despise. With the profusion of information – including fake information – and the possibility to reach out to anyone at almost any time, people can listen to what they want to hear, pick and choose what they want to be believe, and obliviate the rest. This is not new – this has just been amplified. This is the world we live in, it has many bright sides, but we must learn to deal with the downsides.

After all the surprises that 2016 brought along, the best that we can hope for is a wake-up call and collective introspection. As far as I am concerned, I gathered and decided to share what appears to me as the 6 most important things I have learnt from this eventful year. Hopefully, it can be of use to others and myself, in order to avoid a similar backlash to liberalism in France in May, but also in Germany next September, and elsewhere around the world.

1. Redistribute

The root cause of the anti-globalisation and anti-establishment reaction happening all around the world lies in the lack of redistribution. The lack of redistribution between urban and rural, between coasts and hinterlands, between centres and peripheries. While the past few decades with the internationalisation of trade and the rise of emerging countries have seen incredible net wealth creation, not all have benefited equally. And while the EU and the Obama administration have played a great role in the UK and US’s economic wellbeing respectively, they have been found guilty of all charges.

As far as the UK is concerned, access to the European market is the primary reason to invest for almost three quarters of foreign investors. The value of EU-membership for the UK is believed to have represented around 4% of annual GDP, and the costs of leaving the Union would be as much as a drop of 7.5% in GDP level to predictions by HM Treasury. Similarly, the US has experienced the fastest economic recovery from the global financial crisis of any OECD country and reached record-low unemployment rates in a decade. In other words, on average Brits and Americans are better off than they used to be when they respectively joined the EU and entered the global financial crisis.

However, looking at averages is the very problem, because the benefits of globalisation have not been shared equally amongst the population. Some groups have constantly paid the price of it while others have repeatedly gained from it. The case of manufacturing in the US is particularly enlightening: over the course of the last three decades years, the output has doubled but employment has steadily fallen. Furthermore, as Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and his wife Anne Case demonstrated, mortality has been declining steadily for the past three decades in the US and other wealthy countries with the notable exception of middle-aged low-educated white Americans. These two examples show that we must have a conversation regarding how we can improve redistribution. An option is more support to reconversion programs, better unemployment benefits, or maybe as Elon Musk recently suggested a universal basic income? But in addition to improved redistribution, we should also focus on improving the general level of education.

2. Invest In Education

The case for investing in education is twofold. First, we need low-skilled jobs less and less. As a result, society is better off, but some categories of the population are particularly sacrificed: “if many voters have turned anti-establishment, it was the establishment that abandoned them first” says FT-writer Martin Sandbu. This is particularly true for the manufacturing sector discussed above. “In each recession, US manufacturing has bled workers, and since the peak in the late 1970s, every recovery has re-employed fewer people than lost their jobs” further writes Sandbu. Similar situations in other sectors ensue from the adoption of disruptive technologies. Some of the twenty-first century’s hottest companies bring change at an unprecedented pace and pose major ethical dilemmas. The Teslas and Ubers address critical problems of our time such as pollution and congestion, and create highly-qualified jobs. At the same time, they might reduce the standards of employment security and ultimately remove the need for low-skilled jobs. While there is no point in trying to fight progress, there is a moral obligation to protect the more vulnerable and more affected individuals: education, especially through reconversion programs, can do the job.

Second, fighting populists starts with fighting lies and being able to disentangle what from electoral promises is feasible and what is pure political rhetoric. We need more education, because we need more critical minds and people should be able to cast their ballot with as much information as possible. Indeed, gullibility is a shared trait amongst many. While some people might willingly cut off their nose to spite their face or knowingly make a sacrifice to support their preferred option – such as voting for Brexit to regain full sovereignty at whatever economic cost; or voting for a “president with balls” – others make decisions assuming most of the information they are given by candidates running for office is broadly correct. This presumption of veracity is great because it can make our lives much easier! It means we do not have to question every single word pronounced. Yet it is problematic, because the less we question politicians’ promises, the more misleading they can be. When Trump promised more jobs in the coal-mining industries, people not only believe them: they trusted him. However, it is not hard to see how – very – simple math does not add up. Last June, the US coal production reached its lowest level in 35 years, mostly explained by the boom in natural gas production. Over the same period of time, the industry shrunk fivefold from employing 250,000 to only 50,000, in great part due to mechanisation. In other words, it will not be economically viable to increase the labour force in the coal-mining industry anytime soon! An attempt to debunk electoral myths and blatant lies might be widespread fact-checking throughout the most-used websites, but also decrypting and debating political programs in schools. From school-benches, discussions might spill over to the kitchen table… This argues in favour of dedicating more time to civic education in the core curriculum.

