39 ms·

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalis

• jv22222 10y ago
  This link submitted to HN was flagged by mods but it should not have been. It helps to explain how Trump won: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...
  • bambax 10y ago
    One of the most informative articles I have read about the divide between rural and urban America. Probably very true. Highly recommended.
• dibstern 10y ago
  Lol what are you on about. Plenty of countries have a very multicultural society, and they do great. Look at Melbourne, Australia, we have huge immigrant populations, and all the different cultures have made this an awesome place to live - E.g. I highly doubt you'd find a more diverse selection of restaurants per capita anywhere else. This election wasn't about race. Don't project your bigotry onto all Trump supporters. And the 'world elite' is not actually the group of people that aren't racist, it's the middle class that isn't racist. The 'elite' and the 'worker class' are actually pretty similar in how bigoted they are.
  • njloof 10y ago
    Sounds great, but I thought Australia was gravely concerned about so-called "boat people."
  • jwdunne 10y ago
    That's interesting. The anti-immigration right in the UK hold your immigration system up as the way forward. We have a multicultural society in the UK that many are rejecting, with racial tensions at a high. The difference is that many immigrants are working class. They are scapegoated to great success with the white working class. I disagree with that - I think the real problem is meagre infrastructure investment to support new arrivals but perhaps the Aussie style system works on the other end of the spectrum: focus only on valuable people where value is how much money they would earn.
    • theparanoid 10y ago
      Indonesia has an immigrant group of success, Chinese, which resulted in the pogrom of 98'.
    • ddeck 10y ago
      It's also interesting given the relative immigrant populations: As of 2011, 26% of the Australian population was not born in Australia.[1] That's around double the UK. The only nations with higher proportions are Luxembourg, Switzerland and Israel. As the parent pointed out, Melbourne is particularly diverse, with 30% of the population not born in Australia. I presume they are referring to focussing on skills based migration schemes vs humanitarian. As someone pointed out below, Australia's policies towards political and humanitarian refugees have many critics. [1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4102.0main+features102014 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4102.0main+fe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#Migration_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#Migra...
• Mikeb85 10y ago
  You can't sacrifice large swaths of the population for the so called "greater" good. Globalisation, as it stands now, is neo-colonialism. It offshores blue collar jobs and concentrates white collar jobs in rich countries. It disenfranchises blue collar workers in the west, and causes brain drain in the developing world. All it's done is benefit the elite. Read progressive economists like Piketty, and combine it with visits to places like Detroit. The current model hasn't been working. I don't think Trump has all the solutions, but he diagnosed the problem better than the smug elites. Same goes for Brexit. This isn't xenophobia, working class jobs are disappearing from the west. It's a real economic phenomena. Maybe one day the world will be united, but its too soon.
  • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    You don't need to sacrifice them, the right wing parties that are being voted in chose to do that and are now being rewarded by the blowback.
    • Mikeb85 10y ago
      Do you not remember the animosity of the GOP towards Trump? Clinton was almost unanimously favoured by Wall St. and large corporations.
      • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        Destroying Wall Street and making life better for working class people are two different things. I believe that he might destroy big corporations, I don't believe that will be good for the people they employ, or who have their pension invested in them. Basic left wing ideas of taxing successful and rich people and reducing inequality, supporting those who lose jobs to structural unemployment might have headed this off. I guess we'll never know.
  • WillPostForFood 10y ago
    Software development and IT jobs that moved to India and China are blue collar? Call centers?
• ohwello 10y ago
  >The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. A majority of something, but probably not the population: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president?action=c...
  • forthefuture 10y ago
    I mean Trump currently does have the majority of votes.
    • kem 10y ago
      The discrepancy between the EV and the popular vote is dangerous politically, in my opinion. Its significance is really underestimated, because you have the outcome unhinged from the actual vote result or sentiment; the popular vote has to overcome some structural feature that favors a different outcome. What we have now is, again, the prospect of a president who was not elected by a majority of the population. All these discussions interpreting popular opinion based on a Trump presidency are a bit moot to me because they equate the two when they're not the same. I don't disagree with a lot of the points being made here, because clearly something about voting for Trump resonated with a lot of Americans. However, if it turns out that Trump didn't win the popular vote, it is technically true that the president elect was disfavored by a majority of the voters. It's a dangerous, unfair trend and only exacerbates disillusionment with the political process.
      • tlrobinson 10y ago
        Well, the majority of the population didn't even vote.
      • sgc 10y ago
        But there is a valid reason for it. The US is a union of States, and they hold real power. I am not sure they should give up their power because it is too complicated for some people to understand. At the same time, I would prefer States to allot their electoral votes proportionally so that they could properly represent their population. Nevertheless, there would still be rounding errors.
• jrockway 10y ago
  Globalization isn't the problem. Computerization is. Other countries are not taking "our" jobs. We simply don't need those jobs anymore. Taxes on foreign labor will only do one thing: subsidize robots. We're going to spend billions of dollars on a big wall, and I guarantee you we're not going to have a lot more jobs after that. (The wall itself is a pretty big project though.)
  • the_duke 10y ago
    There probably won't be a wall. Most likely, few of the promises / threats of the campaign will materialize. It just might turn out that Trump will be a very moderate republican president. He just might have played a role for the last few years. A role that got him voters. Then again, he might not care at all about doing the actual job and let Pence run most of it. I still can't believe how Americans could actually elect someone like that. I understand a protest vote, but with that candidate... I guess the majority of voters just didn't care that he has no actual opinions, is an entitled, rich, insecure, macho, old generation 'man', and just projected their wishes for change, ignoring all of him they didn't want to think about. Republicans hold both houses and the presidency now, though. I guess Obama's legacy has been wiped out today. Oh well, the world will go on.
    • hueving 10y ago
      Everyone I know who voted trump did not pick him to start with, but he was the only option to vote against Hillary Clinton. Trump could have been a rubber chicken and he probably still would have won.
      • croon 10y ago
        Which is ridiculous. I'm not diminishing a Sophie's choice here, but that Trump somehow comes out on top in that comparison is a farce of reasoning.
        • hueving 10y ago
          It's only a farce if you don't believe that Hillary is representative of corrupt, career politicians. It seems many of the people I know who voted for him wouldn't care if he dropped his pants and took a shit in one of the Smithsonian museums. "At least he's not part of the establishment."
• dba7dba 10y ago
  > There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right. Lol, true that. One thing I'd like to point out is that NATO and UN existed for decades before the massive immigration flow started.
  • Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    NATO is a defence pact and the UN is an international forum. Neither is a super government.
    • dba7dba 10y ago
      Yeah saying NATO was wrong. But I think many believe (rightly or wrongly) UN is a super government....
      • mikeyouse 10y ago
        Wrongly. They believe that wrongly.
        • misnome 10y ago
          I think if anything this year has proven beyond a doubt that truth and facts are irrelevant compared to belief and 'feeling'.
  • greglindahl 10y ago
    America had several massive immigration flows before NATO existed. And several racist backlashes. For example, a backlash against the slightly-less-white people from Italy in the early 1900s. There's nothing new about the current backlash.
• puranjay 10y ago
  As a brown Indian dude, it seems to me that the western world is caught in some self-hating loop. It simultaneously trivializes my culture while hating its own culture. I watched Justin Trudeau dance the bhangra and people claim "oh what beautiful Indian culture". I've seen people eat butter chicken to partake in "Indian culture" experiences. That's just wrong. Indian culture - any culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish. At the same time, I see white people negate their culture altogether. It might have been built on colonialism and imperialism, but what, say, Renaissance artists pulled off is significant, very significant. Everyone needs to back off and think about this for a bit
  • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    > That's just wrong. Indian culture - and culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish. Maybe now you start to see the "damned if you do damned if you don't" nature of political correctness, and why it has been rejected in this election cycle with great success.
    • pmoriarty 10y ago
      There are right wing versions of political correctness. Try saying that immigrants aren't a problem at a Republican rally. Or saying that women have a right to choose. Or that homosexuals should be able to marry. Then watch how quickly right wingers jumps down your throat for not being politically correct.
      • noobermin 10y ago
        Or how climate change is borne out by the facts, or how blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years by whites, or the crusades happened, on and on and on. Everyone has their own little safe-space and their own desire to stifle others speech (voter suppression?). Just some hard statements follow from fact and some do not.
        • hueving 10y ago
          >how blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years by whites You have no idea what you are talking about if you think this point is disputed by any majority of Republicans. It's like saying, "'People should contribute to society' triggers all liberals."
• intopieces 10y ago
  >Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. I use to think this too, before this election. But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world. They are interested in control. Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen again. The politics of fear won, and I see no oppertunities to bring a divide where one side is hellbent on dynamiting every brick as it's laid.
  • pedalpete 10y ago
    I am very Anti-Trump, but I have to ask, could the same thoughts not be said by a right-winger to a leftist? It seems like neither side is listening. From what I understand, this isn't what democracy used to be. We've created a divide where somebody says "I'm a democrat/republican" and they look at the party for what that means. It isn't only the system that is broken, but it is how we view it and how we view each other. This is why I agreed with Sama and not removing Thiel from YC. We have to listen to the other side and empathize so we can understand. Without that we all lose. Today, we all lost.
    • zigzigzag 10y ago
      I don't know if the past was so rose tinted. The 20th century was dominated by the struggle between the far left (communism) and what the communists perceived as imperialist nationalism (capitalism/western democracy). This was a far, far more bitter struggle than what we're seeing now.
      • Scarblac 10y ago
        That struggle was only the main theme between 1945 and 1990, I'd say the unimaginably destructive wars of the first half of the century dominated.
        • 10y ago
• jacobolus 10y ago
  Immigration and gay marriage and women’s rights etc. are scapegoats. The real problems are international competition (unskilled workers in developed countries have to compete with unskilled workers in Thailand and Bangladesh and Indonesia), automation (the US has higher industrial production than ever before, but it takes much less labor), changing tax laws and easier travel/communication/money movement (letting rich people live far away from production and markets, and siphon their wealth into tax havens), break-down of civic institutions (labor unions, churches, public services, local newspapers, etc.).
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • eng101 10y ago
    Your points mirror my experience, but could you explain why breakdown of civic institutions (an observation I've also made) matters?
  • BipolarElsa 10y ago
    >Immigration and gay marriage and women’s rights etc. are scapegoats. This is the answer nobody will admit in this thread. They do not solve the massive undercurrent of economic problems the vast majority of Americans face. They do not care about those distractions. And they proved that today.
• MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  I think she couldn't mobilize the black vote because of what the clinton foundation did to Haiti https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/what-the-clintons-did-to-haiti https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/what-the-clintons-did... also they are quite pro-business and somehow it all looks quite colonial https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundatio... Calling your opponents deplorable also did not help. i for one welcome our new orange overlord also twitter and youtube seem to be more important than all the old media - Trump had a big presence on twitter that is. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/08/election-winner-twitter/93509896/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/08/election-...
  • mikeyouse 10y ago
    Black Americans didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton lobbied against a minimum wage increase in Haiti? That seems a bit far fetched...
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• fsck--off 10y ago
  The difference between this and Brexit is that more people voted for Brexit than against it, while more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.
  • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    Trump won the popular vote as well as the EV (at the time of this comment).
    • fsck--off 10y ago
      Clinton is projected to win the popular vote once all the ballots (especially those in California) are counted.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
        Many things have been projected this election cycle.
        • vecter 10y ago
          That's ... not a valid argument against a different point. It's 1:41 AM on the west coast and despite the NY Times clearly calling the election for Trump, Clinton still has a forecasted 1% lead in the popular vote. Given California is incredibly blue, this will most likely hold true.
          • deleted 10y ago
            [deleted]
    • hedonistbot 10y ago
      Yes, I believe that the NYT are projecting the final outcome of the popular vote based on all those West Coast votes that are still being counted.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• antirez 10y ago
  > Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture I don't understand that part. Isn't US a sum of N cultures that decided to have a common culture? So why the newcomers can't do what the predecessors did?
  • jacobolus 10y ago
    There was all kinds of hatred for the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc. 70–150 years ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in the US south less than 50 years ago. The arguments against Mexicans and Muslim refugees today are nearly identical, just with the names changed. 1940s Sinatra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpO6mpYvyqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpO6mpYvyqQ
    • joeyspn 10y ago
      I guess there was also hatred for the English and the Spaniards the first time they put their feet on american soil...
      • thesagan 10y ago
        According to old diaries in my family collection, even my german ancestors detested working for the English "lord" in the late 1800s.
  • seanp2k2 10y ago
    There's not really a good response I can think of here which fits with the guidelines of this site aside from basically we have a lot of ignorant short-sighted voters in this country.
    • alphapapa 10y ago
      One of the reasons Clinton lost is because of the attitude that everyone who opposes her is ignorant and short-sighted. Food for thought.
