Listen now (70 mins) | Yascha Mounk and Matthew Goodwin discuss the political perils (and opportunities) of shifting political constituencies.
Both the Tories and Labour in Britain, and the Republicans and Democrats in the US, are pro-neoliberal, corporatist, pro-oligarchy parties. Even though large majorities in both countries don't want massive, unprecedented levels of in-migration and demographic change, and all of the societal and cultural chaos that comes with it, it doesn't matter who they vote for, no one in the ruling class will respect that preference at the policy level.
Populism--when the will of the people is respected by the leadership--is the antithesis of oligarchy. Mounk, strangely, continually insists that oligarchy is "democracy" and populism is a threat to democracy. In a recent article he and his interviewee came right out and said so.
Thank you for this insightful article. Goodwin is correct. The views of the radical progressives outlined below and promulgated by the mainstream media have caused me, a life-long former lefty, to move firmly to the center. If the Democrats continue to affirm and champion the most extreme cultural issues from the radical left, they will lose me. I won't vote GOP; I'll simply stay home.
Do people no longer vote based on their beliefs about the role of government in their lives? We in the US seem to be stuck with activists on the left and right who want to control our lives just in different ways. Further, to me it appears that many recent immigrants are or would like to be entrepreneurs and would, therefore, want a less intrusive government. Less intrusive government is hardly a principle of the Democrats and is being abandoned by the Republicans.
There is actually a funny statement about all this from a very informed source. Andy Burnham said the anti-Brexit movement was '‘Too much Hampstead, not enough Hull'. Of course, he was right. Hampstead voted against Brexit (76.6% to 23.4%). Hull was very much in favor of Brexit (67.6% to 32.4%). Rotherham also voted for Brexit. I wonder why?
I was struck by something in the introduction. You articulated a concern that, in the wake of the Trump indictment, some red-state prosecutors would engage in "political" prosecution. That may be a valid concern, but it was weird that you raised it without wondering whether the Trump prosecution could be political. Last I heard, the details of the indictment were not available, and commentators like Sarah Isgur and David French were skeptical.
"And his reward was the biggest majority since the days of Margaret Thatcher" Boris Johnson had a huge advantage, his opponent was Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn was a far-left nutcase. He proudly embraced terrorism. No successor to Johnson is going to have such an easy opponent any time soon.