The future of politics
Sam Cleary: Do Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump represent the future of politics? Flashes in the pan, or with us for the next 15 or 20 years? Justin Kugel: You could argue that they are a return to the past – rather than the next step forward, they are a step backwards. Donald Trump seems to be tapping into an inner bias, so to speak, a fear of the other, and he has done it, very, very effectively. Throughout history, fear of the other has been used by authoritarian regimes, and Trump seems to be returning to this. Similarly, Bernie Sanders is invoking near Social Democratic ideals that were in place in Europe a hundred years ago. They just weren’t in place in America. So it’s America looking towards past European politics to frame its own new politics. Tom White: I think it’s similar to what happened in the 1980s, when the Labour Party shifted front to left under Michael Foot and, of course, it didn’t go too well. But the important thing to remember is that in the 1980s we went towards liberalism, we cut down on the size of the state, and so on. But now we’ve been in a period of liberalism for quite a while; it’s not like there is a further direction to the right to head towards in terms of economic liberalism. Indeed, it’s questionable how much of an economic libertarian he is – Trump is very much a nationalist, so he is likely to downplay the role of the free market in ‘making America great again’. What I think does certainly represent a new direction in politics is low voter turnout. The American presidential election is lucky if it reaches over 60 per cent voter turnout. The last UK election was 66 per cent, and throughout Europe we have very low voter turnout. Most major UK parties have experienced some kind of shift – the Labour Party to the left, the Conservative Party, because of pressure from UKIP, to the right. And I don’t think this is some sort of opportunistic hype resulting from the 2008 recession. This is an actual direction because there is nowhere else really to go. Luca Iovino: I think what Donald Trump has shown is that there is space for a successful billionaire or tycoon to enter the political realm. Following from the example of Berlusconi in Italy, there is something about rich people, or people who have succeeded in the American Dream, or who have simply acquired a lot of money, that is attractive to voters. If Donald Trump had no net worth whatsoever and was just outspoken, I doubt anyone would listen to him. Charlie Scoular: I agree with you to an extent, but what’s amazing about Trump is that he has inherited his business. All of Trump’s business ventures – Trump University, Trump Estates, Trump Vodka – have failed. So he is not a successful business tycoon by anyone’s reasonable standards. James Todd: The common theme I see between these people is not so much their diverging political stances, it’s actually the nature of how they have gained prominence. These candidates are essentially a joke. No one would have foreseen Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party. Perhaps a joke is incorrect in the case of Sanders, but he is also someone who has gained prominence from their persona. Nigel Farage is another prime example – if he didn’t have the cigarette and the pint, he wouldn’t have gained the respect that he has, or that UKIP has gained. We are seeing a shifting political climate that is a result of the social media age. Tom Gardner: Non-establishment candidates are not a new phenomenon. I think you see that with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – he was the definition of a non-establishment candidate and people related to him more because of his acting career. But I agree that the advent of social media has made it much easier to be attracted to personae, and has catalysed the growth of non-establishment figures, because social media finds them more interesting. Tohid Ismail: To come back quickly to what Luca said, I completely agree that money is attractive to voters. But Trump doesn’t represent the American Dream. He had what he called a ‘small loan’ of $1m from his father: that’s not the American Dream. Obama is the American Dream – he was brought up by a single mum, his dad was born in Kenya, then they then moved. That’s completely meritocratic. Secondly, just to query the assumption in the original question, I really don’t think that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn should be grouped in with fascists like Donald Trump. Unhappy as I would be under a Corbyn premiership, I’d rather have him than Trump. And perhaps Sanders is what America needs right now – just as we had the social democratic consensus here bringing the NHS, they do need that kind of boost. Anyone but Trump.
37
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker