Trump and the everyday citizen
EDMOND GRACE :: Much of the commentary on the election of Donald Trump overlooks one very simple and obvious reality. People are angry with ‘the politicians.’ The political parties which have been in the ascendant since the fall of communism may compete keenly with each other for votes, but there is not much difference between their policies. With varying degrees of enthusiasm they support neo-liberal economics, international collaboration and rejection of racism, sexism and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Meanwhile another development, which has been a long time in the making has not been addressed.
In a 2020 report, the OECD refers to ‘the left behind’ and ‘the everyday citizen.’ In addition to the growing inequalities which have been a feature of recent years the report speaks of 83% of people in 28 countries being worried about job loss due to a number of factors and, in those same countries, 66% of people doubting the ability of their political leaders to address their country’s challenges. In 2023 it reported that 44% of people had low or no trust in government and only 39% had high or moderately high trust.
The roots of this erosion of trust go back a long way and are, at least in part, due to the fact that every successful form of government brings about change for which it is ill-equipped to deal. In a different age a young parliamentary reporter called Charles Dickens could be so mesmerised by the eloquence of one Daniel O’Connell, that the pen fell from his hand and he forgot to do his job of writing down what was being said.
O’Connell had much a simpler task than later generations of politicians. All he had to do was to speak on behalf of his constituents. The same was true of all his contemporaries at Westminster but, as parliament responded to the demands of voters and put in place an increasingly complex bureaucracy, the role of the public representative changed in a way which has never been formally acknowledged. Bureaucratic government was a great achievement and made possible all kinds of worker and consumer protection in a technological world, but it has also presented latter day public representatives with a major challenge. They must advocate not only for their constituents but for the bureaucratic process on which they depend to deliver on their commitments to voters.
The result of this double and, in many ways, contradictory demand has been the development of a form of speech which is passionless and opaque and which invites scepticism. Many accept that, in the complexities of the modern world, political leaders have to be nuanced in what they say, but many more react with suspicion and a growing hostility. They are angry because they feel excluded and they are pleased when political leaders come along who attack the politically correct attitudes associated with ‘Washington’ or ‘Brussels.’ They want to see these places, and those associated with them, dragged off their perch and humbled.
Whatever else is at work in the election of Donald Trump – and in the right wing parties of Europe – this sense of being excluded and the anger which accompanies it is certainly a factor. He and his European allies hate ‘politicians’ and their hatred is reassuring to those who have long felt excluded, but their relationship with their voters is fundamentally similar to that of the established parties. In ancient Athens elections were consider oligarchic on the grounds that you needed money to conduct an election campaign. The Athenian form of democracy consisted in filling a public office by selecting a citizen by lottery and then vetting him (always him) first for competence and secondly for any hint of collusion with oligarchs.
The nature of modern politics is that every political party is a well resourced elite who compete with similar groups to win the support of a passive population. Promises are made, votes are won but, in this complex world of ours, the delivery on those promises is, more often than not, illusory. The real challenge is the failure to address that passivity, and the anger to which it gives rise. Another American President, John Adams, who died two centuries ago, summed up the underlying problem with admirable clarity: “To be wholly overlooked and to know it are intolerable.”
