Might I equate Trump and Brexit? Some will, I am sure, be deeply offended if I do. But I am going to, anyway.
I am not going to point out that almost everyone genuinely pleased to see Trump in the UK this week campaigned for Leave.
Nor will I mention the Russian connection.
Or, even, the mistrust of trade deals, which simply makes May's hopes for the visit look like pure folly.
Instead I want to talk about things that are much more serious, like trust, communication, relationships, and the process of change. Those, and the importance of knowing where you are going, of course.
I claim no special expertise in the issues of which I write. My only qualification in them is sixty years of experience negotiating what life has had to throw at me, not all of which has been what I might have desired. Well, it's that coupled with a desire that I can only guess was born in me to not leave the world the way I found it because I sensed when quite young that for some, at least, this world was deeply unfair. For the last fifteen years or so I have pretty much dedicated my career to effecting a process of change.
It can, of course, also be said that Brexit and Trump are dedicated to change. I admit they wish for change that I am not motivated by. Whereas I believe in change likely to be of benefit to anyone, regardless of their situation, it is very clear that in their own ways Trump and Brexit promise change in the interests of certain, and I think, rather narrow interest groups. Our philosophies are clearly not matched. But it is process that I am most interested in this morning.
It is a gross summary, but one that works well enough to make it useful, to say that there are two processes for effecting change. There is radical, revolutionary, change. And there is the alternative of taking things gradually. Political causes of all persuasions have tried both. There is no political reason, per se, to say one is to be preferred to the other based on precedent alone. But they have very different consequences. And, rare moments apart, there is a choice between them at some stage in a planned political process.
I am, of course, assuming there is a planned political process. It is a big assumption because it presupposes thought. And thinking is rare. As a public figure I greatly respect said to me in an email yesterday ‘We need more thinkers doing more thinking…'. I could not agree more. But let's assume there has been thinking even if the evidence for that is increasingly hard to find in the case of either Brexit or Trump. What characterises both would seem to be the absence of a well worked out plan prior to gaining power. I will then substitute the goal of favouring a few within a nation as ‘the plan'. If that is done we can assume that this condition is met.
So what then? To achieve change how is it best effected? Is gradual reform better than revolution, or vice versa?
It fair to say that I am a gradualist. I think it equally fair to say Trump and the Hard Brexiteers are not. But let's not assume the difference is politics. Many Lexiteers are happy with Hard Brexit for reasons entirely different from those of Jacob Rees-Mogg. I make the point deliberately: process and politics are not the same. The differences in approach are instead threefold, I suggest.
First, there is the issue of consent. There will never be universal consent to change. It is absurd to think that possible. Some are simply pathologically opposed to all change, almost as a matter of principle in itself. Others, cannot handle the stress its unfamiliarity creates. Others will withhold consent because they do not like what is happening and do not approve of its motivation. These are realities. But that does not mean change cannot happen. Nor does it even mean that change in the interest of all is not possible. It simply means that a process of winning consent has to be engaged in. Sudden, and imposed, change does not meet that criteria. Nor do radical changes of direction that alienate substantial numbers assist that process. In fact, it endangers it. That is why the referendum was so dangerous; its threshold was too low, and the process of both claiming it was absolute and irreversible was so alienating. Consent is won and not imposed. Gradualism works.
Second, there is the fact that even if change within some sphere of influence is possible the chance to change the whole world at once rarely, if ever exists. Trotsky might have wanted world revolution and I hate to disappoint those who remain true believers, but the chances of any such thing happening remain remote. Post any revolution there will be large parts of the world, including most of it beyond the immediate epicentre of radical reform, that will be remarkably unchanged by what has happened. And revolutionaries might find that if they attempt to impose change on them the kickback might be more than enough to undermine the advantages they think they have won.
And third, there is the desire for success to be sustained. Because nothing in life ever works out quite as planned, revolutions included, mechanisms without adequate feedback loops that allow for adaptation in the light of experience have low chances of success. By definition such feedback loops and the process of change that they require are gradual. That means revolutions have inbuilt features that make them less likely to work.
Put this together and Brexit is not working, as is obvious.
And nor is Trump'ss aggression working.
That is because both are built on aggression, separation, and a sense of entitlement that alienate at almost every imaginable level.
The sense of progress that they might initially create is then, illusory.
And that is why I have little time for the revolutionary approach.
I also happen to think that the lack of consent within the process (and a gerrymandered referendum is not an indication of consent) undermines the very process of fairness in which I believe. Don't get me wrong: I want change, including in the EU. But quite specifically seeking to impose this in one country that will have to co-exist, with its immediate neighbours who are its former partners after a period of aggressive relations was never going to deliver the best proispect of sustainmable change.
There is a process for change.
It is thinking.
Followed by persuasion.
Followed by consensus building.
Followed by change.
Followed by feedback management.
Followed by review.
And new thought.
And throughout it all there has to be respect for difference, dialogue and accommodation of difference.
Politics has moved a very long way from this process, as Trump and Brexit prove.
We need to re-embrace it.
But first, as my correspondent said yesterday, we need more thinkers doing more thinking. That is where everything starts. And we have far too few people engaging in that process. We know where to start. But please, take your time.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“Nor will I mention the Russian connection.”
All piss and wind. There is no Russian connection. It’s ninety nine percent fiction and a few social media attention-grabniks.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/13003/andy-crow-trumpism-died-when-trump-entered-office
Ahem. Andy, if you want to go up against @tomburgis at the FT on the detail on that any time I’ll be in the front row …
Trump has it right in one sense that every nation being a “rule-taker” is fine for the purposes of trade but not if they don’t play by those rules or the rules are not enforced. Beyond that he can’t see there has to be new commonly agreed international rules whereby individual nations have the right agreed by all other nations (or sufficient of them) to take action against unfair trading and lop-sided development. In other words to raise protective tariffs to balance their trade (if possible) whilst simultaneously inviting in foreign investment and expertise until such times as their trade is balanced. The English did this back in the 14th century to grow their worsted industry although not by tariffs but outright ban on most imported cloth. This was an important factor in promoting the industrial revolution.
Schofield says:
“Trump has it right in one sense that every nation being a “rule-taker” is fine for…..”
……….everybody else as long as America makes the rules. End of.
You’ve missed the point Andy you’re being paranoid! See my other comment concerning Trump on Richard’s “Trade war is rattling the FT” article. Every nation has the right to get upset about unfair global trading including the United States. Where you would be right to get paranoid is Trump backing Wall Street over de-constructing Dodd-Frank:-
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-killing-dodd-frank-could-lead-to-next-crash-667036/
Yes you might. Everyone I know voted for BREXIT likes Trump – without exception.
“Everyone I know voted for BREXIT likes Trump — without exception”
I know plenty of Brexiters who voted leave but recognise that Mr Trump is a bombastic oafish narcissistic egotistical bullying pussy grabbing tweeter of rabid nonsense. Some of them, however, believe that he will conveniently provide access to glorious trade deals.
Mike
The people I speak of know that Trump is (quote) ‘a bombastic oafish narcissistic egotistical bullying pussy grabbing tweeter of rabid nonsense’.
They like these attributes because they think he is stirring up the establishment in America and that we could do with a dose of that over here.
Gradualism is wise….. but life is short.
Come the revolution, when you’re one of the ones against the wall life can be very short. 🙂
I have long accepted that is my probable fate
On his maternal side Trump is a McLeod of McLeod of The Isles, that is the Western Isles of Scotland. Be careful, very careful.
Aye. But Donald Trump is a renowned msp I don’t suppose he rates his matrilineal connections very highly. Do you ?
Not as highly as his golf courses anyway. 🙂
The fundamental way in which Trump and Brexit equate is that they both resulted from the actions of a population deeply unhappy with the results of decades of neoliberal policies and who can see no other way to break the downward spiral. Neither Democrats nor Republicans offered a different vision in the US and in the UK there is no credible alternative to Tory austerity – Labour unforgivably failing to challenge the narrative. This was a protest vote in both cases – actually a vote of hope seeking seismic change – and the tragedy is that in both cases it will make the situation of most citizens significantly worse.
I would love to believe in gradualism but the forces of the establishment in the UK and the power of the vested interests – the financial sector, the military industrial complex, big pharma etc. are incredibly powerful. The media in the UK is the mouthpiece of the establishment – and incidentally recently voted the least trusted in Europe – so it is hard to see how persuasion and consensus building can actually happen. (I did incidentally contact QT to suggest Richard as a panellist…….)
Thanks re the last
I got the Twitter account once
But have never been on…
I fully concur with your correspondent that we need more thinking, more political philosophy to suggest ways out of this mess.
The problem with revolutions is that they involve a lot of violence are often hi-jacked by (usually) strong, ruthless men; the problem with gradualism is that it is glacially slow and can be hi-jacked by the rich and powerful elites. Both result in the ordinary citizen being kept far away from power. Whether it was the Russian Revolution, the US Revolution or the gradualism in these isles after Charles I, elites have made sure that real power was reserved to themselves, through a mixture of scams, such as a restricted franchise, political parties, periodic elections and minor concessions – all designed to give the appearance of democracy while ensuring there was no real danger of rebellion.
A couple of recent books point to an alternative political settlement: Brett Hennig’s “The end of politicians” and “Against Elections” by David Van Reybrouck. Both discuss Deliberative Democracy where citizen assemblies are chosen by sortition, as was the case in Ancient Athens.
Of course, any alternative relies on political parties and their apparatchiks voting like turkeys for an early Christmas. Highly implausible, which leads me back to Walter Scheidel’s thesis in “The Great Leveler”: that in the past, transformative change has only been brought about by what he calls the “4 Horsemen” of catastrophic disasters: mass warfare, revolution, state/system collapse and pandemic.
