American Brexit - Putting the Referendum in American Context

There have been a number of ways of trying to comprehend the vote in Britain to leave the European Union. Some of these have been quite silly, as with the piece comparing it to Texas attempting to secede from the United States. A big part of the problem is that the observers are making the same mistake they did when analyzing the decision of California voters to cast their ballots for Proposition 8 in 2008. Namely, they are paying too much attention to the merits of the policy in question, and not enough to the political dynamics which surround referendums and make them fundamentally different from partisan contests.

First and foremost, they obliterate partisan lines. This is important, because many voters cast their ballots culturally. It has always confused Republicans why African American voters who hold right-leaning views on issues refuse to even consider voting for them, but ultimately it is an issue of trust, the same thing which hurts Democrats with gun owners. Even if they agree on given issues or proposals, they view those making them as inherently hostile, and therefore are unwilling to put them into office. Referendums don’t require this, and consequently do something more as well. As most partisan mobilization in modern democracies is based not on support for a given party or policy but on antipathy to the other side, almost all elections have resulted in choices between “lesser evils” with the entire political spectrum colluding in reducing the image of all parties and politicians to unprecedented lows. This works fine for general elections, where it allows parties to turn out their voters, but it tends to backfire in systems where voters either have additional options for protest votes(see the rise of the Far-Right in Europe) or when a referendum is held which places the entire political class on one side.

First and foremost, they obliterate partisan lines. This is important, because many voters cast their ballots culturally. It has always confused Republicans why African American voters who hold right-leaning views on issues refuse to even consider voting for them, but ultimately it is an issue of trust, the same thing which hurts Democrats with gun owners. Even if they agree on given issues or proposals, they view those making them as inherently hostile, and therefore are unwilling to put them into office. Referendums don’t require this, and consequently do something more as well. As most partisan mobilization in modern democracies is based not on support for a given party or policy but on antipathy to the other side, almost all elections have resulted in choices between “lesser evils” with the entire political spectrum colluding in reducing the image of all parties and politicians to unprecedented lows. This works fine for general elections, where it allows parties to turn out their voters, but it tends to backfire in systems where voters either have additional options for protest votes(see the rise of the Far-Right in Europe) or when a referendum is held which places the entire political class on one side.

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend what happened in the UK by method of analogy. Imagine that rather than suffering defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush instead prevails, but in order to do so is forced to agree to hold a national referendum on expelling all illegal immigrants, banning their children from citizenship, and building a wall along the Mexican border. At the time it seems a safe promise that will never have to be delivered upon. Polls show 2–1 support for comprehensive immigration reform and a major defeat will create a mandate for such reform. As such, Bush and other Republicans could even manage to persuade themselves that the promise could end up promoting immigration reform.

Democrats would be ecstatic both with the initial commitment, and with the events which follow the decision to fulfill it with the referendum itself. Invested in the idea that "demographic are destiny" and that a growing non-white population promises them an ever growing majority, they would see the referendum campaign as an opportunity to consolidate their position with the Hispanic electorate. Not only the fact that it would be the Republican party which decided to hold the referendum in the first place, but that it would almost certainly be Republican politicians who would lead the campaign in favor of its passage would lead Democrats to assume that the Republican party is on the verge alienating Hispanic voters for a generation. What little comfort Republican Hispanics could draw from the fierce opposition of figures such as a President Bush and Speaker Ryan would be undermined with the violence with which their efforts against the vote would be met by its supports. As Paul Ryan and Bush get booed by crowds and increasingly resort to calling their critics racist, it would be easy for Democrats to take pleasure in the way in which the Republican party appears to be tearing itself apart.

But all is not well, and beneath the surface there are causes for concern. Congress has a 90% negative rating, the political class as a whole is hated, and most voters believe politicians never do anything. The fact that the inability to deport all illegal aliens is often used as an excuse to deport none reinforces the view that this is a referendum on a political class that never keeps its promises and a change to wield power over it. Now voters can directly wield power over the priorities of the politicians, forcing them to do something they do not want to, while asserting their own greater political rights compared with other Americans. Rapidly it becomes an exercise of emotional catharsis rather than a policy declaration. It is a chance not to chose between two evils, but rather to vote against both simultaneously.

Such sentiments even begin to infect the most reliable of Democratic constituencies. Free from partisan associations, African American Democrats seem open to using a yes vote to express their view of how the Democratic party treats them. In protest of a party elite that seems more concerned with "social issues" and individuals in the country illegal than it is with those who have suffered real discrimination for three centuries, they see little reason to waste political capital on a symbolic show of solidarity with those they all too often compete with for resources. They are not alone. Every major group that feels left out sees an opportunity to get back both are politicians and the impression they care more about other people. That these views are mutually in tension does not matter because the nature of a referendum allows multiple campaigns to be run simultaneously with mutually exclusive arguments, at least on the side in favor. Those opposed to the referendum have no such luxury.

Realizing they could lose, the political elite on both sides begins to panic. Putting aside their differences, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama join Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan in a desperate campaign. It combines an ever escalating barrage of threats — it will cause violence, throw Mexico in civil war, destroy the economy, and eliminate Nafta — with suggestions that supporters of the referendum are racists who want to put immigrants in box cars like the Nazis did to Jews. The complete dominance of this message in social media as well as on MSNBC, Colbert, etc fool the elite into thinking it works, a delusion which will last until 735 PM when Orange County Florida, a 58% Obama county with a large African American population (and Puerto Rican one) and home to Orlando votes 58–42 for expulsion. The rest of the night us panic and prayers for New York as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Columbus, St. Lewis all come in for expulsion and even Chicago rejects it by a mere 55–45 margin, not enough to carry even Illinois, much less make and national impact.

The nation wakes up to an unenforable law and no president. Jeb is destroyed not just politically but personally. He has a Mexican wife, speaks Spanish at home with his children. A 52–48 vote to expel every illegal immigrant and child under 18 without exception is not something he fan enforce or remain in a party dedicated to do so. But the expulsion side, a weird alliance of leftwing populist and tea Parties can’t run the House, much less government. And suddenly voters start to realize that the referendum actually might effect real people rather than caricatures. Even Bush’s public destruction is less than fun when one is forced to watch the reaction of his wife and children.

That is what just happened in Britain. The voters rose up not against the EU, but rather the perception that the political consensus was stronger than partisan differences and hence meant their votes in general elections did not count. At least on things like immigration or the EU. They wanted to force a policy on the political elite, not necessarily the specific one in front of them. Sadly it was the only game in town, and as Remain reminded them, the only chance they would get for a generation. They seized it only to wake up the next morning wondering what exactly they had done.