  • 10y ago
• lsc 10y ago
  >The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. No, the attempts at building an interconnected globalized world are becoming less popular. Or maybe the people who opposed that sort of thing all along are finding a voice. It's a different thing; Interestingly, you get different answers when you vote votes than when you vote with dollars; and in this case? the dollars have teamed up with the center (or what in america is called the center-left) - and lost to the votes. (I guess I don't really see why you think the center left (or center) has sold out to the far right. This is America, and we like our market-based solutions, but the center is capable of regulating that. I give you the ACA as exhibit A.) >There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right.Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage. uh, so really, 'left' vs 'right' doesn't work so well when describing "third way" nationalist movements; that's kind of why it is the "third way" - I mean, not that brexit and trump are actually fascist movements, but they are similar in that they have strong nationalist and nativist aspects to them, and are less clear where they stand on the economic side of things. All 'third way' movements, historically, have had some socialist and some capitalist elements; their argument is that the left/right economic divide isn't the primary issue; taking care of "your people" and protecting those people from the others is the big issue. The real divide here is between what I call "the coalition of everything is fine" - people like me, for whom the economy looks like it's booming, minorities and women who see that their rights get closer to parity every year, vs... uh, what I want to call the rural poor, but this election showed that it's more than just the rural poor. I mean, I can see what is up with the rural poor... but what about everyone else? And there's not a lot of understanding in general; it's not just me. I mean, I can understand voting for the other guy 'cause you don't have a job... but unemployment, by just about all measures, has been going down for about all of the time that Obama has been in office. Where is this majority of people who think that things are so bad?
  • nightski 10y ago
    Two reasons - 1. Potential for a 20% reduction in corporate income tax, a huge boon for small business owners. 2. Repeal Obamacare and it's obscene costs to small business.
• teekert 10y ago
  I feel that the US will now, finally, focus on the US. It's time for that. Instead of their usual imperialistic attitude that involves enticing Europe to boycott Russia, taking out stability providing leaders in the middle east without much (after)thought (or the wrong kind of thought), providing weapons the the Free Syrian Army mercenaries that now fight for the better paying ISIS side (this is not stupidity, it's rubbelization with economic motives imo). Etc. Let the US focus on the US for the next 4 years, the US has enough problems to solve within their borders. Clinton would just intensify the Syria situation, alienate Russia even further, make secret deals with Wall Street and keep things just as they are. And things are not fine as they are. Yeah yeah, I think Snowden is a hero and I hate Trump for calling him a traitor. Also his abortions views are medieval. But hey, a more balanced anti-imperialist would simply never win in the corrupt, house-of-cards like US.
  • the_duke 10y ago
    Whenever I hear those arguments, I have to bring up a point: There is a very good reason why big, powerful empires always have a big military, meddle and stick their noses into everyone's affairs. Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination. Those are two sides of the same coin, they support and nurture each other. You reach limits of growth when you just trade and build up your own economy. Almost all foreign policy is dedicated to furthering self-serving goals. Often medium and long term, so not apparently visible. Often related to things the public know very little about. Just as often, completely misguided. But there's always a reason.
    • pm90 10y ago
      Great point; there is also an additional dimension to this. It is impossible to emphasize just how important security is to the blooming of creative financial institutions and highly specialized & sophisticated economies. Its because the US and Europe have created a system where, say, a legal framework exists to get retribution in case of genuine foul play in either country, that we can have sophisticated trading channels. Without the security and stability provided by an overwhelmingly powerful, but mostly reasonable military, we don't have to worry about our trading networks being taken apart at will (basically, eliminate that risk). If that security apparatus ceases to exist, so will the advanced economy that the west has created (which has been slowly expanding, to other nations as well). e.g. look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century. The sophisticated trading network of the Roman empire quickly disintegrated and was one of the principle causes for its eventual demise.
• vidoc 10y ago
  You say it very well. And much like brexit, this fiasco reveals how much of a fool the journalistic establishment has made of itself. At least we can stop debating one thing at this point, whether or not the media is somehow disconnected with reality.
  • Terr_ 10y ago
    It says more about the media -- in a short-sighted quest for ratings and quarterly reports -- stops doing journalism and starts being a vector for political click-bait. Even just the Halo-effect of ridiculous claims being requoted verbatim is huge, even when followed with rebuttals.
    • ci5er 10y ago
      Is it just the quest for ratings or is it outright advocacy for a position? (Probably both, but...) It seemed (to me) to be that for Brexit and for the US Presidential election, the majority of the media outlets, the editorials, the analysts and the poll pushers all had a preferred outcome and were going to shame your character/honor/morals/intelligence if you didn't fall in line with their brand of right-thinking people. Did you not also find that to be the case? And, if you do, don't you think that the media (over time) is squandering any power-through-position it may have accumulated by this outright advocacy?
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• gotofritz 10y ago
  Or, more simply, Clinton was the wrong candidate.
  • the_duke 10y ago
    Nobody dares to talk about this in the media. But I think a lot of it is just due to her being a woman. And an older one at that. Many people are not all that progressive in the US, as the campaign has clearly shown. (I know she was a candidate with plenty of flaws, but a lot of dirt that got thrown at her would never have been directed at a man in that manner).
    • gotofritz 10y ago
      I agree her gender is an issue for some, but she got beaten by Obama before, and he had stronger handicaps than her (race and a "funny name"). I think it boils down to her lack of charisma and being seen as "the establishment".
      • the_duke 10y ago
        Sadly, elections everywhere are at least as much about charisma as they are about competence. People usually vote for who they like, not for who's probably competent. Regardless of education.
        • gotofritz 10y ago
          Exactly. And it's not exactly groundbreaking news, so shame on the Democrats for going for Clinton and shame on her for not giving up after being defeated by Obama in 2008.
    • oldmanjay 10y ago
      Do you have examples of the dirt that wouldn't have been directed at a man? I paid a lot of attention to this election cycle and I must have missed it.
• cronjobber 10y ago
  > attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail The only certain conclusion I'd draw at this time is that traditional ways of manufacturing consent through broadcast media have stopped working. Don't fret, the system will adapt.
• cm2187 10y ago
  After Brexit and Trump, the next milestone on this curious series is the French presidential elections in May 2017. The far right candidate Le Pen is leading the polls, but winning at the second round of the election is not going to be easy. Although, no doubt that Brexit, the Trump election, potential new terrorist attacks in France as well as the developping migrant crisis are going to give her a boost. But like Trump she is unlikely to control the parliament. The republican party will likely temper Trump through the senate. And without a majority at the French parliament, a French president is more like a queen of England, just with the nuclear red button in her hand.
