This is part one of a two-part series on how sensible and thoughtful people should respond to the increasingly chaotic and scandal-prone Trump administration. This week I’ll be talking about the Democrats, next week about the Republicans, so look out for that! 

In theory, Democrats should be cheery at the moment, at least from the perspective of electoral prospects. Their prediction that a Trump presidency would harm America’s reputation on the world stage and prove divisive at home has come true. Far from uniting America, the country is more divided than ever, with Trump suffering from record-low approval ratings for a president at this stage of his tenure. Even on the Republicans’ own terms, the administration has been ineffective at getting things done. While it’s true that a Supreme Court justice has been nominated, the Trans-Pacific Partnership cancelled and some Obama-era regulations repealed, the two big issues for the GOP- healthcare and tax reform- remain unaddressed. If both were as urgent as Republicans have been telling us for years, then they should have drafted legislation and agreed upon it, ready to be made law upon a Republican electoral victory. Their failure to plan has made a mockery of both themselves and the wider conservative movement.

So if Trump and his Republican Congress are such obvious failures, then why aren’t Democrats more popular? Partly because they’ve failed to learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. They still assume that attacking Republicans will be enough to win. But Democrats need to put policies of their own that command popular support, or else continue to be irrelevant. The problem with Clinton’s campaign is that it seemed so content with the status quo, only promising minor tweaks when America is desperately in need of major reform. Such complacency ought to have been purged from the Democratic ranks, yet to this very day it stubbornly remains.

Take for instance, healthcare. For years, the Republicans have been opportunistically taking advantage of Obamacare’s shortcomings- high deductibles, high premiums, people who still lack insurance. But the fact is, none of those issues can be addressed by the federal government without more taxes and regulations, which Republicans are ideologically opposed to. This has been clear ever since the Affordable Care Act became law, yet most Americans didn’t realise it until now. However, many Democrats seem content to only propose minor adjustments to the ACA now that it enjoys majority support. This simply isn’t good enough. Voters’ concerns about the ACA were perfectly legitimate, even if some of them were wrong to propose repealing the law in its entirety. As I’ve proposed in detail here (http://hanrott.com/blog/what-americans-can-learn-from-the-nhs-and-what-britons-can-learn-from-american-healthcare/), any American should be able to buy their way into Medicare, by giving up a higher proportion of their income to the government, thus guaranteeing health insurance to everyone using an existing and largely popular mechanism. The Democrats should be united in their support for this, yet from many we hear very little.

Healthcare isn’t the only area where Democrats lack ambition. Social security is another. It’s clear that America has a poverty rate far too high for a country with that high a GDP per capita. It’s also clear that the incomes of the wealthiest Americans have risen at a far faster rate than for the general population. So why not reform the welfare system and the tax system at the same time, by introducing a negative income tax. It’s a complex proposal and the specifics would have to be figured out by experts. But in layman’s terms, its essentially a form of wealth redistribution, where everyone earning below the tax threshold gets paid a lump sum, depending on how much they earn below that threshold- the less they earn, the more the government gives them. It would have the double advantage of both drastically reducing poverty and simplifying the tax code, rather than the mess of deductions and credits that currently exists. But I’m yet to hear any Democrats talk about it.

Although Democrats should be bold and radical in their proposals, they should shy away from some of the more crass class warfare rhetoric that was very prominent in the 2016 Democratic primary, particularly from Bernie Sanders. I won’t for a moment defend any illegal or immoral behaviour committed by anyone in the financial sector. But if the Democrats are to win businesses over, they must demonstrate that they aren’t the enemies of wealth. Rather than rant about how terrible some rich people are, they should talk about the benefits of Democratic policies for everyone, the rich included. For instance, spending more on the education system will give employers a better educated workforce. Repairing and upgrading the country’s infrastructure will be good for business. Moreover, the Medicare for all plan would mean that employers would no longer have to feel as if they have to provide healthcare for their employees. This would represent a major saving for them.

Finally, I think the Democrats at the federal level should be honest and realistic about what they can achieve. America’s federal system is a wonderful thing, but it limits the power of the federal government. Instead, Democrats need to utilise the state and local governments more, particularly in times like these when the federal government is so ineffective and hostile. If federal environmental regulations are repealed, reenact them at the state level. If the federal government won’t build new roads or railways, then the states should do them, using local taxes and private investment. The downside of all this is that most governors and state legislatures are Republican. The Democrat obsession with the presidency has come at the expense of smaller but equally important elections. Democrats should fight much harder in these, including ensuring that the currently embarrassing rates of voter turnout improve.

Awhile ago I was recommended to write a post on the future of European integration. At the time I had just completed a module on the subject at university. But since I had not performed as well in it as I hoped I would, I felt like I didn’t have the expertise to treat the subject properly. Moreover, the increasing volatility of politics has made the future hard to predict. What I can do is outline the vision Europe’s leaders have for the EU, and give my response to them, as well as draw comparisons between the vision of the EU27 and the UK’s future after Brexit.

