Populism

Hillary isn’t reaching people

Politicians ought to be better informed than the average person on the issues of the day, but that does not give them the right to despise the people they are elected to serve. Many politicians are comparatively rich, well-educated and clever – but that puts them at risk of failing to understand how a lot of people think and how they live their lives. No one can take good decisions on behalf of the population without having some degree of empathy towards it, and ordinary people understand that; they vote for politicians who seem to sympathise with them. Hillary Clinton is in deep trouble by not seeming to relate to people and their problems, particularly after her unfortunate outburst that described many Americans as ‘a basket of deplorables’.

Nigel Farage understands this. In an interview on the Fox Business Network, he drew the parallels between the American presidential election and Britain’s recent EU referendum. Farage had been successful in persuading the British people to vote to leave the EU – a ‘Brexit’ – despite an enormous amount of authoritative advice to the contrary. That advice had been given in a tone that seemed remote and unsympathetic, whereas he regularly appeared with a pint of beer in his hand and said things which resonated with many people. The criticism he received from the mainstream media, for his attitude to immigration, seemed to prove that he understood the issues and that most politicians didn’t.

The similarities between Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are obvious, and the two men support each other. Both are populists and are successful practitioners of what has been termed “post-truth politics”: reaching people’s emotions and reinforcing deep-seated prejudices. Farage claimed that Hillary is “in for a big shock in this American campaign” – and he’s very probably right. Hillary’s criticism of Donald Trump and his supporters was a big mistake; it just reinforced the impression that she was a member of the political elite who doesn’t understand how most people feel.

Hillary Clinton has a serious image problem. As Farage said, “people are tired of being sneered at by out-of-touch political elites”. Her only way of connecting with people at an emotional level is to appear statesmanlike and experienced; it is a big mistake to descend to the level of the Trump campaign and try to trade insults with him. She should draw on Bernie Sanders’s success, acknowledging his influence so that she attracts his supporters, and propose measures that clearly address the concerns of angry American voters – as previously described on this website.

Angry American Voters

The 2016 American primary elections have revealed considerable popular discontent and resentment towards the political class. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump got lots of support from angry anti-establishment voters. Despite significant economic growth in the last few decades, many people suffer hardship whilst others prosper grotesquely. There is a growing realisation that politicians, in seeking political donations, have aligned themselves to the interests of the wealthy – so many people blame the political establishment for their problems. Others blame their problems on immigrants and globalisation.

Trump hasn’t been part of the political establishment. He seems to be offering solutions to people’s problems: he has pledged to build a wall against Mexican immigrants and he has advocated protectionism as a way to defend jobs from foreign competition. In reality, anti-immigrant rhetoric could result in hostility towards the millions of Hispanics and Muslims who are already well settled in America; this would lead to a rise in hate crimes – which rose 57% in Britain following the similar rhetoric used in the recent campaign to leave the EU. And protectionism destroys jobs, as it did with America’s tariffs on Chinese steel. Trump’s ‘solutions’ are unworkable and would not benefit people.

In a representative democracy people elect politicians to understand complex issues, to speak for them and to govern. Populist politicians with siren voices, though, can lure people to follow paths to disaster – ignoring complex realities to seek apparently easy solutions. Donald Trump is now in a strong position to win the American presidency, being seen as a strong and successful individual who financed his own election campaign and who offers to magically solve people’s problems. The condemnation of senior politicians merely adds to his credibility as a champion of ordinary people. Since Hillary Clinton is seen as part of the political establishment, supporters of Bernie Sanders might vote for Trump rather than for her.

The presidential election is now largely a contest between Trump and Clinton. Neither candidate is hugely popular. Trump has antagonised many voters with some of his more outlandish statements, but his anti-establishment stance and populist pledges might yet succeed in winning him the presidency. Fortunately, though, the American political system was designed with checks and balances, so Congress could prevent some of the damage he might otherwise do – but he might not address any of the real problems either.

Since criticising Donald Trump just strengthens him in the current political climate, Hillary Clinton would do better to ignore him and focus instead on concrete measures to address people’s concerns. Carefully-constructed arguments alone are not going to persuade people to support responsible politicians; positive messages need to be delivered with passion and emotional appeal. She might then win the Presidency, which would be the best outcome for America.

Even if she wins, though, her hands would be tied if Congress opposed every initiative. What is also needed is for the politicians in Congress – whether Republican, Democrat or Independent – to be elected on more moderate and responsible platforms. The recent political posturing, trying to score points off the other party, needs to be put aside. The country needs politicians of all stripes to work together to fix some of the problems which have caused the popular discontent. Otherwise there is a risk of American politics sinking into yet further disrepute. Politicians need to tackle several issues:

At a minimum, they need to pledge to overhaul campaign financing to reduce the influence of money in politics – so that they are accountable to the population as a whole, rather than favouring wealthy donors.

They need to overhaul the tax code, so that the rich pay at least the same percentage tax as the middle classes. The Active Financing Exception, which allows wealth to be hidden overseas to avoid paying tax, needs to be quashed.

Improved productivity is better than protectionism as a route to full employment, so wealthy people need to be incentivised to invest in real industries rather than hiding their money or speculating.

