Gwen Ifill - a tribute

Yesterday brought some very sad news. Gwen Ifill, co-host of the PBS News Hour, had died. The tributes to her on last night's News Hour have been hard to watch. Amy Walter and John Dickerson, both journalists whose work I admire, were close to tears (as I was). Although I never had the privilege of meeting her, she had become, in an odd way, a regular part of my life - over supper with the News Hour and on Fridays with Washington week. Like Tim Russert, who we lost 8 years ago, she asked probing, insightful question (interestingly, the kind interviewees call "tough" rather than "good"), but did so in a disarmingly pleasant, even cheerful, way; occasionally with a hint of a mischievous smile, perhaps when she knew it was one with which her guest was going to struggle. She was part of a diminishing circle of serious, highly competent journalists, the few who take seriously their role to inform intelligently. This election cycle, if it is has shown us anything, is testament to just how much we need the kind of dedication to journalistic integrity for which Gwen Ifill was justifiably an icon, the country truly needs.

What we do know

While Trump's comments after his meeting with Obama were a cause for a slight lessening of dread, irrespective of whether he turns out to be more moderate when in office than his campaign suggested, there are still three things that really trouble me.

First, he he has to deal with a Tea Party controlled Republican Congress; Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan haven't gone anywhere.

Next, his VP pick has a truly horrifying track record of intolerance and religiously justified bigotry.

And finally, the messages that put him in the White House tell us something about the country or parts of it. That 48% of those who voted either believed the BS or were prepared to dismiss and ignore it is deeply worrying.

When he said "I love the poorly educated" it's quite clear what he meant.

The loosers

The losers in this election result are not so much one or other candidate, but trust in institutions; in politicians, in the police, in the media, in the judicial system, the FBI, in academia, in science, in experts, in punditry. Promises that come to nothing finally come back to bite you - on either side of the aisle.

And ultimately the people, particularly those for whom Twitter is their only "reliable" source of information.

Unless America gets its act together, just as Britain ceded its position to the US in the 20th century, so America will to China in this one.

Trumpocalypse

Whether Donald Trump wins or not tonight, the message is clear. Much of the electorate does not want an establishment candidate and is not prepared to settle for more of the same.

Had the Democrats nominated Warren or Sanders, this would not have been a close race; Trump would have lost. But the party misunderstood the degree to which they (and their Republican colleagues in Congress) were perceived as having betrayed the working class with false promises of the benefits of globalization. And now the political establishment is, deservedly, paying the price. (Regrettably we may soon be too).

While it's unlikely that Trump can actually do anything about the corruption (about which I have written often here), the Republicans have already been split by Trump (the elites no longer represent the majority of their party) and the Democrats are now going to have to face up to the same issue, post November 8th. Whether Trump wins or looses by a whisker the signals is the same; the status quo is not longer acceptable.

One possible outcome is that this will lead to even greater polarization. If so we can expect a fairly horrific disruption until the mid-terms and possibly then a return to gridlock. And that pattern may repeat, da capo al fine.

Alternatively--one can only hope--there will emerge two new dominant forces, one in each party that understands that they have more in common in dealing with issues germane to those who both have left behind, the working class, the "poorly educated" (Trump's terms), those for whom the knowledge economy was never really a possibility. They will discard the discredited Chicago school of trickle-down-lessaiz-faire policies and actually do something to lift 46 million people, last I looked, out of poverty.

We do indeed need to "drain the swamp". Whether Trump is the right person for the job remains to be seen. But either way, we are never going back to the way things were yesterday.

Brexit or not to Brexit

A court ruling in the UK yesterday may pave the way for a Brexit win-win. The court's decision, which the Government is appealing, is that Article 50 cannot be triggered without a vote in Parliament. (The Government will be claiming that in voting for a referendum, Parliament has already delegated its authority to the people and the Government is simply implementing their choice).

But if the ruling stands, those who want a do-over will have their chance, and it seems likely that MPs will vote not to leave (though this may have to be preceded by a general election in which this is the central issue).

If Parliament chooses not to leave, the threat of Brexit will have triggered the first serious re-examination of the EU's purpose and direction in decades (indeed it could be argued, the first since it founding). Given the anti-establishment, anti-centralized-power mood in many other European countries, including France, a founding member or the club, that process may give rise to the kind of Europe that Brexiteers want. And they will have achieved this without having to negotiate access to European markets from the outside.  

To Laugh or Cry

I am not a US citizen so I will not be voting on Tuesday. I would have liked to have taken part in the 2008 and 2012 election, if only to have been able to say I had played a part electing Barack Obama. His 2008 campaign was exciting, optimistic and uplifting. This time I am thankful to be able to disavow, utterly and completely, any involvement in something so sordid, so depressingly uninspiring, so shameful, so deserving of contempt and ridicule.

Vladimir Putin's attempts to swing the election toward Trump are (probably) motivated in part by his antipathy toward Hillary (she criticised the integrity of the Russian electoral process while serving as Secretary of State), but also because in Trump he has found someone whom he parade in front of Russians, as he rigs his elections, to say "that's what freedom and democracy looks like". Authoritarian regimes all over the world must be rejoicing at the ugly spectacle that is this general election and the extent to which it has sullied the ideal of the democratic process.           

How we got here is complex but George Packer, talking to Terri Gross this week, provided one of the most interesting explanations for the rise of Trump. He noted that the the working class were gradually deserted by the Democrats, who saw the decline of the power of trades unions and sought to shift their power base so the professional and educated liberals. Of course the unions were in part decimated by globalization and off-shoring, policies promoted by Bill Clinton. This was coupled with the general shift to the right of previously left-leaning parties (just as with "New Labour" in Britain) to gain the centre ground as their 1960s policies were being seen as increasingly outdated and irrelevant.

Packer also noted that the 90s answer to the rise of off-shoring, recently termed "Educationalist Elitism" by Hillary Clinton, was a college education. This was to be the way that the West would compete in the "knowledge economy" as manual jobs moved out. But that solution turned out to be doomed since the West doesn't have a monopoly on intelligence and its educational system has no distinctive competencies. So we are no more competitive in the knowledge economy than many other countries, and certainly not China and India.

If there is anything good to come out of this...

Well, I have to say nothing comes immediately to mind. Something did occur to me as I sat down to write, but now its gone. Time will tell.