  • r00fus 10y ago
    Amusing that Sarkozy has rebranded his UNP to "Les Républicains". GOP should be flattered.
  • seszett 10y ago
    > The far right candidate Le Pen is leading the polls But, she's not? Alain Juppé is, an old-school right-wing politician. Le Pen is second and the third is a party that is not quite far-left but still far enough to the left for the communist party to ally with it. > winning at the second round of the election is not going to be easy I don't think this has any chance of happening. But of course, who knows...
    • eloisant 10y ago
      She has a good chance of ending up leading the first round. However so far she only has a chance to win 2nd round if she's against Hollande. And I don't see how he could get to the 2nd round. I don't think this can happen, but there are still 6 months left and I didn't think Trump could win either.
  • mike_hearn 10y ago
    Actually, not quite. There are a whole lot of flashpoints coming up in Europe over the next 12-18 months. It's going to be very interesting. I wrote about this here: https://medium.com/@octskyward/ok-what-now-e3f64d38f7#.po6ymmn23 https://medium.com/@octskyward/ok-what-now-e3f64d38f7#.po6ym... Briefly, the next steps are: • The Geert Wilders trial in Netherlands. GW is the most popular politician in NL right now. He is on trial for what is essentially pure political speech, he asked a crowd if they wanted more/fewer Moroccans (i.e. visa policy), they said fewer, he said "OK we'll sort that out" or words to that effect. He is boycotting his own trial. If he is found guilty and punished, it's hard to believe this will go down well or hurt his support. Should be resolved by end of the month. • Austria rerunning its presidential election. Last time the "far right" candidate Norbert Hofer lost to his Green/left wing opponent. But there was voter fraud and the vote was so close that the amount of fraud was larger than the margin of the win, so the courts required a rerun. If Hofer wins ... well, the President of the EU Commission has said Austria would be frozen out of the EU as a punishment for voting the wrong way. Should be resolved in December. • General election in the Netherlands next year. • Election in France, as you note. • Towards the end of the year election in Germany. Very volatile politics there. Turkey is threatening to unleash a torrent of migration on Europe unless it gives Turkey what it wants, which the EU doesn't want to do. Germany's Trump equivalent (Frauke Petry) started losing support when the migrant crisis began slackening after the Turkey deal. If it collapses then AfD may see a resurgence in time for the election. So 2017 is gonna be an interesting time.
• heifetz 10y ago
  Trump's campaign might be anti-establishment, the people he will be bringing in will not be. Jeff Sessions Giuliani Christy just to name three of his "inner circle" I cross my fingers that we will get through the next 4 years without any significant events. However, I think this is really a black eye in America. I think right now at least, we're going to be the butt of jokes for the rest of the world. Lets hope he proves us wrong, or at least the system works to contain him.
  • laughfactory 10y ago
    I noticed the same thing about how how establishment his "team" is. I predict that what we've elected as a nation is, in fact, a fairly run of the mill establishment Republican. But I guess we'll find out!
• d--b 10y ago
  Just being picky here, but technically, it is not a majority of the population.
• mcv 10y ago
  I sometimes worry that liberal democracy may turn out to be a temporary fad. The rise of uninformed populism and strongmen is everywhere. Right-wing extremism, often with little love for the free press or due process, has been on the rise all over Europe. The Brexit campaign was dominated by lies and took a seriously xenophobic turn, and now the US has elected a president who is openly racist and lies more often than he tells the truth. In in increasing number of countries, strongmen seem to have more staying power than informed democracy. It may be attractive to spin this as merely being anti-globalist, but in every instance, racism is a big part of it. After the Brexit vote, people of colour got shouted at by people who claimed they voted for foreigners to leave. Maybe the problem is that we have allowed right-wing extremism to take hold of the anti-globalist agenda. That used to be a left-wing thing, though anti-globalism never really became mainstream with the left as its champions, but now that the extreme right is championing the cause, suddenly it wins. Does anti-globalism do better when combined with racism? Do they need each other to get a majority? Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? Or do we need a regular lesson in the consequences of our choices? After WW2, everybody (in western Europe at least) was united in their desire for freedom and opposition to racism and totalitarianism, but we've seem to have forgotten that lesson. Or maybe the lesson has been poisoned by becoming too rigid and part of establishment dogma?
  • politician 10y ago
    Polybius [1] would share with this point of view. He believed that governments iterated through a cycle of basic forms: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and their degenerate forms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos
    • pm90 10y ago
      That is a very interesting concept! The American politician system seems to have resisted change remarkably though; I do hope this recent change won't trigger that cycle.
      • 10y ago
• jokoon 10y ago
  > A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia Doesn't Trump belong to that elite you are talking about?
• nostrademons 10y ago
  Something I've been wondering about: We're seeing this pattern where the coasts of many countries are cosmopolitan and well-integrated into the world economy, but the interiors are very conservative and nationalistic. Scotland & London vs. Wales & the rest of Britain. The U.S. West Coast & Northeast vs. the Farm Belt, Rust Belt, and Mountain states. Croatia & Slovenia vs. the rest of Yugoslavia. The Baltic Republics vs. the rest of the USSR. Even in a Red State like Texas, Houston (on the coast) has gone democratic. What happens if economic ties between coastal regions of major trading partners become greater than cultural ties within nations? Here in California, some of the proposals about sending all the immigrants back to where they came from seem absurd. The economy would cease to function. On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen. California would sooner secede than deport all of its immigrants. What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world." Scotland has threatened to do exactly that, and is planning on holding another referendum on independence if Britain actually follows through on Brexit. What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that - the closest would be the Roman Empire that rimmed the Mediterranean. For most of recorded history, the primary means of production has been land and so fights have been over land, but over the last 150 years or so (contemporaneous with the nation-state as a social organizing principle, BTW), the primary means of production shifted to capital, and now it's shifting to information. What kind of social organizing principle does that imply?
  • s_kilk 10y ago
    > What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that Basically City-States
    • nostrademons 10y ago
      Actually, yeah, it has a lot in common with city states. It differs from historical city-states in that the primary factor of production in the classical/medieval era was land, and so city states negotiated from a position of weakness and remained confined to the city because they lacked the resources to capture more territory. Now, food is abundant, and actually requires fossil fuels and genetic engineering for its production. That changes the negotiating position of a port city without a lot of land significantly. (It does make me wonder what would happen if we got a nationalist heartland ringed by a number of small city states, and then the heartland would refuse to sell food. Massive famine and political collapse? Peaceful trade with overseas nations to supply an alternate source? A large army streaming out of the city states to capture the heartland by force? Mutually assured destruction where everyone dies, since modern crops don't actually grow by themselves without fresh inputs of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, and genetically-modified seeds?)
