Friday, 29th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

‘Brexit’ threatens grave consequences for US election

By Lindsay Barrett
03 July 2016   |   3:44 am
The adoption of the catchy acronym “Brexit” as the main term used to identify the process of the referendum to consider Britain’s relationship with the European Union caused many observers to assume ...
PHOTO:AFP

PHOTO:AFP

The adoption of the catchy acronym “Brexit” as the main term used to identify the process of the referendum to consider Britain’s relationship with the European Union caused many observers to assume, well before the poll took place, that the UK would eventually vote to leave the EU. No one even seemed to consider the use of the slightly more unwieldy but equally catchy term “Bremain” as an alternative, especially when the issues that drove the discourse surrounding the campaign turned out to be mired in sentiments of isolationist paranoia over immigration and the preservation of Britain’s so-called “economic autonomy”. Of course, even a cursory glance at the history of Britain’s membership of the European Community would reveal that the UK had always been a reluctant partner in the enterprise. It did not join the original European Common Market for several years and did so only after an equally hard fought referendum in which those who sought membership were victorious. However, once it entered the Common Market many of the United Kingdom’s most vocal political advocates advanced their careers by developing critical arguments and attitudes towards the affairs of the institution. Eventually some of those who had worked hard to encourage membership became disenchanted with their earlier advocacy and did not hesitate to say so. The late Dame Margaret Thatcher was the major figure among these and her successful fight against the pound sterling joining the common European Currency the EURO may very well have started the slide against membership that has culminated in the Brexit triumph.

The international impact of the successful campaign for Britain to abandon its European partners will depend to some extent on its symbolic influence in other political arenas throughout the remainder of the EU. However the most important consequence might actually be felt way across the Atlantic as the rightwing frenzy generated by Donald Trump’s seizure of the Republican Party’s presidential ticket is strengthened by the triumph of a cause that Trump openly espoused. Most of the millions of British citizens who sought to remain linked to the European ideal of cooperation are probably well aware that the rise of English nationalist insularity is at the heart of responsibility for their defeat, but the mob of American isolationists who have chosen Trump as their champion will not see things that way. Instead they are likely to assume that this outcome is symptomatic of a trend towards increased racial and political chauvinism in the West that favours the ascendancy of despotic advocates like their leader. In the UK his clone has appeared in the shape of the former London mayor Boris Johnson whose clownish ways have suddenly been given greater legitimacy by the victory of the Brexit campaign that he embraced. The danger for the American political forum is that, in the climate of antagonistic competition that the primary campaign on both sides of the Republican versus Democratic divide has generated, a volatile group of undecided voters might rally to the cause of American isolationism at the last minute. This scenario is a distinct possibility even though it is undesirable for those who wish to see America continuing to stand for human rights and justice as central to the principles of its existence, which the Obama era appeared to have consolidated.

Many serious analysts have suggested that as the mechanisms are put in place for the separation of Britain from the EU new conventions of cooperation will emerge that might actually render the decision to leave more favourable to Britain than it was first thought to be. This is one of the arguments that apologists for economic isolationism, like Trump, are likely to marshal as an excuse for supporting what is clearly a position based on  racial paranoia and the reversal of global cooperation. As quite a few political analysts have observed, in considering the unprecedented bitterness and acrimonious personal challenges that have characterised the American Presidential campaign so far, the contest appears to be headed towards a tournament of frivolities rather than substance. In other words the Presidential election might eventually be decided on the basis of personalities rather than on issues and in such an event the apparent prescience of Trump’s support for the British exit from the EU will be portrayed as further evidence that he is a man with his finger on the pulse of world sentiment while his opponent is out of touch with the current mood of the times. This will be a dangerous assumption for the American electorate to make as it will certainly provoke an increase in resentment, which is already high, against US policies and presence all over the globe.  However an integral presumption in the calculations of isolationists in the so-called developed world is that hostility towards their emergence is proof of the legitimacy of their cause. Donald Trump has been a master at manipulating this sentiment throughout his campaign to pick the Republican ticket and he has signaled his intention to use the same tactics with even more commitment in his campaign against Hilary Clinton.

In the direct confrontation between the candidates after the forthcoming party conventions the issues that will influence voting patterns will include the acceptability of each candidate’s viewpoint to the rest of the world. This is usually defined in the vocabulary of American electoral politics as foreign policy credibility. While Hilary Clinton, as a former high profile Secretary of State, should have the advantage in this field Trump’s supporters will, as we said before certainly portray his embrace of Brexit as proof that he is more in touch with world trends than she is. They will ignore the fact that the weight of opinion throughout the world was against Britain’s exit from the EU and that the eventual outcome, while it may vindicate the chauvinism of English nationalists, has been condemned by advocates of equity in global affairs.  American presidential politics always contains substantial elements of national conceit, and the ascendancy of Barack Obama was portrayed by some promoters of American self-interest as proof of the moral superiority of the USA’s standing in the world. Those who promoted this assessment of American moral superiority tended not to consider whether the length of time that it took the nation to accept the idea that a black man could be President (or a woman for that matter) might reflect the continued influence of some forms of bigotry as endemic elements of its political structure. Donald Trump’s rise is a reaction against some of the most progressive consequences of the Obama presidency. The close alliance between reactionary conservatism in America and the success of English chauvinism represented by the British exit threatens to encourage a US presidential result that will undermine some of America’s most progressive and hopeful initiatives towards establishing social equity and global cooperation in recent times.

0 Comments