Thursday, June 30, 2016

Our Tribal Elite

We are experiencing on a massively universal scale a convulsive ingathering of people in their numberless grouping of kinds—tribal, racial, linguistic, religious, national. It is a great clustering into separatenesses that will, it is thought, improve, insure, or extend each group’s power or place, to keep it safe or safer from the power, threat, or hostility of others. This is obviously no new condition, only the latest and by far the most inclusive chapter of the old story in which after failing again to find how they can co-exist in sight of each other without tearing each other from limb to limb, Isaac and Ishmael clash and part in panic and retreat once more into their caves. Harold Isaacs, Idols of the Tribe
It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses. James Traub

Did Bob Geldof win the Brexit Referendum for Leave? His little antic on the Thames in the run up to the vote probably convinced a few hundred thousand Sun readers which side they were on. That's what happens when you're a member of the IYI elite (Taleb's label: Intellectual-Yet-Idiot). But as James Traub signals, the elite are beginning to realise that they belong to a tribe too, and maybe they should 'ingather' as well to protect themselves from those other, nasty tribes. Heck, even The Guardian is beginning to realise that 'elections are bad for democracy'. IYI indeed.

Of course this has all happened before. Harold Isaacs made the above observation back in 1975. My favourite Archdruid channels a different historian to explain what's going on, this time Arnold Toynbee:
Societies in decline, he pointed out, schism into two unequal parts: a dominant minority that monopolizes the political system and its payoffs, and an internal proletariat that carries most of the costs of the existing order of things and is denied access to most of its benefits. As the schism develops, the dominant minority loses track of the fundamental law of politics—the masses will only remain loyal to their leaders if the leaders remain loyal to them—and the internal proletariat responds by rejecting not only the dominant minority’s leadership but its values and ideals as well.
Toynbee famously once observed that 'civilizations die from suicide, not by murder'. It's a well established pattern apparently.

But probably the best analysis I have read recently about Brexit and all that is Damon Linker's superb analysis of how Brexit shattered progressives' dearest illusions. Here are a few choice quotes:
But what we've seen from a wide range of writers and analysts in the days since the Brexit vote is not necessarily worry. It is shock. Fury. Disgust. Despair. A faith has been shaken, illusions shattered, pieties punctured. This is what happens when a life-orienting system of belief gets smashed on the rocks of history. The name of that shattered system of belief? Progressivism.
And the it gets interesting:
The European Union may well be the purest and most ambitious experiment in progressivism ever attempted — a transnational economic and political entity founded entirely on the moral premises of humanitarian universalism, which is to say on the negation of particularistic attachments.  
...But what if progressivism isn't inevitable at all? What if people will always be inclined by nature to love their own — themselves, their families, their neighbors, members of their churches, their fellow citizens, their country — more than they love the placeless abstraction of "humanity"? In that case, the act of ignoring or even denigrating this love will have the effect of provoking its defensive wrath and ultimately making it stronger.
Please do read the whole thing.

As I said before, I think the biggest fallout from Brexit will be political not economic (the latter may even prove benign for the UK, though probably not for Ireland). But the political consequences could be very dire indeed if they amount to a 'coup d'etat' by Europe's IYI elite should they tire of the whole democracy thing. The retreat to the caves has begun.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Young, Male & Anti-Establishment

YouGov has released the results of their Brexit exit poll, weighted to the, ahem, actual result.

Not surprisingly, the generational divide by age stands out - which I noted previously and which led me to forecast a win for Leave at the start of June.

But a more surprising finding has also emerged from the exit poll: young British men were twice as likely to vote Leave as young British women, I've highlighted the results in red:

What's going on? Partly it is the often observed inclination for women to vote for the status quo more than men. That's not to say that women are more conservative than men, by the way. Whether the status quo is liberal/leftist/globalist (the current setting) or conservative/rightist/nationalist, women lean towards the status quo more than men, most of the time.

But I think there's more to it than that. I think young men in Britain, and elsewhere I suspect, have found themselves trapped in the glass cellar and have had enough. The fact that young men were twice as likely as young women to vote Leave is just one measure of their dissatisfaction (though the majority voted Remain it should be added).

Mike Carter's extraordinary article on the England that has been left behind paints a picture of the despair that many Britons, young and old, are experiencing in their daily lives. Just one line says it all:
What does it say about a town when even the charity shops are struggling?
The political party that channels the anti-establishment mood of so many young, British men will have an army of supporters and activists on its side. Better their dissatisfaction be channelled into democratic politics than the alternative...

