A Few Thoughts About Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Brexit…and Globalization

by Marty Singley

I am not a supporter of Donald Trump but many of my friends are. And they are good, normal, respectable people who are not racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. The Trump supporters I personally know do not at all fit into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.”

So I’ve been wondering why such good, decent people would support someone like Mr. Trump?

I have some thoughts about that.

There is a very strong undercurrent of frustration in the electorate today. It exists not only here in America but elsewhere as well, especially in Europe. Long after this election season is over, the underlying anxiety that drives this frustration will have to be contended with no matter who wins.

It really has little to do with what all the pundits think. It’s much, much deeper.

Let me tell you a story…

We were cruising the Danube River last June when Great Britain voted to leave the European Union. Given the latest polls predicting a vote to remain in the Union, I was surprised by the result. Then again, I was not ALL that surprised because my own informal poll suggested another possibility.

My poll was composed of a very small sample – just five couples from the United Kingdom. I’d met them on board the Viking Jarl – our Danube River Cruise longship. One pair was a delightful Scottish couple. They were dead certain the vote would be for staying in the Union. Another couple was from Manchester, England. They adamantly hoped the outcome would be to exit the Union. The third couple delighted in calling themselves “political snobs” because they and their Cambridge University community were not only in favor of remaining part of the EU but thought anyone favoring exit was simply an idiot. Couple number four were Londoners. She was for staying. He wanted out. “We cancel each other out,” they said with a laugh. The fifth couple, also from England though I don’t remember the city or town, were strongly in favor of getting out.

The tally?

5 votes for staying in the European Union.

5 for leaving.

A tossup.

But remember: two of the folks in favor of staying were Scottish.

However, our English companions tilted toward leaving,  5-3. And there are a heck of a lot more voters in England than Scotland (or any of the other individual British Isles).

So when the election tallies came in on June 23rd the vote turned out to be pretty close to the results of my unscientific poll of the Brits on board the Viking ship. 52-48% in favor of leaving the European Union. Not bad for an amateur pollster, huh?

But what does all this have to do with Donald Trump and his supporters? Well, hang on…

Below the surface of the raging storm of political rhetoric swirling around the 2016 election, there is a subtle undercurrent that may help explain why so many people are unhappy with the way things are. This disturbing riptide of discontent can be seen in the Brexit phenomenon, as well as among many who support Mr. Trump. In fact, you can even add to this disillusioned mob of people the supporters of Bernie Sanders although Sanders and Trump are miles apart on most issues.

It is instructive to look at the larger picture of what seems to be going on in today’s world. Economic inequality, coupled with a belief “the system is rigged” against ordinary people, appears to be a large component of what is fueling the flames of discontent among many. Some political theorists, like Georgetown University’s Joshua Mitchell, warn that this may be a sign of a cracking world order.

Since the end of the Cold War we have been living in a period of  “globalization.” Although it has deeper roots in history, globalization as we know it today has been and is the predominant social/economic/political dream pursued by leaders and governments since about 1989. It is a theory that believes the world will be a better place if we all just learn to get along.

Okay, that’s a gross oversimplification. Here’s a better description:

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.

Globalization envisions a world where individual countries are integrated into a global community working together for the betterment of all. Political and economic cooperation, promoting free trade and open markets, empowers poor countries to bring their products to market and impoverished citizens to climb out of poverty.

To accomplish this, individual nations must be willing to move away from thinking only about their own interests in favor of working toward the betterment of the larger world community. People are no longer just citizens of the USA, but citizens of the world. Under globalization, some amount of national sovereignty must be sacrificed and transferred to supra-national organizations and bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, the European Union (in the case of European countries), the International Monetary Fund, etc. Trade agreements – like NAFTA and TPP – are all an integral component of globalization.

If you listened to or read President Obama’s recent speech to the United Nations you heard a very impassioned advocacy for a more globalized world. In fact, you will better understand why Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is what it is by knowing that he is a strong proponent of globalization. Even so, in his UN speech, the President also pointed out there are significant problems emerging in the globalized world order. And these problems are what I believe energize the supporters of Brexit, Sanders and Trump.

Two key problems of globalization seem to lie at the heart of the anxiety many people are feeling today. One is the blurring of national borders. Another is the almost unfettered freedom of international business.

On the border issue, the European Union is a prime example of how globalization works. Since people and goods must be able to move freely between countries in order to integrate economies, national borders have been virtually erased. More open borders are in fact a goal of globalization.

In the EU, a person with a European Union passport allows them to travel easily and freely between member countries of the Union. If you’ve traveled to Europe from the United States you know that there are two lines at the immigration control stations at airports – one for EU citizens and another for people coming from outside the Union. You can guess which line is longer and more cumbersome. Globalization envisions a more or less “borderless” world and that’s pretty much what you see in Europe.