People need to be reminded of the benefits of free trade. Protectionism increases consumer prices and costs jobs in the rest of the economy.

America is a nation of immigrants. Immigration needs to be better managed, to streamline the legal way of entering the country; there would then be less incentive for people to try to enter illegally in future. Border security needs to be tightened, but an amnesty is needed for some of those who came in illegally but who have contributed to American society for several years.

Poverty can be reduced with an increased minimum wage and some income support.

None of the measures suggested above is inherently exclusive to either Republican or Democrat values, although the two parties would place different emphases on them. The American Constitution envisaged negotiation between the members of Congress to develop solutions for the benefit of the population as a whole. Whoever becomes President, Congress should aim to constructively serve the American people and give them less cause for resentment.

Widespread public discontent is seen as an opportunity by populist politicians; they can amplify people’s concerns and promise change as a means of gaining support (and the power that goes with it in democracies). Dissatisfied people can be tempted to follow anyone who offers change, but the tragedy of hopeful voters is that they can be led in directions that seriously damage their future prospects. There is a real risk of this happening in both Britain and America this year.

In Britain, the EU referendum has allowed some politicians to capitalise on public concerns about immigration and low wages. Those who advocate Britain leaving the EU, a ‘Brexit’, are offering a utopian vision of a proudly independent Britain somehow doing better than it does now. The government, though, has described the four possible ways for Britain to trade with the EU if it were no longer a member, showing how each is inferior to current arrangements. Iain Duncan Smith has airily dismissed this as a “dodgy dossier”; he asserted that Britain would develop new trade relationships that would transcend all existing ones. He didn’t say how this could be done.

The British people need to be reminded how well they have done since they joined the EU. Rather than running away, Britain should try to work more closely with its European neighbours for their mutual advantage.

In America, where there is public concern about jobs, Mexican immigration and Islamic terrorism, Donald Trump has become very popular; he advocates economic protectionism, which is the disastrous policy that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s; he has said that he would build a wall to keep out Mexicans, which sends a nasty message to anyone of Hispanic descent; and he is mobilising public opinion against all Muslims (not just ISIS), so he risks stirring up communal violence with America’s Muslim population. Hopefully he would be soundly beaten when it comes to the presidential election, but that would not be the end of America’s problem. If large swathes of the population are disaffected, other politicians may try to emulate his populist tactics and a hostile Congress could prevent the next President from doing anything constructive.

Populist politicians may truly believe that merely by seizing power they can benefit the people. A Brexit, though, would do irreversible damage to Britain’s prospects and the American people would not be well served by another four years of political stalemate.

Populism to Win an Election?

PatternsofPower.org raises concerns when politicians act against the best interests of the populations they serve – and in democratic countries politicians make populist proposals in order to win forthcoming elections, even if those proposals might harm people at a later date or in a non-obvious way. One common pattern is for politicians to misuse the economic powers with which they are entrusted, relying upon people not to understand, or to forget, what has been done. There are two recent examples of this happening in Britain: the posturing over energy prices, and the reckless relaxing of credit for house-purchase.

Opposition leader Ed Miliband made an eye-catching and popular proposal to impose a freeze on energy prices if he were elected to form a Labour government. This angered the energy companies, who have predictably reacted by increasing their prices this year ahead of a possible 20-month price freeze if Labour were elected in May 2015. Four companies have now announced increases that average 9.1%, even though “wholesale electricity and gas together have risen by just 1.7% over the last year”. Perhaps consumers were expected to be angry with the energy companies rather than blame the price rises on Labour.

The Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne’s “Help to Buy” scheme was also proposed as a popular measure to help first-time buyers to join the housing market. The “Help to Buy equity loans”, on 20% of a house’s value, were introduced in April 2013 and they are confined to new houses – so builders are encouraged to increase the rate of house-building and that helps to correct an underlying shortage of housing supply. The “Help to Buy mortgage guarantees”, which have only just been put into operation, allow people to buy any house with a deposit of only 5% – giving a government guarantee to the mortgage-lenders to protect them from losses in case of defaults. These new mortgage guarantees will increase the demand for houses without any compensating pressure to increase the housing supply so, as The Independent put it, “we ain’t seen nothing yet” – but already there are signs of a housing price-bubble in areas like London, where the demand for housing exceeds supply; one report cites a house-price rise of 60% since last year in one London district. Many first-time buyers will not in practice be helped by the scheme, because (a) they will be affected by the short-term rise in house prices and (b) they might be left with negative equity when the price-bubble bursts. A fall in house-prices would probably, though, be after the next election and people would not remember this government’s contribution to the price-bubble.

These two examples of short-term populism appear to be tactical moves ahead of a general election which is more than 18 months away. Voters should not reward a Labour Party which has almost certainly caused energy prices to spike in the short term, or a Conservative Party which is feeding a new housing price-bubble while everyone is still feeling the pain of bailing out bankers who lost money when the previous bubble burst. Most voters are likely to support one of these two parties anyway, but those who are well informed might reflect that British politics would be much improved if politicians behaved responsibly.