More generally, improving levels of education can cure one of society’s biggest evils: perception bias or the fact that expectations can affect perception. For instance, during the presidential campaign, more than half of Americans thought the unemployment rate was much higher than its actual level! Similarly, people traditionally misunderstand – and a fortiori, misperceive – immigration, seeing it as a threat instead of an opportunity. Beyond the obvious demographic benefits, immigrants boost demand which in turns boosts the economy. Recent evidence from the IMF suggests that the German economy might have expanded by 0.3% due to the influx of refugees and that immigrants might provide and long-term support to European economies more widely . Teaching these facts, one way or another, will result in less scapegoating and more peaceful societies. Therefore, investing in better education for all – young, adults, unemployed – will not only give people jobs, it will also help them own their decisions. Better education is key to a brighter future.

3. Make Voting Easier

Make voting less of a hassle and more efficient would ensure more fairness in who gets to vote in practice, and could substantially increase turnouts as a result. Interviewed by the New York Times, Harvard-Ph.D candidate Pettigrew says that “in predominantly minority communities, the lines are about twice as long as in predominantly white ones. And minority voters are six times as likely as whites to wait longer than an hour to vote”. Pettigrew’s research further suggests that “for each hour would-be voters wait, their probability of voting in the next election drops by one percentage point”. Encouraging more people to vote and easing the process is particularly important because the more people vote and engage with an election or referendum, the more legitimate and empowered the winner or outcome is.

Making voting easier, quicker and fairer requires to achieve shorter lines, simpler identification, less foregone wages. Solutions that come to mind to address these issues are to increase the number of polling stations, scale up online voting, make election days public holidays. The first point is an obvious one as increasing the number of polling stations will mechanically decrease the waiting-in-line time, the second and third points are trickier. While we can do almost anything online – from ordering food, to transferring money, through taking tests and accessing results – online voting is still very limited. This is mainly due to legitimate fraud concerns, however many believe it is the future. Recently, the primaries for the centre-right party in France – Les Républicains – allowed expats to vote online in a very audacious move. Finally, many countries have historically held elections and referenda on Sundays to ensure the highest possible turnout, or have made election days public holidays to make sure that low-income would-be voters would not suffer disproportionately from the inconvenience of having to take time off work to go and vote. More radically, some countries such as Australia, Belgium or Brazil have made voting compulsory. While this approach does not solve all the problems – especially not the long lines or fairness concerns – it does dramatically increase the legitimacy of the outcome. Last but not least, an efficient voting system needs to make sure that those primarily affected by the outcome of an irreversible decision get a say: this often means involving the Young.

4. Involve The Young

For the Scottish independence referendum held in 2014, young people aged over 16 and under 18 were exceptionally allowed to vote. It was a pretty unique decision, and the idea behind it was that the outcome of the referendum was going to affect them more than any other group – or at least for longer. For the United Kingdom European Union referendum held on June 23rd, known as the Brexit vote, no such arrangement was made – meaning that those who are going to bear the long-term consequences of Brexit did not get a say.

Indeed, the viral chart compiled by YouGov showed that 79% of young Brits aged between 18 and 24 voted “Remain,” while in contrast almost 60% of pensioners voted “Leave”.

Considering involving the Young more frequently depending on the level of reversibility of a decision would be a sensible thing to do in order to avoid aggravating generational disconnects, and to build more united societies. More generally, liberal democracies should develop new tools to engage with all levels of the population and bridge the growing elite-people gap.

5. Connect With Populations

The recent events have been a violent backlash to the elite, the technocrats and more broadly what we refer to as the establishment. While there is an ongoing legitimate debate over the role they have to play within liberal democracies, the more urgent question is how to address the growing divide between those empowered by the prevailing ideology and those who are not. Brexit, the election of Donald J. Trump, the clear victory of the “No” at the Italian constitutional referendum, the soaring popularity of Marine Le Pen in France… are as many warning signs of the silent majority’s general exasperation towards vocal, global, liberal millennials and the likes. While we may hold one view or the other, the most important thing is to acknowledge this divide and make the effort to listen to those we do not usually hear. This means reaching out to them through various platforms, understanding their priorities and giving them a say in decisions that matter to them and their community.