This is designed to build a better, more fair, more peaceful, economically just world.

Except it isn’t working.

And people are upset.

Porous borders allow not only free travel for citizens seeking work but also easy access for terrorists. Belgium and France have tragically experienced the dangers posed by weak borders. And beyond the potential for terrorism, there was the concern expressed by our British cruisemates who believe that people of other European nationalities are moving to England to take advantage of the country’s more generous Social Welfare benefits. These fellow travelers said they were angry about taxes going up and services going down, ostensibly because of this migration. The other Brits on board disagreed with this analysis, but everyone agreed that ordinary British citizens are falling further and further behind, whatever the cause. Globalization is not producing the benefits promised.

The business issue is equally important. In fact, one of the most profound difficulties with globalization is that many jobs are moving from developed countries like the United States to places where labor and production costs are cheaper. Encouraging large transnational companies to do business across the world enables them to reduce costs and avoid taxes while reaping huge profits. In seeking out cheaper labor and lower production costs these multinational conglomerates have been accused of exploiting workers and permitting substandard working conditions. In the meantime – while the corporations rake in record profits – growing numbers of ordinary people in the US and other developed nations are suffering from under-employment, unemployment and stagnant wages. Some wonder if the only real winners of globalization are the corporate interests and their overpaid CEO’s.

Enter Bernie Sanders:

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

And Donald Trump:

Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization — moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy.

Both men have articulated the frustrations experienced by people who are being left behind by the failures of globalization. Sanders has vocalized the economic disparity that has caused the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer.

Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy that works for all, not just the powerful.

He has called for a “political revolution” to reorder the system and move the center of power back to the people. Sanders also rails against the free trade agreements that have harmed American workers.

Trump too opposes the trade agreements and wants to renegotiate them to make them fairer to workers in America. But his strongest and most central message is about tightening borders and strengthening immigration controls – the very same issue that fueled the Brexit vote.

Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders – although from two different angles – are staking out positions that speak to the anxieties people are feeling today.  Trump and Sanders have become champions for those who feel they are falling behind economically and are losing control over their lives. And it is more than just anger about power being transferred from the nation to global entities. More pertinent to peoples’ lives is the transfer of power from their local communities to the states and from the states to Washington, DC. Local control over education, environmental quality, land use, resource development, etc. has been taken away and now is dictated from on high. People feel disenfranchised from being able to self-determine the direction and well-being of themselves and their children.

I’m not sure the ordinary person on the street would describe their angst as a concern about the virtues (or lack thereof) of globalization. I mean, how many people even know what globalization is? But whether or not people can name the cause, they deeply feel the “system” is not working for them. By whatever name the problem is called, people are frustrated and are demanding change.

There are important lessons to be learned from those who voted in favor of Brexit as well as from those who support Trump and Sanders. Long after this election is settled the deficiencies of globalization will linger.

Commenting on this subject in Politico Magazine, Joshua Mitchell writes:

The opposition to the post-1989 order is not just happening here in America; it is happening nearly everywhere. The Brexit vote stunned only those who believe in their bones that the very arc of history ends with “globalization” and identity politics.

The worry is that this powerful, growing disaffection with the status quo—both within Europe and elsewhere—will devolve into nefarious nationalism based on race, ethnicity or religion. To combat this, we are going to have to find constructive ways to build a new set of ideas around a very old set of ideas about sovereignty—namely, that the state and the citizens inside it matter. If we don’t find a way to base nationalism on a healthy understanding of what a liberal state is and what it does and expects from citizens to make it work well, dark nationalism, based on blood and religion, will prevail—again.

Far from being crazies of the far right, the Trump supporters I know have a finger on the pulse of an incredibly significant socioeconomic fracture taking place before our very eyes. They have many of  the right issues, but I believe they are supporting the wrong candidate. I fear Mr. Trump’s many character flaws will prevent him from governing effectively if elected. That’s just my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary.

But the Trump voters I know are correctly identifying underlying issues that make growing numbers of people both here and abroad wish they could just stop the world and get off.

The way things are simply isn’t working for them.

And just to make sure you understand my opinion – for what its worth – Mrs. Clinton is not the solution either. She is very much a globalist with very deep ties to the corporate interests. Why do you suppose they and their Wall Street buddies are funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to her campaign?

There are both dangers and opportunities connected to globalization. I agree with President Obama when he said:

In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction. As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.

So the question is, “How can we make “the system” work for everyone?”

That’s the great challenge of our time. And it is being raised up by the millions of people who supported Brexit and those who are resonating with the messages of Sanders and Trump.

They are not wing-nut whack jobs as some like to portray them.

At least not the ones I know.