• Fiahil 10y ago
  > It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. I agree with this. Even if the causes are unclear, it would probably set up a path affecting quite a lot western societies (and maybe others too). Interesting times.
• bambax 10y ago
  Unfortunately, you appear to be 100% right. People hate globalization and strangers. What was also fascinating in this campaign is the divide between the media and the people; even if Trump had lost with 49% of the vote it would have been striking. Zero newspapers endorsed him, which means half of the US population is not represented in the media. The melting pot has lumps and clots.
  • wsc981 10y ago
    People hate globalization and strangers. People like community. It's hard to have a community when people don't share similar backgrounds, when people don't share same values. People will feel less connected and less responsible for one another. People will also feel more distrust to one another. Social cohesion will break down. This is the reason why integration should be an essential part of immigration. Immigrants should adopt the leading culture, at least when moving outside of the confinements of their homes. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
    • artimaeis 10y ago
      > "[...] integration should be an essential part of immigration." This is an idea I have seen or heard a lot of during this election cycle. What exactly is it you want when you say it should be essential? What do you think the consequences should look like for immigrants who are having a difficult time integrating into the culture? Further, what exactly is this culture? Speaking English? Watching sports? Joining the local church? How do the Romans define what it is that the Romans do such that they can require it of someone?
      • wsc981 10y ago
        What do you think the consequences should look like for immigrants who are having a difficult time integrating into the culture? If immigrants move to another country in which they find it difficult to adjust, perhaps it would be better for them and for society as a whole, if these people would return to their original country. Further, what exactly is this culture? Speaking English? Watching sports? Joining the local church? It can be simple things, like shaking hands with woman. Wearing more or less the same clothes. Sending children to state schools and not separate schools. Learning the local language and speaking this language in public. Adjusting to the social norms is good for immigrants as well, as they will find it much easier to find jobs. I have a Thai girlfriend and when I am in Thailand we go to a temple quite often (I am not religious at all). I do the same rituals as the Thai people do, out of respect for their culture. I plan to live in Thailand in the future, so I am learning the Thai language. And I hope, sometime in the future, to work for some time in a Thai company, so I can perfect my Thai language skills. I also try to keep in mind other aspects of Thai culture. I state these points specifically, because these are areas where many European countries failed, out of the failed idea of multi-culturalism [0]. I don't think the situation in the US is quite the same as Europe (yet), but perhaps it could be in the future. How do the Romans define what it is that the Romans do such that they can require it of someone? It's a quote from Saint Ambrose that basically means that one has to adjust to the society one moves in. You can't go to Saudi-Arabia and expect western behaviour, western norms would be tolerated. You'd find yourself in very big problems quickly. And it's the same in most countries in the world. --- [0]: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451
• vacri 10y ago
  > Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage. Weird - most people on the left don't consider economists to be priests of their world. That's a right-wing frame of mind. If you are interested in finding the truth here, the first thing to do is stop assuming that all the people who voted conservative are unemployed farmers. There are a lot of the educated elite in that bloc.
• olalonde 10y ago
  > It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. It's a seductive idea but I think you're reading too much into this. It's hard to tell what people are really voting for when there are two options each of which encompasses a bunch of largely disparate policies. I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of the Trump vote was just a vote against "political correctness" or one against Hillary as a person. Humans sure love patterns.
• ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  If people care so much about immigration, why do anti-immigrant groups need to lie so much? If I had to accuse deficit hawks of being rapists that were conspiring with the Jews to bring down the US then I'd maybe conclude that people didn't care that much about the deficit.
• johndoez 10y ago
  It's not a return to the 1920s. Globalisation proceeded too quickly, and many people got left out. It is a revolt against a system which simply doesn't work for the majority of European descended whites. Paul Buchheit once linked to an article from the American Conservative, which shows at least he had an open mind to hearing about these anti-establishment views. Paul Graham and Sam A have instead just continued the political correctness anti-Trump agenda which in the long-turn actually plays into his hands, as there is a growing dislike of PC, especially from multi-millionaires who don't understand what its like to be out of work with no education behind you. I think all this talk will come back to bite Silicon Valley and YC on the ass, as Trump will look to take revenge on the Tech Crowd. I expect the Tech Bubble to burst over the nxt year.
• a3_nm 10y ago
  > Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. This probably isn't a sufficient step to get exposed to really different opinions...
• wallace_f 10y ago
  >Whether it is for economic reasons or just plain bigotry is something for the sociologists to study and not something I can pontificate on. In the context of the economic literature that exists in mainstream academia, which is in overwhelming support of globalism as a policy which supports economic growth of all people, it appears your comment strongly suggests anti-globalism is equated with bigotry. I'm neither defending nor supporting globalism: is it reasonable to conclude that someone who is not in support of globalism is a bigot or racist? This seems to have more to do with political correctness and I think all people deserve the right to have a thoughtful discussion and represent their views without being effectively silenced, and when something is labelled as bigotry or racism it is effectively outlawed in western culture. Shouldn't we be more careful here?
• lunula 10y ago
  In this case the popular result is very likely the opposite of what you assert. That is, Clinton will probably win the popular vote and lose the presidency. So popular sentiment is actually in support of an open, connected world. The political structures in the US systematically oppress this majority, due to its concentration in cities and the legacy of a voting system that respects territory over people.
• rimantas 10y ago
  Or the simpler view: this is result of lack of critical thinking or any thinking skills at all. And a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot just in spite.
• beefman 10y ago
  > understand their concerns and try to assuage them You can't do both at the same time. For starters, the "theory of competitive advantage" is incredibly weak. But it's pretty clear that trade represents a small constant factor in the GDP level, which is used up once all markets have sufficient liquidity. It can explain only a small fraction of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. And it is not necessarily a Pareto improvement with respect to nations -- which is why protectionism has been a fact of global trade for 4,000 years.
• erikb 10y ago
  I thought about your text a few hours. Because some of it sounds really right, but somehow it also feels strange. You say, if I understand you correctly, that the rural voter is the majority, and that we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams. And I agree that we should listen to the majority and figure out how to make most people happy. But exactly this "rural voter" is not the one who educates himself (independent of the education he receives through his government a lot of learning happens after school). He has very simple needs and doesn't care about the details of how these interact with the needs of people who "tick differently". Sometimes when I talk to "rural folks" (have some in the family) they don't even seem to understand what they themselves want and need. They just know when they don't have it and then they are unhappy. Therefore there is not much to learn from this "rural voter", or from talking to him. But his needs are obvious and simple as well. And we all know them already. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Keep the taxes low enough for him to provide for his family, fly or drive somewhere cheap in summer and make alcohol cheap enough for him to have some parties and a few beer on the weekend. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician. Thus, I would say the question is not about understanding them better but about rich and social enough to provide them what they need. And the funny thing is that the politicians on the right usually prefer the well off population and make politics for them, while the left tries to provide for the commoner, the "rural voter". That's the funny thing in my eyes, the "rural" voter hates the people who fight for him and loves the people who try to exploit him.
  • scottmf 10y ago
    Your comment comes across as fairly condescending, but I can't really argue with it. Sure it can be dangerous to believe you know what's best for others and force decisions upon them, but clearly what we have now isn't working either. More than ever we desperately need more resources put into education. But that isn't going to happen. I don't see an easy way out of this mess. It's something we've been building toward for a long time and it's incredibly saddening.
    • erikb 10y ago
      Actually people don't understand that such kind of putting-the-finger-on-the wound talk is usually also the author taling to himself. I actually come from a rural background, and I often make the same mistakes: not educating myself before making a decision, hoping that someone else would solve my problems, falling for the cheater instead of the accepting the hard truth. And in case that isn't clear: The second quote is me saying "no there is nothing to understand. Their needs are simple, well known, to all but themselves". And I also give reasons for that, e.g. that they don't try to educate themselves and that they hope other people come and solve their problems. In that regard, using the internet we can also educate ourselves. All we need is some basic writing and reading skills. The rest is just putting in the effort to find the right ressources and people to learn and discuss with.
• lamontcg 10y ago
  > Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. This is also on the heels of Al Gore and John Kerry. The track record of the Clinton-Blair center-right elite "neoliberal" machinery has pretty much been a failure now for 20+ years. Obama wasn't part of that machinery (even though he immediately tacked center-right after getting elected).
• TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  I think the same mistake was made in both Brexit and this election. The people at the top looked around them, and they assumed the people they saw were a representative sample of the population. Because usually, they're more or less right. There's a whole demographic out there that doesn't really care about politics. It doesn't matter who POTUS is because nothing will really change in my city. They don't bother voting because none of the policies particularly interest them. Suddenly you've got this guy who isn't a politician, and he's promising to do things that decades of politicians haven't been doing. Trump got the people who are disaffected by traditional politics to come out and vote, and that's enough to make a big difference, just like it was with Brexit.
• necessity 10y ago
  This collectivist liberal fearmongering portraying others as the elites is pathetic. Time will tell, and meanwhile I'm laughing. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/23/uk-economic-surveys-defy-brexit-fears https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/23/uk-economic...
• internaut 10y ago
  I called both Brexit and Trump but I can't quite agree with your synopsis. You might be surprised to hear that from a quasi-neoreactionary. I see migration and globalization as important elements of a more disturbing pattern not many people seem to have picked up on. I don't know that Trump understands this himself, but Thiel sure does. Having been a fan of Thiel's ideas for some time, I concocted a hypothesis called the 'Wolfian World' that gives a high level look at older currents moving in the world. It is here if anybody's interested in something different from chronocentric newspapers and talking heads with their short sight and overconfidence. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12884413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12884413
• zasz 10y ago
  It's not economic reasons. Mostly cultural anxiety. http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-t...
• return0 10y ago
  I think it is more populism than far right.For example, in my country greece, under similar discontent, people voted the (supposed) "radical-left" party of Syriza. The anti-globalization trend is very real though.
• hiram112 10y ago
  "Comparitive advantage" was about growing bananas in the tropics vs the tundra. What we've had for the last three generations is a race to the bottom.
• Fang_ 10y ago
  >Get out of your bubble. Would it be a stretch to say the "bubbling" that happens on the internet plays a role in causing these divides?
• staticelf 10y ago
  I think you are making a great assessment and that is what fears me. I don't think your words are pretty useful on HackerNews folks in general. My thoughts as a Swede is that I don't actually give a fuck if your president is a turd. His view on immigrations doesn't scare me, his view on NATO doesn't really scare me. Trump say he is going to invest in fossile fuels THAT scares me A LOT. The future already looks super dark and leaders like Obama shed a tiny light on that things would turn out for the better. But now when two of the worlds largest countries doesn't really care (USA and Russia) I mean wtf. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world does if these two giants will fuck it up anyway. Time to be a climate prepper.
  • qb45 10y ago
    Sweden, seriously? You guys should be grateful ;) And the biggest CO₂ emitter is China, not the US or Russia. Aactually, pulling industry back to the US could reduce global CO₂ output if efficiency was made more of a priority than in China due to higher labor and energy costs.
    • staticelf 10y ago
      Well if the gulf stream will discontinue to exist it will get a lot colder in northen europe.. Yeah of course China is the greater polluter but I am mainly speaking of nations that don't believe in climate change and still is one of the massive polluters. China is changing rapidly to solar and there are mass demonstrations and a great physical need for them to switch. Today, there isn't really such a broad held opinion in the US or in Russia.
• Shivetya 10y ago
  Oh the elites are headed towards a globalised world however that does not mean they need to include every country or people. However what is happening in Europe if not the US is that people are pushing back against their governments and the elites because they are tired of being run over by the ideals of a group which suffers none of the negatives of the choices they force on others. The elite, the political class and those connected to it do talk down to the masses, trying to embarrass or even intimidate them into accepting the needs of the elite. This means lower labor costs, more dependents on government, and long term more locked in votes. This ends up forcing the already pressed lower and middle classes further into an economic malaise they cannot escape. Worse any negatives, from loss of jobs and opportunities or worse, crime and violence, is confined to their areas as the elite tend to live in a very protected environment. With regards to the US, at least we have been consistent in flipping the White House every eight years or so. It is pretty remarkable. However Democrats have been actually fighting a losing battle for a long time and not modifying their message but instead becoming more heated. By that I mean they are losing control over vast parts of the country with regards to the House and Senate but more importantly they lost a lot of governorship and local governments all of which feed upward
• notahacker 10y ago
  One should be careful about extrapolating a trend from two disparate data points. Trump and Brexit have one major thing in common: they relied on surprisingly high turnout from white working class men for ostensibly right wing causes after a lot of anti-Establishment and anti-immigrant rhetoric. They have a lot not in common, like pro-Brexit voters very strongly disapproving of Trump, Brexit being a popular political cause for over twenty years backed by a vast majority of the mainstream press which actually picked up momentum because Establishment and liberal free trade figures came out in favour of it, the demographics for Brexit voters being heavily skewed towards older people[1] in a way that Trump votes almost certainly weren't, and Trump evidently picking up a lot of "the incumbent party haven't done anything for us; let's vote for change" votes that aren't really related to the appeal of his wall or birther remarks to ex-Obama voters living in Mexican-free areas of Michigan. Trump's "Make American Great" again spiel might well resonate more with an unemployed ex-factory worker than a broadsheet article extolling the virtues of comparative advantage, but it certainly isn't the sort of practical protectionist plan he needs to deliver a permanently change the status quo position on globalisation, and his new supporters aren't going to stick around if he doesn't deliver something. It's also clear that other relatively recent major Anglosphere elections haven't been a major success for the radical right. [1]that campaign certainly wasn't won on subreddits
  • pmontra 10y ago
    > the demographics for Brexit voters being heavily skewed towards older people[1] in a way that Trump votes almost certainly weren't, From http://news.sky.com/story/us-election-demographics-show-bitterly-divided-nation-10650812 http://news.sky.com/story/us-election-demographics-show-bitt... > A similar divide can be found among the different age groups with younger voters favouring the Democrats and those aged over 65 years leaning towards Mr Trump. > However, Mrs Clinton's appeal among those aged under 30 years, where she has a 20-point lead over Mr Trump (54/34%), is not as great as Barack Obama's 23-point lead. I saw a graph much more detailed but I can't find it anymore. It showed that Clinton won the votes of the under 40 and Trump the ones of the over 40 by more or less the same margin. The story on Sky seems to confirm that.
• freshflowers 10y ago
  > Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Hanging out with people you don't agree with is one thing. Hanging out with people that want you to stop existing is an entirely different matter. If people are willing to (vote to) cross that line, time for talk and bridging divides is not just over, it's suicidally naive to think otherwise. I could go Godwin here, but you get the point.
• drieddust 10y ago
  > The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage. This is am important point. Current system does not foster competition. As a migrant myself, I think the whole system is rigged to the benefit of chosen few mega corporation. Taking UK as an example, Skilled immigration category was abolished few years back due to which I cannot apply for a visa and compete in free market for a salary. However, I am allowed to come to UK on a lower salary for nine years easily under company transfer scheme practically bounded to my employer with no option. If allowed to compete as an individual, I would either compete for higher wages or go home. Current system just puts myself as well local at disadvantage to benefit chosen few. The whole objective of free market and globalization is lost to greed and manipulation.
• gutnor 10y ago
  > Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. I believe their care about that because they have nothing else to look forward to. (Lower-)Middle class in the West has been funding prosperity around the world (can't find the chart at the moment). Basically every social class everywhere in the world is better off than 30 years ago, except middle class in the Western world. There is this generation that have less than their parents and know that their children will have even less. They cling to what they have, this nebulous identity/culture. And a bunch of populist politician is just happy to give them that. What they really need is prosperity. Very few care about their neighbors beliefs when life is good. People living in cities like London demonstrate that: they are way more liberal because being liberal does not (seem to) cost them a lot.
• sklivvz1971 10y ago
  Please leave conspiracy theories out of the internet. Seriously, not cool.
• atmosx 10y ago
  > It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. No, you'd be extremely naive to believe this is an isolated event: * Greece, SYRIZA and minor parties on the surge since 2014 * UK, votes for brexit in 2016, I'm not sure if UKIP is gaining votes or not though. * France, FN (LePen) is leading the polls at least for the first round. * Italy, M5S is awfully close to lead the polls in Italy * In Germany AfD is on the raise * FPO is leading the pools in Austria Keep in mind that the mainstream media, often downplays the possibility of an alternative surging - I believe on purpose: In Greece the polls were nearly 15% off in the referendum. It's staggering! Now, Brexit and the US pollsters got-it all wrong. In Greece many people lie to pollsters on purpose. I don't see any sort of isolation, I see a very clear and predictable pattern. > There is no genuine leftist alternative. Wait a minute there. I have this strong sense that if the democrats had gone with the other candidate, they'd be celebrating today. Hillary, was the only candidate that was susceptible to a loss (emails, wall street money, legacy, the surname, etc.). Hillary == Establishment in every possible way. Sanders on the other hand was possibly the most scandal-free candidate of the last 20 years at least. I wouldn't say that the leftist is the problem. However, at least in Europe, the ones who'd screwed up everyone were the Socialist parties by pushing a Brussels-based liberal agenda for a decade or so, so in a sense, at least in the EU the left or mild left at least, is rather dead in the water. UPDATE: I think part of T. Frank's article in the Guardian describe my feelings in a detailed manner: Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine. She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders. And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition. Article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald...
• akytt 10y ago
  You make an assumption that globalisation is a man-made thing. That we could say "no" and it would stop. But this is not so. Globalisation stems from very primal human and commercial needs that have been enabled by the internet.
• akytt 10y ago
  You make an assumption that globalisation is a man-made thing. That we could say "no" and it would stop. But this is not so. Globalisation stems from very primal human and commercial needs that have been enabled by the internet.
• demian00 10y ago
  I think you are right. Here in Germany the Afd is also on the rise, who has a strong stand against refugees and the EU. What is the common denominator? Obviously it is about globalism and culture, but maybe it has more to it? I think none is really looking at the big picture. What are our values and how do democracies work? Do we in the west have the better system or where we just lucky? Currently the west is in a crisis. Everyone notices, that we loose on economic terms while China is winning. And groups from outside the west get more and more influence (most prominently Islam). So how can we turn this around? One answer might be Trump, but there will probably be better solutions if we think about these issues.
• shripadk 10y ago
  It's happening everywhere. Started with India in 2014, Brexit in June 2016 and now USA with Trump. Possibly France in the upcoming elections (2017)?
• kleigenfreude 10y ago
  The Media (and you it seems) almost immediately went into "where did we do wrong and what can we do better" mode. While that's a completely important thing to do, and appropriate for many problem situations, it isn't appropriate here. Here's why: 1. Clinton won the popular vote. 2. Economists think Trump is a bad idea, so on that level, the popular vote was not wrong. 3. The electoral college is outdated, was originally created because southern states wanted to keep slavery: http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ Unless the electoral college decides to vote with the American popular vote in this election, very bad things could happen: * California could try to hold a referendum for succession from the U.S., if they're not too stoned to do so: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-trump-20161109-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-trump-20... * Riots. Don't blame yourselves. The electoral college and Trump's campaign taking advantage of it (and the F.B.I.) are the reason that things are going to go bad.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • notahacker 10y ago
    If the electoral college had been close there was always the possibility of a renegade Republican elector or two flipping things (especially if Trump's forthcoming trials gave them further excuse to do so). Though they certainly wouldn't have done that in the expectation of reducing riots. The electoral college isn't close though. Given that they've won the popular vote in all but one of the Presidential elections since 1992 and lost three, it'll be interesting to see if electoral reform comes onto the agenda when the Democrats are back in power again. But in the mean time, the absolute best case scenario for the left is a revelation which leads to Trump's impeachment and four years of President Pence.
    • kleigenfreude 10y ago
      > the absolute best case scenario for the left is a revelation which leads to Trump's impeachment and four years of President Pence. If it is determined that the F.B.I., votes, voting machines, and/or election results were manipulated, and a case is brought against him to try to invalidate the election and hold another one, he will fight back hard, and there will be chaos, riots, and perhaps a state of emergency declared. Or, the media may go into overdrive trying to gather evidence to have him impeached, but I think that would only serve to fire up those that voted for him. We could also take a page from Clinton's playbook: keep an eye on him and record his every move, let him shoot himself down, then use that as evidence for the T.V. commercials in the next campaign. However, you risk 4-8 (or more if there is a war) years of damage. One thing's for certain though, the time is now to start a new political party. With both candidates at record low approval ratings, and hate for the other candidate driving votes, the only reason the Green and Libertarian parties or an independent didn't win was that most of those that are qualified are too scared to run for president. Those people need to get over that fear, take one for the team, and dedicate their life to establishing a political party that is sensible and compassionate.
• tootie 10y ago
  Economists study data, make observations and come to conclusions. They can't just tell people what they want to hear. Trump told coal country he'd being back mining jobs in the face of a freefall in demand. That's just lying. Don't blame economists.
• lr4444lr 10y ago
  Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Quoted for emphasis.
• thedonkeycometh 10y ago
  Stopped reading at "elites"
• smoyer 10y ago
  I equated the discontent in the US with the discontent in the UK that led to the Brexit vote when it happened - my wife didn't believe they could have the same root cause but now I'm pretty convinced your predictions are likely to happen. As an aside, Clinton would have given (will give?) a concession speech but Trump gave a victory speech.
• CSMastermind 10y ago
  > Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. That to me is the key point. As someone who falls squarely into Mr. Trump's camp I've found the condesending way people talk about his supporters infuriating.
• daveheq 10y ago
  Funny you say globalization has failed when we've had a corporate global economy for decades that has sent worker wages down in more-developed countries and corporate profits skyrocketing in more-developed countries. Believe me, these global corporations love the Republicans more than the Democrats; their profits come first, the people come last.
• maged07 10y ago
  ndn,bskjdfbjdksbn
• newsreader 10y ago
  > Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Thus the reason I voted against Trump. (I'm second generation US citizen -- Mexican grandparents)
• maged07 10y ago
  hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
• Kurtz79 10y ago
  Waiting for the 2017 update: http://thebulletin.org/timeline http://thebulletin.org/timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock We definitely live in interesting times.
• norea-armozel 10y ago
  If you watch stuff from YouTube you should check out Peter Coffin's break down of this. This is a failure of neoliberalism and it's something that needs to be addressed ASAP for sure.
• snsr 10y ago
  > The divide is bridged one person at a time. This divide will not be bridged.
• dcosson 10y ago
  The people who voted on the single issue of losing jobs overseas are in for a rude awakening when they realize that almost all of these jobs will be automated even if they do come back to the US.
• dcuthbertson 10y ago
  Just a nitpick, but you mean "acceptance speech".
• rmwaite 10y ago
  slight nitpick: acceptance speech
• jpfed 10y ago
  >The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. This is what Russia wants.
• jaynos 10y ago
  >Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. Many of the people that care so much about immigration and preserving their culture are the grandchildren of immigrants. It's very much an attitude of "I got mine, you can go F yourself".
• jaynos 10y ago
  >Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. Many of the people that care so much about immigration and preserving their culture are the grandchildren of immigrants. It's very much an attitude of "I got mine, you can go F yourself".
• debacle 10y ago
  > The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. Because the interconnected globalized world had a lot of "buts" to it. You can be interconnected and globalized... ...but we're going to still lock down copyright ...but we're going to export bad patent laws ...but we're going to externalize pollution even more than we were before ...but we're going to ignore competition and allow massive multinationals to form ...but we're going to maximize labor arbitrage while minimizing consumer choice ...but we're going to try and create a global jurisdiction that favors the guy with the most money ...but we're going to try and weaken the protections surrounding the most powerful tool for interconnection ever created. This is why people are turning their backs on globalization - it hasn't worked for everyone, and it's hurt many people.
  • pc86 10y ago
    I'm fairly certain copyright and patent laws played no role in out-of-work steel workers in western Pennsylvania and Ohio turning out in droves for Trump.
• pyre 10y ago
  > Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. I tried hanging out on /r/TheDonald, but anything that doesn't tow the party line gets your banned for "concern trolling."
• georgespencer 10y ago
  > It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. Good practice would suggest that you need slightly more than two datapoints to establish a trend. There's a fairly well understood relationship between both slow GDP growth (& income disparity) and the rise of extreme political views (e.g. http://voxeu.org/article/global-crisis-and-political-extremism http://voxeu.org/article/global-crisis-and-political-extremi...). When times are good, people don't misattribute their misfortune to issues like globalisation and immigration. When times are bad, they do.
• pc86 10y ago
  > There is no genuine leftist alternative. Enough of this No True Scotsman bullshit that I see constantly here and basically anywhere with something approaching an international audience. In the context of the United States, which is where this election occurred and where the majority of people are reading this site from, the Democratic Party is a leftist party. Yes, if you want to lump in European democratic socialism, they fall elsewhere on the spectrum. When is the last time a US Democrat and the European Democratic Socialist were facing each other on the ballot? It's a meaningless comparison.
  • pessimizer 10y ago
    My right nipple is relatively to the left of my right shoulder, but that doesn't make it left.
    • pc86 10y ago
      For your body, you are correct. But for the right side of your body, it is. My point is that US elections and politics are in the context of the US, not the world.