Despite the fact internet users represent over 85% of the population in Western countries, so far governments have been quite reluctant to go online and use technology at its full popential. Nevertheless, harnessing technology seems an obvious way to have a direct conversation with the people and understanding their priorities. Through increased presence on social media, online consultations and participatory budgeting. In the US, the New York City Council partnered with the D21 organisation, whose technology enables to cast multiple votes and minus votes, to help residents aged 14 or over allocate $30M in 2015-2016. In France, the City of Paris set up a platform to let Parisians decide how to spend 5% of the city’s investment budget, representing about 500M€ over the period 2014-2020. Beyond letting governments connect with people, technology is essential is to understand underlying dynamics. Technology is a means to visualise data and uncover trends… with more granular and potentially more useful results when ethnic and religious statistics are possible. Indeed, Big Data can provide incredible insights on patterns of behaviours amongst different people and point towards the people’s most urgent concerns. A concrete advance application of Big Data analysis for the public good is the New York City Business Atlas, developed by the Mayor’s Office for Data Analytics to provide entrepreneurs with detailed information about economic activity, demographics, foot traffic and other key business metrics around locations they are considering. Finally, virtual ways of connecting with people must be coupled with grass-root approaches and human interactions. A recent example is “La Grande Marche,” the door-to-door movement launched by the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron and led by thousands of volunteers walking across the country to interview and survey French people living in remote areas.

Taking the pulse of a nation, through modern technologies and local actions, should help identify citizens’ primary concerns but in no case should it dictate the agenda. Acknowledging and addressing people’s priorities in a timely manner will set up a healthy feedback loop that will bring to light and defuse points of tension, by simply starting the conversation when it matters and understanding why it matters... without necessarily legislating - especially not in the heat of a controversy. Deeper and more direct communication with the people can help avoid violent backlashes like the ones we experienced recently.

6. Strengthen Institutions

All of the above is not enough to guarantee the survival of our hard-fought liberal democracies. It is widely known that Adolf Hitler was sworn into office after being elected by the people. Similarly, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor of France after holding a democratic referendum by the standards of the time. Now Trump. The 45th President of the United States of America, democratically elected and confirmed by the Electoral College, has already crossed most of the historically accepted redlines. He has also violated many founding principles of democracy: not only is he a man who has encouraged violence, cast doubt on the validity of election results, threatened critical media; but he is also a man who has mainstreamed sexual assault and racism, and who days before he took office he also started using his presidential influence to boost personal or friendly businesses.

The case of Trump is not unique but might have unprecedented consequences. Are institutions resilient enough to survive his Presidency? Are we willing to take the gamble? Many argue that it is too risky and that we should take action. But what type of action? Any decision questioning a democratic outcome is akin to opening the Pandora box… However, it is sometimes necessary. Collectively, we should make sure we are able to fight back when representatives of the people start making rules that favour them at the expense of the people. For instance, when Republicans implement tougher identification measures to deter non-white Americans from voting, when the majority in the House devises a scheme to gut the independent ethics committee, when the presidential administration threatens the freedom of the press, when border agents silence woul-be protesters... or, at the extreme, when incumbent presidents extend the length of their mandates or the number of mandates they can complete. How to strengthen our institutions and make our representatives more accountable is a tough question. Increasing transparency, setting up supranational watchdogs, creating an agency dealing specifically with whistleblowers, allowing groups of citizens over a certain number to question the government directly, are all possible answers.

Time To Go

There is no silver bullet that can defend our democracies, but I strongly believe that the solutions outlined above can make them more resilient. However, the most worrisome question is not how can we defend our democracies, but rather do we really want to? Fewer and fewer people in liberal democracies say it is essential to live in one, and support for authoritarian regimes is rising. Many will see in these figures the failure of our democracies to be as multi-faceted as their populations, but ultimately our democracies are what we make of them. Their ailing is the cause of citizens’ disengagement as much as it is the symptom. If we want to live in democracies happily ever after, there is no doubt that governments should improve and should redistribute more, educate better, make voting easier, involve the Young, connect quicker, strengthen institutions… But we, as individuals have a major role to play: if we are going to complain, we must propose solutions. We must engage. With everyone, friends and foes alike. We must read political programs. We must volunteer. We must phone-bank. We must campaign. For our favourite candidate or the lesser evil. We must vote. With our ballot and our feet. We must run. If we are not satisfied with the system, let’s not be afraid to change it. Or we might regret it later.

And later might be too late.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot