In comparison to the hysteria that greeted the outcome of the Brexit Referendum and the Election of Donald Trump back in 2016, the reaction of the political and cultural Establishment to the defeat of Kamala Harris has been relatively muted so far.
Do you remember the histrionics that greeted the outcome of the Brexit Referendum? Hardcore opponents of Brexit swiftly adopted the identity of a Remainer. Their hatred for Brexit energised them to organise numerous marches and demonstrations. They sought to reverse Brexit through the courts and did their best to de-legitimate the outcome of the referendum. At times the histrionic reaction of the Remainer Lobby to the Referendum led them towards an irrational outburst against what they represented as a racist electorate that had let them down.
The election Trump just a few months after the Brexit referendum further intensified the anxiety of the Anglo-American Elites. These two events in 2016 were perceived as a shock to the system. They served as an uncomfortable wakeup call to an entitled and complacent political class who rightly felt that they and their values were rejected by a significant section of society. The election of Trump forced them to realise that they had totally the state of public opinion. They could intuit that they were totally out of touch with the outlook of millions of American citizens.
Their shock was all the more intense because previously they seemed to be completely unaware of the scale of their isolation from sections of the American public. They were so used to influencing public opinion that they never once thought that it was possible for one of their own to lose the Presidential election. As political analyst Thomas Frank pointed out in November 2016, as the race unfurled the Washington establishment, and the media continued to act as if it was business as usual. They uncritically supported Hillary Clinton and refused to acknowledge that she had many flaws. Frank described how opening a newspaper felt like ‘tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station’. The American political class tried to defend its authority by pathologizing its opponents. Many thought that only ‘botched humans’ could support Trump[i].
As elite rage mutated into a form of collective psychosis, the events of 2016 led to what I previously described as democracy-panic amongst section of the Anglo-American opinion makers. This sense of panic was communicated through an alarmist anti-democratic rhetoric. For the philosopher A.C. Grayling, the author of Democracy and its Crisis (2017), the results of the referendum over Brexit and the of the 2016 American Presidential Election served as proof that ‘something has gone seriously wrong in the state of democracy’[ii].
Grayling was far from alone in condemning democracy for allowing populist movements to make significant headway. Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt’s book How Democracies Die (2018) pointed to ‘democratic backsliding’, which apparently ‘begins at the ballot box’. In this and other studies, democracies’ defects were attributed to the unpredictable and irrational behaviour of the people. The coupling of democracy with the metaphor of death is also highlighted in a feature of Foreign Affairs, which has as its title; ‘Is Democracy Dying’? Books with titles such as Saving Democracy From Suicide, Democracy In Chains, and How Democracy Ends,[iii] communicated a dystopian sense of foreboding about democracy, based on what they regard as its inability to deliver the right results.
The emergence of a self-consciously anti-democratic ethos amongst opponents and of Brexit and the election of Trump was used to assist the project of de-legitimatating these unwelcome outcomes. Their rejection of the legitimacy of democratic decision making was often expressed through calls to resists them through the courts or direct action. Mass demonstrations such as the Women’s March in 2017 – which in total included more than 4 million people in towns and cities- occurred throughout the United States[iv]. Arguably the first Trump presidency provoked the largest protests the country had seen in half a century.
The willingness to organise and resist the victory of populist forces in 2016 stands in sharp contrast to the mood of defeatism that has enveloped the elites and their allies in 2024. The headline of a report in The New York Times, ‘Get Somebody Else to Do It’: Trump Resistance Encounters Fatigue’ sums up the attitude that prevails amongst anti-Trump forces’[v]. Kim Whittaker, who was one of the organisers of the 2017 Women’s March indicated that this time around she isn’t taking to the street. According to a report ‘she’s asking, what’s the point’?
The contrast between 2016 and 2024 was highlighted by Politico. It noted that ‘The Trump Resistance Goes Flaccid’ and added ‘Donald Trump’s 2016 election stunner sparked a global revolt. His 2024 triumph has been met with a weary shrug’[vi]. This report added that ‘since Trump’s crushing victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in last Tuesday’s election, the reaction — from both Democratic voters and officials in European capitals — has been less one of fiery outrage and more muted resignation’.
Even within American celebrity circles- the most vociferous cheerleaders of Kamala Harris – there is little appetite for stirring things up. As the actor Mark Ruffalo observed; ‘In 2016, the reaction at the time felt like rage. People were motivated — inspired. They wanted to get up and get going,” says one agency insider. “In 2024, the reaction is much more somber and more resigned’.
A sense of despair and resignation is also noticeable on the on-line social platforms. As one report observed; ‘in 2016, online platforms were awash in calls to protest the day after Donald J. Trump’s victory whereas in the days following 5 November, many said it seemed like business as usual[vii].
Crisis of Legitimacy
Instead of talk resistance the anti-Trump lobby has adopted a defeatist tone that suggests that at least for now they have abandoned the field of battle. Numerous celebrities have claimed that they are packing their bags and leaving the US[viii]. Others have opted for a more symbolic exit strategy and decided that they need to leave X and find a social platform that could provide them with a safe space from which their political opponents are excluded. Many of them these Xeteers come across as traumatised would-be-patients in need of therapy. On the social media the anti-Trump lobby seems to have gone into survivalist mode. Some of them indicated that they are going out to renew their passports, others are stocking up on emergency contraception, while others are seeking out self-help groups.
In 2024, a kind of political helplessness combined with a bitter sense of paralysis has displaced the movements of resistance of 2016.
There are several reasons why the reaction of Trump’s opponents to his victory has been so muted. The scale of Trump’s electoral triumph can leave no one in doubt about support that he enjoys from citizens across different classes, genders and ethnicities. In contrast to the very close outcome of the 2016 election no one can be in doubt about the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. Moreover, the fact that despite the heavy investment that they made in anti-populist and anti-Trump propaganda they lost ground to their opponents is difficult for them to swallow.
Throughout the past 8 years, the opponents of national populism have been fantasising about this movements demise. Populism has been a victim of the pandemic’, declared The Times in January 2022. ‘The Great Reset: support for populist politics “collapsed” globally during the Covid pandemic’, ran a headline in SciTechDaily around the same time. ‘Populist politics lost support globally during the pandemic’, asserted CNBC in January 2022, breathing an audible sigh of relief. The numerous reports of populism’s demise have turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking. And after Trump’s electoral victory earlier this month it is evident that if anything, populism is stronger than it was eight years ago.
So the most important reason why the anti-Trump Resistance seems to have dissolved is because the past 8 years have shown that democratic, national populist politics is here to stay. 2016 was not merely a transient populist moment but an expression of widespread aspiration for change. Part of this aspiration for change is a rejection of the outlook of the Anglo-American elites. In effect a movement for change implicitly calls into question elite authority. That this movement is far more powerful than it was 8 years ago highlights the setback suffered by the Remainers and The Trump Resistance.
No doubt before too long the opponents of democratic decision- making will start to organise and launch a campaign of vilification against those who made possible the victory on 5 November. But a lot has changed during the past eight years. For the first time the hegemonic influence of the managerial-technocratic class has been seriously put to question. It is still early days but there can be no doubt that the forces of populism are steadily gaining strength. And there can be no doubt that some serious battles lie ahead.
Source: Roots & Wings
No comments.
By submitting a comment you grant Free West Media a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate and irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin’s discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.