On the horizon lurks climate change, (a fifth horseman?) but perhaps, like those 4 most dangerous words in investing, “this time it (really) is different” and change will slowly come.
What do Hilary voters and Remainers have in common?
Brain cells would be my answer.
So you can work out my views on what Trump voters and Brexiteers have in common, without me having to say it.
I can’t see Hillary as benign, Adam. If the Democrats were benign they would have gone with Sanders rather than rig it for Hillary to lose. They got the mood wrong and backed the ‘business as usual’ option which was not what a lot of voters wanted.
Same applies, but differently with Cameron. Enough voters had seen enough of Cameron Osborne to know they wanted something better (or just different). Sadly Brexit won’t deliver well for them (IMO), but they got their wish to unseat the leadership.
Brain cells are not easy for voters to use well, when the candidates are lacking them.
Adam, other things that Hilary voters and Remainers have in common:
They can differentiate between lies, propaganda and objective reality
They know the difference between hard knowledge and political bluster
They know news sources can be compromised by a self-serving agenda
They know that the law supports democracy for the good of the people
They can study to form a personal view, not just take one off the shelf
They do not think being in a majority and being right are inseparable
They do not exhibit a baseless optimism through faith or wishful thinking
They do not think a shot in the dark is the best future plan for their children
They do not pretend complicated things can be wished into being simple
They do not blame the wrong people when their lives are difficult
They trust intelligent experts over novices and loudmouths
They know multinational corporations threaten sovereign independence
They see strength in deep international cooperation, not weakness.
Good grief. I need to eat. Any more ideas anyone?
I think I we get the message and it’s important
Sometimes it’s important to see what we have in common
I think this duo of “Hillary voters and Remainers” is a totally false combination and absurdly exclusive.
Jon Woods says:
” other things that Hilary voters and Remainers have in common:”
Hmmm…. I don’t share your confidence in Hilary voters, though some of what you allege may apply to ‘Remainers’.
“instead I want to talk about things that are much more serious, like trust, communication, relationships, and the process of change. Those, and the importance of knowing where you are going, of course.”
Yes, indeed Richard. Knowing where you are going with those things is crucial, and I might add to your post, as well as more thinkers, the world needs more thinkers who know where they are going.
You cant help but feel that the world needs less analysis and more wisdom. Thinking is one thing but right thinking is quite another.
And what constitutes right thinking in these days of relative truth? Who has the answers that society needs?
Alas, in the absence of any meaningful leadership, each of us has to work out our salvation in fear and trembling!
Meanwhile intolerance and bigotry are on full display everywhere we look and I’m no different from anyone else. And no wonder we are so emotional. Its frightening stuff, but I for one feel on a deep intuitive level the polarised oppositional energies cannot bring the changes we so desperately need. What is need is the ability to hold two sets of opposing views in our heads at once without coming down too hard on one side or t’ other.
And its not a Polyanna-ish view, merely a growing capacity to hold the creative tension that we need to cultivate.
Being a Quaker you are probably already familiar with the writings of Parker Palmer.
“Human beings have a well demonstrated capacity to hold the tension of differences in ways that lead to creative outcomes and advances. It is not an impossible dream to believe that we can apply that capacity to politics……… America’s founders- despite the bigotry that limited their conception of who “we the people” were- had the genius to establish a form of government in which differences, conflict and tension were understood not as the enemies of social order but as the energies of a better social order.
So, as we lose our ability for creative solutions and critical thinking, as we are dumbed-down by the algorithms and retreat into our private gripe sessions with those who think like us perhaps we should remember that politics follows the laws of nature too. Politics abhors a vacuum too. Something will fill it and you can bet it won’t be in all of our interests.
Trump creates walls. Those of us who care about the future need to tear them down and build bridges.
I still dream of a Scotland who can create a vibrant new identity for itself in the world. Some might think that a bit ironic since I’m talking about bridge building, but then its no secret that I think Westminster is a lost cause for Scots. Sometimes you just have to know when it’s time to leave an abusive relationship. My hope for Scotland is that we can build a country that holds space for everyone to belong.
Bridge building is the only hope for all of us. That is THE right idea. Of that I’m utterly convinced but the trouble is it requires a change of heart from each of us. That’s massive.
Many thanks
I know your wisdom is appreciated here
With you completely, Grace.
“Sometimes you just have to know when it’s time to leave an abusive relationship.”
I think the Brexit pitch was saying the relationship between the UK and EU was abusive, when I don’t think it was. The UK (government – of either stripe) was simply not engaging in the ‘marriage’. Never did really.
But the UK – Scotland relationship is quite different and no longer worth trying to rescue; It needs to be dissolved for the sake of the children.
Perennially sound advice from Matthew 7.15: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Adaptation for 21st century: “Beware of false profits ….”. 🙂