Of course, many commentators and
pundits caught the obvious connection between Brexit and the Trump
election. Many (wrongly, I believe)
ascribed both occurrences to xenophobia.
To write both off to xenophobia is simplistic progressive
narrative. Immigration policies played a
part in both instances, to be sure, but there were other factors at play
here. The foreshadowing of Trump, it
turns out, was not so much Brexit as the election in Illinois. Illinois had
become a solidly Democratic stronghold, the center of the donut in what I have
tabbed the “Stale Donut Strategy” (take both coasts with Illinois in the middle
with leadership that is in its 70’s).
Illinois had delivered on a national level for years, buttressed by
liberal senator Dick Durbin and Democratic lord Mike Madigan, and anchored by a
city run by the Daley clan for most of 5 decades. Only Jane Byrne and black Democrat Harold
Washington interrupted the string, and then only briefly. Republicans were totally in disarray at all
levels. The machine put up Mike Madigan
enabler, Pat Quinn. Quinn was a
don’t-rock-the-boat kind of guy, not well spoken, a standard “dems and does”
kind of Democrat, not someone eager to push back at Madigan or the existing
order.
But the existing order was
killing Illinois. It continued to
fruitlessly raise taxes and Quinn, Madigan and Cullerton promised even higher
hikes as the state’s debt ballooned.
Illinois workers didn’t work much, got lifelong fat pensions and health
care and early retirement while the rest of the state’s workers suffered. Businesses fled along with high
earners.
Along came Bruce Rauner, a
wealthy businessman who had made a fortune in private equity but had no
political experience. He financed his
campaign mostly with his own money, and promised fundamental changes in the way
government conducted itself in Illinois.
He was able to convince voters that the state was run entirely for the
benefit of the insiders and that the taxpayer was getting fleeced (sound
familiar?). He was able to defeat the
Democratic machine—the unholy alliance of Madigan, the real estate interests
that fund Madigan and the army of city and state workers that feed at the
trough. Rauner continues to push hard for fundamental reform--not just tax increases. This drama is still playing out,
as Rauner is steadfastly holding the line against tax increases before
structural changes are made and Mike Madigan (and his AG daughter Lisa) equally
determined to hang onto power.
This drama was played out on the
national level. Like Bruce Rauner, Trump had no government experience and
financed his campaign largely out of his own pocket. Trump had to defeat the establishment in his
own party, but, like Rauner, was up against forces with very vested interests,
a well financed opponent with a deep and entrenched network. Hillary Clinton had over two decades to put
together a well-financed organization and messaging machine. And, like Mike Madigan, she had a very
reliable base of government workers that would turn out to the polls.
Both of these candidates were
businessmen that were up against history (other nonpoliticians like Jesse
Ventura and Arnold Schwartzenegger had
failed) and well entrenched, well financed forces with powerful economic
interests wedded to the status quo. But
the polity decided that the state was no longer serving its citizens. Rather, the mechanisms of the state were used
to empower and enrich the political class and those that feed off it. And in both cases, the resources the State
was commandeering was not nearly enough to feed it. Both Illinois and the federal government were
taxing at higher and higher levels and the deficits and debt grew larger and
larger. Yet the problems that each was
entrusted to solve weren’t being solved, or worse, the wrong problems were
being solved. Pat Quinn in Illinois
represented the status quo and incremental change. So did Hillary Clinton. Neither saw that the State was failing its
citizens and both campaigned on a promise of draining more resources from
private citizens to fund the State.
The citizens decided to risk a
change. They decided to shrug off the
status quo and turn to businesspeople that solved real world business problems,
that had to bring balance budgets, hire the right people and fire people when
necessary. Neither person got wealthy by
leveraging experience in government but by doing deals in the business
world. Neither person NEEDS the job. Both of them have promised fundamental, not
just incremental changes in the way government operates.
As expected, both are being
fought tooth and nail by the forces of the status quo. Rauner has the Illinois and Chicago
Democratic machine to contend with.
Trump has both liberal Democrats, establishment Republicans and the
mainstream media arrayed against him.
Viewed this way, you have to ask who is “bitterly clinging” now?
Yes, Brexit preceded the Trump
surprise victory, but the real foreshadowing and closer parallel was the
improbable victory of Bruce Rauner in Illinois.
No comments:
Post a Comment