Trump plays on the same list of fears
The similarities with his campaign are striking, says Chris Cillizza.
Most Americans were only loosely aware of the referendum that would allow Britain to formally exit the European Union. That general lack of interest isn’t surprising. A majority of Americans are only loosely aware of what is happening in their own politics. So a vote across the Atlantic about Britain leaving a little-understood organisation isn’t the sort of thing that is going to draw Americans’ collective attention.
But the stunning decision by Britons to exit the EU – and the underlying sentiments that led to this shocking result – are the stuff that Americans should not only pay attention to but should also understand as motivated by the same emotions that have fuelled the equally remarkable rise of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in our own political system.
Trump, for his part, clearly sees the similarities and is seeking to capitalise on them. He Tweeted this from Scotland on Friday: ‘‘Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!’’
While Trump’s open embrace of the Brexit decision is a calculated one – he struggled to answer a question about his views on the referendum a few weeks back – he’s not wrong.
Consider the number of similarities between the ‘‘leave’’ vote and Trump’s own message.
At the heart of the ‘‘Leave’’ campaign was an emphasis on the idea that the EU had okayed massive levels of migration into Britain.
That mass migration had, according to ‘‘leave’’ backers, fundamentally altered the country’s identity in ways that were almost uniformly negative.
Sound familiar? Trump has built his entire campaign on the idea that the country’s porous borders have not only upended the rule of law but transformed the US – and not in a good way.
Trump’s ‘‘Make America Great Again’’ slogan is deeply rooted in the notion that things in the US were once good but aren’t any more – a change due, in no small part, to how the makeup of the country has been altered by who they let in.
Being governed by rules dictated by a nameless, faceless government entity in Brussels didn’t sit well with lots of ‘‘Leave’’ backers. Neither did the idea that British Prime Minister David Cameron was the chief proponent of the ‘‘Remain’’ effort. People – whether they are Britons or Americans – now carry a fundamental distrust for any large-scale institution or high profile politician who promises to ‘‘know what’s best’’ for them.
In the US, trust in virtually every Trump has built his entire campaign on the idea that the country’s porous borders have not only upended the rule of law but transformed the US. major societal institution is at or near historic lows.
Trump has put that distrust and disdain for politicians and their institutions at the heart of his campaign. These people are dumb and don’t know what they’re doing, he tells his supporters. These institutions are either poorly run or fundamentally corrupt. The idea that anyone is looking out for you is a fallacy. They are doing what’s good for them – and it often comes at your expense. I will look out for you.
There’s also a feeling that consequences are overrated.
This paragraph stood out to me in the Washington Post’s news story on Brexit: ‘‘For months, Britain’s political and economic elite had looked on with growing apprehension as the country flirted with a choice – popularly known as Brexit – that experts had warned could lead to global recession and a rip in the Western alliance.’’
For almost the entirety of the Republican primary campaign, supporters of people like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio insisted that ‘‘voters would come to their senses soon’’ as it related to Trump. He was too brash, too thin on policy. Voters would eventually see that nominating someone like him could have potentially disastrous consequences both for the Republican Party and the country.
That idea ran particularly hot in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino in late 2015.
Trump quickly proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US, a move that many party elites rolled their eyes at, dismissing it as both impractical and carrying a wide variety of unintended consequences – very few of which were good.
They were wrong. Voters didn’t care about how Trump’s Muslim ban played on the world stage, or the warnings from many elected leaders and national security experts that it could help spur recruiting by the very groups aiming to do America harm.
Ditto British voters who were inundated with warnings about the economic and other alarms a separation from the EU might set off. The idea of dire consequences for a ‘‘Leave’’ vote paled in comparison to their view of the current state of affairs and why it needed to change.
Make no mistake: this was a damn-the-torpedoes vote in Britain. The same sort of how-canit-be-worse-than-what-we’ve-got thinking has spurred Trump to the verge of formally claiming the Republican presidential nomination next month in Cleveland.
We are in the midst of a worldwide sea change regarding how people view themselves, their government and their countries. The Brexit vote and the rise of Trump – while separated by thousands of kilometres and an ocean – are both manifestations of that change. There will be more.