Sunday, June 26, 2016

The Forecasts Are Always Wrong

I always thought Brexit would create more political problems for Ireland and Europe than economic ones. All the forecasts of economic 'doom and gloom' that appear to accompany every change the Establishment disapproves of tend to turn out wrong.

Roger Bootle has noticed this as well and thinks Brexit will turn out to be the great escape:
I am afraid the consensus of economic experts has an extraordinary record of getting big practical issues horrendously wrong. The UK has just made a momentous decision that is bound to cause some dislocation. In 1931, the UK was forced off the Gold Standard. The economic establishment warned that this would be disastrous. Instead, it ushered in the fastest period of growth in our industrial history. In 1992 the establishment warned that we had to stay in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) or catastrophe would be unleashed. We were forced out and the economy blossomed. In the late 1990s we were warned by Uncle Tom Cobley and all that we must join the euro – or else. We didn’t – thank goodness – and we prospered. The weight of academic and establishment economists did not foresee “the death of inflation” or the financial crisis of 2008/9. A prolonged period of modesty from them would be appropriate.
That's not to say it will be an easy economic ride for Ireland - but what if Brexit turns out to be good not just for the British economy but for ours as well?

I think the reverse about the prospect of a President Trump, by the way. While the commentariat are focused on the politics (and the name calling), it's the economic impact of Trump in the White House that should concern us most. A President who wants to Make America Great Again will insist on all those 'tax shy' American companies we currently host on this fair island returning to their homeland - or else.

I'd suggest the next time Trump offers to visit us that our Taoiseach join him for a round of golf rather than indulging in leftist virtue signalling in the Dáil.  One forecast I am certain of: we'll need all the friends we can get in the turbulent years ahead.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Long Time Gone

Richard Fernandez channels the inevitable Titanic metaphor:
Countries don't usually walk out on a good thing without a reason just as passengers don't leave 50,000 ton ocean liners for wooden boats without motivation.
It has been fascinating to watch 'Remainers' (including their Irish counterparts) explain why more than 17 million Britons voted to leave the EU. Most of the explanations range from racism to educational attainment (or lack thereof) to old age (grandad's army) and back to racism again. Some have held their nose to lift the lid and look a little closer. Apparently the Leavers were motivated by nostalgia, nationalism and racism (but sure didn't we know that already?)

Yet as someone once said: the issue is never the issue. Brexit wasn't about immigration no more than the result of our recent general election was about water charges. What happened on 23rd June 2016 was that the bigger, more cohesive tribe won. All politics is tribal, repeat: ALL. The problem is - as I've noted before - not everyone realises they belong to a tribe: especially, it would seem, the Remainers.

The tribal bonds that matter most are those based on Identity. The Leavers focused on belonging, independence and cohesion. While the Remainers argued from the wrong end of the Persuasion Stack - promising the Great Euro Shopping Mall in the sky: which didn't cut it for some reason.

Europe has hit an iceberg, let's hope there are enough lifeboats.

Friday, June 24, 2016


As with most historic moments there's a tendency to view things as 'the end of the world as we know it'. But it isn't: the birds keep singing and the rain keeps raining.

But it's certainly the end of something - perhaps the end of globalisation as a political and not just economic force in human affairs for a generation or two. Certainly the forward march of the European Union has been halted. But again, it's too early to tell, as it is with most things Brexit-related right now.

One thing I expect future historians will wonder is why so many people were surprised by the outcome of yesterday's UK referendum?  The Pew Research Center recently published a poll showing attitudes towards the European Union from within and without the EU. I've extracted the data and summarised the trend (where data is available) between 2007 and 2016. Only one country has become more favourably disposed towards the EU in recent years: the United States of America. As for European countries? Not so much. I've ranked the results by 'net favourability' (% favourable minus % unfavourable), showing the country that is least favourably disposed first:

Attitudes towards the European Union
% Favourable % Unfavourable Net Favourable
2007 2016 2007 2016 2007 2016
Greece 27 71 -44
France 62 38 38 61 24 -23
UK 52 44 36 48 16 -4
Spain 80 47 15 49 65 -2
Germany 68 50 30 48 38 2
Netherlands 51 46 5
Sweden 59 54 37 44 22 10
Italy 78 58 13 39 65 19
Hungary 61 37 24
USA 47 53 22 27 25 26
Poland 83 72 11 22 72 50
Q. Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somwhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the European Union?
Source: Pew Research Center

Not surprisingly, Greece is least favourably disposed towards the EU right now. But the big surprise is France - they are even less favourably disposed than the British (as I noted before). Nevertheless, the trend is quite stark: in every single EU country for which there is trend data the % unfavourably disposed towards the European Union has risen sharply in the past ten years.

