There is a major design flaw in democracy.

Democracy works on majority votes which is a form of consensus.

- If the majority believe that money is important, then they'll vote to reflect that

- If the majority believe that God exists and rules on us, then they'll vote to reflect that

- If the majority believe that paparazzi are smart, then they'll vote to reflect that

- If the majority believe that the leaders have their best interests at heart, then they'll vote to reflect that

- If the majority believe that Trump is smarter than Obama, then they'll vote to reflect that

- If the majority believe that science and climate change are phony, then they'll vote to reflect that

The only and only way to mitigate the effect of this bug is to have a well-educated set of majority voters. Unfortunately, for far too many years, school-districting and "choice" of education to young kids has under-educated the masses...resulting in voters genuinely believing crap to be true.

The result is Brexit and Trump.

When the critical mass of our populace prefers news from tabloids and facebook and are unable to think for themselves, there's really not much democracy can do.

And if the left actually pushes the idea that free trade, global free movement of labor, financialization and asset inflation are good ?

Brexit is the first real anti-globalization decision made in decades. You'd think the left would be beside themselves with joy that finally, after all the shouting, demonstrations, activism, ... finally ONE correct decision was made. Finally.

If large amounts of the left are convinced this decision is wrong. Does that count as stupid as well ? The result of fake news ?

Newsflash: globalization, and the very existence of the EU, works against everyone but capital owners. It works against the working class, it works against the middle class, even against most of the upper class.

When did the left become pro-globalization? I didn't realize it happened until brexit/trump, was it a reaction to this or did it happen earlier?

All those young people protesting Trump and other similar issues, if they were born 15 years earlier they would have been at the battle of Seattle and Trump would be seen as the messiah.

I think in part the word 'globalization' has become too vague.

As far as I know, but correct me if I'm wrong, the left has always been pro-globalization, just in a different way ('workers of the world, unite!'?). When it comes to the EU, most (reasonable) left-wing people I know are 'pro', but with very mixed feelings.

But then I feel that a deeper issue is that the words 'left' and 'right' leave out so much information (these days) that they actively harm productive conversation. At the very least we disentangle the 'social' and 'economic' dimensions.

If we'd do that I think at least some of the confusion over the seemingly inconsistent attitudes towards globalization will make more sense.

At least in Europe, it happened earlier, long before Trump. Right now the left is actually fighting FOR the EU.

It's baffling.

Extreme globalization is bad. But globalization is good. Before globalization, there existed wars. Ask your Grandpa.

He'd sit down and take a sip of his tea, a hit of opium, sprinkle some pepper on his eggs and explain that we had globalisation before both world wars.

What we did have was protections so that first world people weren't competing with third world labor laws. Now the thought of any kind of tariff protection is heresy.

>> He'd sit down and take a sip of his tea, a hit of opium, sprinkle some pepper on his eggs and explain that we had globalisation before both world wars.

The globalization before world wars was the type which favored the British through exploitation of colonies. That exploitation led to many small scale wars (armed and civil). Towards the end of the British empire, many Brits lost their wealth and investments in colonies.

>> What we did have was protections so that first world people weren't competing with third world labor laws. Now the thought of any kind of tariff protection is heresy.

UK is nothing special on this planet. God didn't come one day and say, "Hey, you guys are special. You guys deserve better labor laws at the expense of your colonies. Here's all the wealth of the world for you."

The wealth, luxury and healthcare that is afforded by the average British is a consequence of colonization (a form of globalization) which started from 1600s. Let's look at the historical timeline:

1600-1950: This was the time when third world people were fighting and dying for resources because the British empire exploited them. All the labor protections the British people got was because of the massive wealth extraction from other countries. There simply was more wealth per citizen.

1200-1500: Before above wealth, Britain had the same labor laws as the "third world".

Looks like the rest of the world is not a slave to colonization any more and are making the most of it. Do you disagree they don't deserve to try to improve their lives?

If UK recedes from the global market, nobody gives a fuck to be honest. Other countries will find a way to continue trade without the UK and keep building their own wealth.

> The globalization before world wars was the type which favored the British through exploitation of colonies.

Much of it yes, but the history of global trade is a lot longer than the British empire, a lot wider too.

>Looks like the rest of the world is not a slave to colonization any more and are making the most of it. Do you disagree they don't deserve to try to improve their lives?

They can try all they want, but don't expect the working class in the rest of the world to sit idly by while their standard of living disappears. Ask you'r grandfather about the revolutions that happen when the working class get screwed.