This week’s article comes from the prime ministers of the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland- three wealthy and politically stable EU member states. https://euobserver.com/opinion/138669. The overall gist of their vision is one of stability, continuity and common sense reform; building on the successes of current levels of European integration, rather than trying to do anything too radical. For the three leaders, the dream of a European superstate is a silly fantasy that isn’t going to happen, even if it’s desirable. But equally, they see no reason to abolish the existing aspects of the EU that enjoy popular support, such as financial passporting rights, the absence of customs checks, or Eurotom. For Europe to thrive, both the EU and individual member states must step up to the challenge. A pragmatic approach is needed, where policy areas are made either on the EU level or the nation state level, depending on which would be most effective. The EU cannot continue to be a scapegoat for the failure of its member states; if a country suffers from too much debt or underinvestment in education, it cannot blame Brussels.

I’m very impressed at the maturity and thoughtfulness of these three leaders. They don’t engage in insults or conspiracy theories. Their solutions are practical, realistic and evidence-based. Most importantly, they remain calm in what remains quite a challenging time for Europe. Given Brexit, it would be tempting to assume that the EU is hopelessly flawed and needs a radical overhaul. But the fact is, the UK has always been the most Eurosceptic member state, even when its economy was doing relatively well (until recently.) In particular, freedom of movement has always been unpopular here, but not anywhere else. You don’t get Germans or Swedes protesting against EU migrants, even when they make up a higher proportion of their populations than they do ours. So there’s no need to get rid of any aspect of European integration that has popular support, even if British people don’t approve of it.

The level-headedness of these prime ministers couldn’t be a greater contrast to the mess that is the state of Britain’s leaders. On the one hand, the governing Conservative Party is a laughing stock on the world stage. A host of negotiators, both British and European, say that we are totally unprepared for the negotiations, and have unrealistic prospects about their outcome. Our leaders have insulted the EU, telling it to ‘go whistle,’ and even accusing it of trying to undermine our election. The idea that centre-right Jean Claude Juncker could be in favour of hard-left Jeremy Corbyn is blatantly absurd, yet the prime minister believes it regardless. But on the other hand, Labour’s leadership seem just as deluded on Brexit. They seem to believe we can have all of the benefits of the Single Market while leaving it, which isn’t the case at all. The more intelligent Labour MPs (including my local MP) have been sidelined by Corbyn’s unexpected success in the most recent election. The only consistently pro-European party, the Liberal Democrats, are still a mere shadow of their former selves.

Like these three leaders, I’m not a European federalist, because I don’t think a European nation is workable given the size and cultural diversity of the EU. The problem in Britain is that everyone in the EU is perceived to be a federalist, except us. Nothing could be further from the truth. The are a few federalists, of course, but there are also a few communists. Just because some people hold a particular view, doesn’t mean everyone does, and it certainly doesn’t make it likely to happen. The fact is, any significant transfer of power to the EU would require a treaty change, which as a member state we could veto. These three prime ministers also outline their opposition to treaty change here.

The misperception of the prevalence of federalist ideology is only one aspect of how the British people were misinformed. If they had heard more arguments from the likes of these three men, perhaps Brexit would never have happened. The EU aside, the governments of these countries are not all that different from David Cameron’s administration. They both value balanced budgets, stability, free trade and much more besides. They are certainly closer to the centre of British public opinion than the likes of Nigel Farage or Liam Fox. But what distinguishes them from Britain’s pro-Europeans is their ability and willingness to outline a positive vision for the EU and its nations, rather than simply warn about the consequences of leaving. Most British people seem embarrassed to be ideologically pro European, even if that is what they are. Equally, unlike the Conservative Party, they do not blame the EU for their own failures. The main problems with Britain’s economy- low productivity, high house prices in the London area, and a regional imbalance in wealth creation- all have nothing to with the EU. When they persist and perhaps worsen after Brexit, the fallout will be anger and a feeling of betrayal.

I hope the vision of these three leaders materialises, and I suspect it will. Contrary to the predictions of many Leave supporters, the EU is remarkably united. It will continue to build on the successes of the Single Market to new areas, particularly digital technology and energy, to promote competition and choice across borders. The biggest challenge to the EU is the Euro, which the leaders fail to mention. The Euro has clearly been a success for many nations, even poorer ones like Estonia and Slovenia, which is why it is as popular as ever. https://www.ft.com/content/37e5d471-f25f-3dc7-9c7b-6218d5907687. But for some, Greece especially, it hasn’t worked as intended. Although Greece should honour its debts, it should also be allowed to leave the Euro if it wants to.

Because I’m British, I want Britain to do as well as possible. So I hope the Leave campaign is right that Britain will thrive outside the EU, or at the very least, not be at the bottom of the European economic growth table for much longer. It’s almost impossible to say for sure how things will turn out. But for now, I suspect that if Britain thrives in the future, it will be despite Brexit, not because of it.

From The Times:

What lay behind last year’s historic vote to leave the EU? As soon as the referendum was over, Brexit advocates began to claim it was all about “freeborn Englishmen and women casting off the EU’s federalising yoke”. No, says Clare Foges. To see the reality, you need only look at the polls that YouGov has been conducting fortnightly since 2010. Immigration was and is the “clincher” issue. Most Leavers didn’t vote for the UK “to take back control” in an abstract sense, but to retake control of its borders and slash immigrant numbers. Problem is, it won’t happen. The Government has long “controlled” non-EU net migration (which exceeds EU net migration), yet has never been able to stem it, any more than it has illegal immigration (reckoned at 250,000 a year). What hope, then, of Theresa May “controlling” the flow of EU arrivals now her party has lost its majority and is under huge pressure to accept freedom of movement as part of a soft Brexit? So after all those promises and all the pain of Brexit, there’ll be “no major reduction of immigration at the end of it”. I fear we’re set to become a nation fuelled by the “greatest sense of betrayal in generations”.   (Clare Foges, The Times, re- published in The Week, 22 July 2017)

I don’t at all perceive any sign of rising fury or sense of betrayal –  yet.  The Brexit referendum vote was met with delight by the Little Englanders and those who believed that £350 million would magically be applied to the National Health Service within weeks, instead of being sent to crafty foreigners in Brussels.  The vote was narrow and the Remainers did a dire job at getting over the dangers of Brexit.

Since that referendum, which should have been treated as advisory, pending full research into the implications and into the dozens of complex problems to be sorted out (or not), the Remainers have acted like so many resigned sheep.  No agitation at the fecklessness and cluelessness of the government.  Seems it’s a done deal, except that it isn’t.  Yes, the general election didn’t go well for the Brexiters, but only because, at long last, young people put down their cellphones and voted, but not really for the principle of the EU, real politique and their own futures.

Ms. Foges’s sense of betrayal will come, but far too late.   The economy is already stalling.  London, for one, is being run day to day by immigrants, and will still be run by immigrants in ten year’s time.  Only by then the full horror of what was so casually done will have seeped through, and then it will be too late.  The perpetrators of this stupidity will blame someone else, but, nonetheless, it will be the Brexiters who will have visited the greatest historical betrayal in British history upon the population.  For the moment the latter are asleep.

Maybe the only way the Brexiters can get rid of the immigrants is when it dawns on the world that China is top dog and Chinese is the language to learn.  Then even young foreigners will stop coming to London to hone their English and go to Singapore or Shanghai to learn Chinese.  Young immigrants are not in London because of its good bus service.

From Sam Edge, Ringwood, Hampshire, UK

Most of the cost of drug development comes from the public purse, not from the large pharmaceutical companies (3 June, p 22). Independent research has repeatedly shown that these companies spend only around 15 per cent of their revenue on research and development. Tellingly, most spend at least twice as much on marketing.  The remuneration of the bosses has risen inexorably for no other reason than it has been able to.

From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK

It is commonplace these days to encounter companies set up with notional dual objectives: to meet social needs at the same time as making profits for shareholders. I can think of no example where the two motivations haven’t sooner or later come into conflict as, for example, when economic forces place pressures on profits and the social need is pushed into second place and suffers.

A company may be supplying multimillion dollar drug regimes, as Clare Wilson describes, or social carers for pennies, storing up the crisis that James Bloodworth predicts (3 June, p 24). Whatever their initial ambitions, the profit maximisation imperative eventually takes over.

The obvious long-term solution in both cases is clear. All aspects of health and social care must be brought under social ownership and control. That way, the efforts of the universities – alluded to by Wilson – will be recognised; investment can be directed purely towards need, rather than towards areas of maximum potential profit; and any profits can be fed back into the system itself rather than into the pockets of remote and uninterested investors.   (The above letters appeared in June 2017 editions of New Scientist, and have been edited for the sake of brevity).

My comment: the horse is long out of the stable.  There is no public appetite for nationalization, and in any case government is rarely any good at managing companies.  However, if company wants to do business with the NHS, there should be communitarian rules:  limits on what companies should pay their CEOs (say no more than ten times the average salary?); no television advertising of ethical pharmaceutical drugs; the banning of gifts (inducements) to prescribing doctors. Or, if companies groan under this regime, they should be able to repay the government and universities for all research costs, and thus have more control  Let pharmceutical companies make profits by all means, but, in the spirit of Epicurus, moderate profits.  It is not acceptable for the public to be paying for most of the research only to be ripped off in the pharmacy.