There's no need to panic just yet, but there's no excuse for complacency either.

St. Crispin's Revenge

God bless the English, I didn't think they had it in them any more.

Today is a great day for patriots everywhere, though probably not so good for the markets. June 23rd 2016 will go down in history as England's Easter Monday 1916.

Mind you, Easter Tuesday, Wednesday etc didn't go so well in 1916. But what came afterwards was quite extraordinary.

St Crispin would be proud, and we needn't think ourselves accurs'd we were not there:

Tuesday, June 7, 2016


Whilst things have taken an interesting turn across the Irish Sea (Peter Hitchens speculates the UK may have an early general election and even a constitutional crisis if there's a narrow win for Leave), it's what's happening across the English Channel that may matter even more to Europe's future (and Ireland's, come to think of it).

Yet another fascinating poll from YouGov, this time across seven EU countries including the UK, reveals a depth of negativity, pessimism and anger in mainland Europe that certainly took me by surprise. While I had heard about the recent air traffic controllers strike in France (about as seasonal and as welcome as greenfly), I hadn't quite grasped the very, very polarised mood in that country. There's even talk of another French Revolution and civil war. Way worse than greenfly.

The YouGov numbers are shocking: more than half of French adults feel their financial situation has worsened in the past 12 months (26% a lot worse), and nearly as many expect the situation to worsen again in the next 12 months (21% a lot worse). No surprise then that 80% of French people don't approve of their government's record to date, but maybe more surprising is that the Swedish, Germans, Finns and Danes aren't that far behind in their disapproval ratings either.

As for Brexit, the majority of Europeans in the poll expect that if Britain leaves then other countries will follow:

But back to France, what is going on? I recently read Michel Houellebecq's novel Submission - set in France's near future, 2022 to be precise - which paints a fictional picture of a country, even an entire civilisation, undergoing seismic shifts as a result of economic, social, cultural and religion strife. The focus is on the interplay between Islam and Laicité (France is reckoned to have the largest Muslim population in Europe, though it refuses to capture information about religion in its censuses).

What is clever about Houellebecq's novel is that he portrays Islam not as a revolutionary or radical force but as a conservative, even reactionary force in French affairs. The main Muslim political leader - Ben Abbes - is portrayed as one who is able to lead the national debate in a direction that the mainstream parties, nor his opponent the radical Tariq Ramadan, dare lead it:
Unlike his sometime rival Tariq Ramadan, Ben Abbes had kept his distance from the anti-capitalist left. He understood that the pro-growth right had won the ‘war of ideas’, that young people today had become entrepreneurs, and that no one saw any alternative to the free market. But his real stroke of genius was to grasp that elections would no longer be about the economy, but about values, and that here, too, the right was about to win the ‘war of ideas’ without a fight. 
But Abbes takes the struggle for values in a new and different direction, as Houellebecq describes it:
Whereas Ramadan presented sharia as forward-looking, even revolutionary, Ben Abbes restored its reassuring, traditional value - with a perfume of exoticism that made it all the more attractive. When he campaigned on family values, traditional morality and, by extension, patriarchy, an avenue opened up to him that neither the conservatives nor the National Front could take without being called reactionaries or even fascists by the last of the soixante-huitards, those progressive mummified corpses - extinct in the wider world - who managed to hang on the citadels of the media, still cursing the evil of the times and the toxic atmosphere of the country. Only Ben Abbes was spared. The left, paralysed by his multi-cultural background, had never been able to fight him, or so much as mention his name.
France still has its soixante-huitards, of course, and no doubt they're active in the current discontent gripping the country. But the mood now gripping Europe - angry, anti-establishment and open to radical change - isn't confined to 'mummified corpses' and it certainly won't go away after the 23rd June.

It's going to be a long hot summer in Europe, though hopefully without the greenfly.

Monday, June 6, 2016


Today's poll results from YouGov are of historic importance. It looks like the British will vote to leave the EU later this month:

It's a huge poll - sample of 3,495 - and the detailed tables that accompany the article are fascinating (for those of us into that sort-of-thing). First of all, it isn't the British who will vote to leave, it's the English living outside of London. Moreover, I haven't seen such a stark generational divide in a set of opinion polls in a very long time: the majority of 18-25 year olds want to remain in the EU; the majority of those over 50 want to leave. Both men and women are more likely to vote Leave than Remain, but more women are undecided than men (not unusual at this stage in an election/referendum). So the women will be decisive (as they were in the Scottish Referendum).

Based on this poll - and the momentum evident in the Leave vote since YouGov's April poll, you'd have to say it looks like 'Brits Out' (sorry, couldn't resist it :)

Andrew Cadman, referencing Muhammad Ali's recent demise, compares the Remain's campaign to poor old George Forman:
One of the many famous moments of sporting history that the recently departed Muhammad “The Greatest” Ali was associated with was the “Rope-a-Dope” tactic, deployed against George Foreman during the “Rumble in the Jungle” bout in 1974. Foreman hammered Ali relentlessly for almost the entire fight. Ali stayed on the ropes absorbing the punishment, countering just enough to avoid a technical knockout. Everyone thought Ali was finished, and even his own corner, ignorant of his plans, despaired. Late in the fight, Ali stormed out and took the initiative against a shocked Foreman, who was by this time too exhausted to change tactics. 
Something similar seems to have happened with the EU referendum campaign. The tactics of the Remainers were plainly to bludgeon the Leavers on the economy, supplying a blizzard of statistics (mostly false) and a line-up of heavyweight international figures all singing from the Remain hymn sheet. By this time, it was supposed to be all over: a dazed and confused Leave campaign would be on the ropes, still standing in name only.
It's going to go all the way to 12 rounds, and boy is it going to be a thriller.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

What's the Story?

Brexit was getting a bit boring until recently: one dismal report after another forecasting doom and disaster should the UK vote to leave. And sure, as we all know, economic forecasts are never wrong...

But some, more recent analyses and commentaries on the debate have at least been more interesting. Take BrainJuicer's fascinating look at the 'stories' being told about the choices facing Britain right now. It provides a deep insight into the seven narratives shaping the debate about the future, illustrated below:

Their point? Both sides are focused on the wrong stories: and someone needs to grab hold of 'Quest' (a story that talks about how Britain will thrive in the 21st century by building a strong and fair economy), but neither side has. Do read the whole thing.

Some on the Leave side think it's too late, however. From a libertarian perspective (apparently there are a few left in Britain), we get the following observation about the real issues at stake (and that are being ignored in the debate):
The ultimate cause of all the problems we face is not a few Directives that may or may not exist about the curvature of bananas. It is that we no longer see ourselves as a distinctive people, able and willing to hold onto our ancestral homeland and our ancestral ways. Membership if the European Union is one symptom of this collective failure. So is multiculturalism. So is our cultural prostration before America. So is the degeneracy of our rulers, and the immiserisation of our working classes. These symptoms cannot be addressed before the cause is addressed.
Even some English Catholics are joining in the debate, with Alan Fimister citing St Augustine for why the EU has fallen victim to libido dominandi – the lust for dominion. Something one of the European Community's founders, Robert Schuman, once feared, warning that the European project of Christian Democracy, if it became anti-Christian, “would be a caricature which would sink into either tyranny or anarchy.”

But the question may be even more fundamental than that, namely: what does it takes to build and maintain a civilisation? There is an old English saying that 'politics is the art of marshalling hatreds'. Over at Farnham Street blog, the philosopher Joseph Tussman reminds us that every civilisation - and the political, social and economic institutions it spawns - must wrestle with five fundamental passions: Eros (Love), Indignation (Moral Righteousness), Curiosity, Acquisitiveness, and Pride. He observes:
Civilization requires the institutionalization of the necessary but dangerous passions. Any civilization is a particular way of doing so, achieving–growing into–its complex forms more or less by happy accident. To describe a culture is to map its institutions. To criticize or evaluate a culture is to judge the adequacy of its institutions in light of some conception of how the various passions can best be expressed or shaped or harnessed to serve a variety of human purposes.
So there's the real issue: is the European Union inevitably sinking into 'tyranny or anarchy' - in which the UK, and Ireland for that matter, would be better off out - or is it our continent's last remaining opportunity in an increasingly dangerous world to shape and harness our passions to serve 'better' human purposes?

I guess it depends on the story you tell.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...