Brexit can hardly be said to be the product of a populace unable to think for themselves when the outcome was in spite of an overwhelming campaign to the contrary by every establishment interest group your can think of; MPs, trade unions, business leaders, academics, foreign presidents, the judiciary, the press, the BBC, bankers, scientists, artists, celebrities... it was absolutely relentless. And a people who if anything are normally too moved by the influence of these groups, suddenly in the face of them all speaking in unison decided that this time they would make their own minds up thank you very much.

I won't comment on Trump, but repeating the mantra that the Brexit vote was due to stupidity on the part of voters over and over again not only won't make it true, it didn't work to convince the leavers to vote remain.

There is a very interesting failure of imagination of the remain campaign in assuming that their best interests were the same as other people's, and denigrating or dismissing other people's concerns as due to stupidity or racism. The Brexit vote result is a comeupance for this self-serving elite.

>> There is a very interesting failure of imagination of the remain campaign in assuming that their best interests were the same as other people's, and denigrating or dismissing other people's concerns as due to stupidity or racism. The Brexit vote result is a comeupance for this self-serving elite.

I'm not saying that they didn't vote with their best interest at heart. But best self-interest with incomplete information can lead to disasters.

Let's say brexit causes some other country in EU to become the financial powerhouse of the region, means a lot of jobs get out of the UK, which means more strain on social services and lower value of investments already made by said voters, which means poorer retirement.

The above could well be right or wrong. But do you really think the average citizen actually thought about all this? Or did they just charge out because they "felt" left out?

Given a choice, most citizens' self interest dictates cheap housing, education and healthcare with lower taxes. Self-interest asks for wealth without working. Just voting it into law without understanding the repercussions is a recipe for disaster.

In a democratic system, the tactic of dismissing other people as stupid is not a successful one. I don't want to comment on Trump's campaign, but a similar thing certainly seems to have happened with the climate change debate.

You are assuming I'm calling other people stupid. I'm merely claiming that the bigger global powers at play simply don't matter to the average human as much as their immediate circumstances (job, family, income, healthcare)...and that's why they don't vote for external circumstances.

All of the above (family, job, income, housing etc) need underlying structures. These underlying structures are complex and intertwined with one another.

When the average person comes out and votes, "Why should I pay for other's health problems?"...it sounds fair at a local level. At a societal level, it's a major problem.

Most voters are not going to vote at a societal level.

> You are assuming I'm calling other people stupid.

No, I have no idea about you beyond the comment above, I have not even read your post history or profile. I was expanding on the point I made to include climate change.

Voters are rather more nuanced than you give them credit for.

You missed a critical point - the "well educated" leading us into financial crises, expenses scandals, lying to us etc generally means they lose respect.

I'm very sure this was entirely intentional. In a position of power you need to reduce those whose favor you have to buy.

Ok, but Obama and Clinton were also elected by the same majority. And in their terms they did until now a lot of things worse thawhat came from Brexit or Trump election. All modern elections are manipulated. Yes we can?

even if you don't buy the tabloids, wouldn't seeing the headlines over and over in all newsstands while you are walking around still influence you more or less subliminally? And obviously since the point of a headline is to get you to buy the paper, the incentive is to make it as purchase-baity and truth-stretching as possible

Seems that for the press there can be influence even without an actual sale.

I wonder what demographic buys the most tabloids, because AFAIUI the Brexit support was skewed hugely towards rural (and non-Scottish/NI) areas.

(I might have missed it in my extremely quick skim, but I don't think the article actually touched on this... which is suprising. I mean, it did mention something about "outside London", but...?)

Note that the tabloids have different Scottish editions with radically different editorial policies; the Scottish Sun and the Scottish Daily Mail, while visibly close siblings of their English sister-papers, often cover headline topics (and editorialize) in diametrically opposite directions on key issues (such as Europe, England/Scotland relations, etc).

I can quite understand this distinction eluding a NYTimes reporter, though — it's not widely recognized even in England.

The same thing happens in Ireland with those newspapers.

For example, when Martin McGuinness died a few weeks ago, the newspapers had radically different front pages: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/C7gsyt4X...

https://1k95i3bqziq3bboq03r87f8x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

From the article:

> Other newspapers in Mr. Murdoch’s group supported remaining in the European Union, Mr. Gallagher noted, reflecting the views of their readers. Among that group was the Scottish edition of The Sun, which like Scottish voters backed Remain.

Oh, that's very interesting -- even though I like to think of myself as quite familiar with British culture (etc.) I had no idea!

I used to deliver papers (this was a few years ago) but a good cross section of the community read tabloids (maybe with a broadsheets or two) so from the crappy little run down estate houses to the more affluent 'mini-mansions'

Rural, and older, and less likely to be educated to degree level.

Wonderful article, entertaining and well-written. I wish the NYT would publish more stories like this.

To understand Trump, look at the NYT.

> Mr. Johnson, wild-haired and witty

Boris has never struck me as witty.