Gaining political perspective through the season of the Advent

Holding Fast: The perils of populism: Brexit and America's political landscape

One salient feature of this year’s electoral season has been the resurgence of populism as a potent political force. This came as a shock to many in the United States, but if we look elsewhere in the world we will find that ours is not an isolated case. Last spring, the United Kingdom (U.K.) saw a similar wave of populist resentment sweep the nation in the “Brexit” vote in which the U.K. bid an unceremonious “adieu” to the European Union (E.U.). The unexpected nature and tremendous consequences of that vote have drawn obvious comparisons to our own situation and, for that reason, it might be helpful to look to the U.K.’s handling of Brexit in considering how America moves forward from this election.
The big issue currently facing the U.K. government is how it can obey the will of the people by leaving the E.U. while also following proper constitutional procedure. A recent High Court ruling has thrown a wrench in the government’s plan to start negotiations with other E.U. nations by requiring Parliament’s approval before it can begin. It is a complicated issue. Basically, Prime Minister Theresa May had planned on negotiating the terms of Brexit under the powers of royal prerogative that give Her Majesty’s Government the power to make decisions regarding international treaties. This is how May and her cabinet intended to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and trigger the exit from the E.U. in accordance with the will of the majority of citizens.
But the court’s ruling asserted the sovereignty of Parliament over any action that would affect the rights of citizens. And because Brexit revokes certain rights granted to U.K. citizens under the 1972 European Communities Act, it is necessary for Parliament to give its approval before any negotiations take place. The government had already planned on repealing that act in Parliament, but would have only done so near the end of negotiations to finalize the formal split. In effect, this ruling has allowed Parliament to get involved at the beginning of the process, giving members of parliament a greater say regarding the terms of the U.K.’s exit.
Not many people believe that Parliament will not go through with Brexit at this point. But the ruling does raise some very interesting questions about the role of popular sovereignty not only in the U.K., but anywhere else where the will of the majority bristles against the established rule of law. It is important that constitutional norms are followed, but at the same time Parliament must do its best to respect the will of the people as it promised to do before the vote, no matter how much individual members may oppose the outcome.
The problem with the Brexit vote is that it did not really do an adequate job of expressing the will of the people regarding the terms of the exit from the E.U. The Leave campaign made some misleading promises they knew they couldn’t keep and it appears that those tasked with executing the exit are now the targets of populist resentment. In the event that Brexit doesn’t significantly affect Britain’s immigration levels or remove it from the European common market, it is precisely the politicians who made these promises that will pay the price for betraying the will of the people.
And lest we think that this is only Westminster’s problem, we should remember that the popular mandate to exit the E.U. was not really the will of the U.K. as a whole, but more like the will of England and Wales against the protestations of Scotland and Northern Ireland. In a union already strained by multiple rounds of devolution and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, this divide makes the future of the U.K. even more uncertain. Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists are already threatening to hold another referendum should the terms of the exit be unfavorable to the parliament in Edinburgh. So in addition to a crisis of legitimacy surrounding its political institutions, the U.K. may be facing an even more pressing threat to its continued existence.
All of these issues may be specific to the U.K., but they can nonetheless serve as a warning to America, which has now seen the same populist forces wreak havoc on an election of its own. Whatever you may think of Trump’s victory, it is hard to deny the importance of the forces he has unleashed in American politics. The will of the people has triumphed over every convention that would normally have prevented this outcome. If we consider the health of democracy at the moment, we can certainly find some good and some bad. It is at once encouraging to see the will of the people prevail and also very alarming to consider its possible impact on the rule of law in this country. We would do well to consider how this has played out following the Brexit vote, and hopefully learn a thing or two about how to deal with the new realities of populism in America.

Holding Fast: The importance of considering the ambiguity of Obama's legacy

On January 10, 2017, former President Barack Obama delivered his farewell address to the nation. It was a classic showcase of the rhetorical skill that brought Obama to the national spotlight years ago, which served him well in his two terms as president. But tension lay at the heart of his message between his attempt to frame the successes of his presidency and his rather urgent call to action to save our democracy in the face of Trump’s presidency. The tension between his promise of change and his ability to keep those promises raises questions about how his presidency will be remembered, especially in the face of the uncertainty surrounding the new administration. I know I am painting with broad strokes here, but I believe Obama will be remembered for his largely successful domestic policies, failed foreign policies and dangerous expansion of executive powers.
As far as domestic policy goes, I believe his record on the economy will be remembered as quite successful. Our recovery from the 2008 recession has been long and slow, but it has been much stronger than recoveries in most other developed countries and employment has rebounded to higher levels. How much of this should be credited to Obama’s leadership is certainly up for debate, but as presidents usually receive blame or praise for the state of the economy when they leave office, I think Obama will be well-remembered on this score.
Obama’s single greatest accomplishment in domestic policy was the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare reform was one of Obama’s central campaign promises in the 2008 election, and whatever you think of the law, everyone can agree that he did accomplish something significant. Twenty million people gained insurance as a result of the law, many of whom would have previously been denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. But the law remains deeply controversial, mostly because of the structuring of the heavily regulated individual exchanges and individual mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. As premiums rise and competition in the state exchanges decreases, it is possible that some of Republicans’ worst fears will come true and the law will end up costing taxpayers more than originally promised. That is, of course, only in the unlikely event that Republicans don’t pull the plug on the law before it gets that far.
In foreign policy, Obama came into office with a fairly promising agenda. He intended to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reorient our priorities away from spreading democratic values through unilateral military action. Throughout his presidency, Obama remained deeply suspicious of military intervention and even used the mantra “Don’t do stupid shit” as a sort of guiding philosophy for his foreign policy.
While no one will disagree with the wisdom of that statement, it is an open question whether this skeptical attitude really helped him develop coherent foreign policy positions in response to international conflict. If we look at his policies in the Middle East, it seems he has not fully succeeded in this regard. There are still American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan—granted, there are far fewer than when he came into office. We have engaged in bombing campaigns and supported various factions in civil wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen, all of which are far worse off than they were eight years ago. Obama’s skepticism toward increasing military commitments may be wise, but that doesn’t change the fact the U.S. is today just as involved in military conflicts with no clear aim and no end in sight.
Of course, it is unfair to blame Obama for things out of his control, such as the rise of ISIS and foreign civil wars that would have happened regardless of his actions. But the president does have considerable power to shape the strategic objectives of American foreign policy and take actions consistent with those ends. I believe his main problem was a lack of clarity in his view of America’s place in the world. He rejected the idea that America is endowed with a certain moral authority to enforce democratic values around the world, but his actions in response to the Arab Spring and Ukrainian uprising show that he was just as willing as his predecessor to use American power to shape the world in our image. And despite his skepticism of “nation-building,” our troops are committed to that very task in Afghanistan for years to come.
Finally, the Obama administration has continued to expand the powers of the “Imperial Presidency,” which refers to a president’s executive powers that have grown unchecked for the better part of the past half-century. His ordering of extrajudicial drone strikes, expansion of National Security Agency surveillance capabilities and liberal use of executive orders are a legacy that even Democrats have expressed concern with. Especially now that all of these tools have been handed to Donald Trump, a man whose lack of respect for rule of law and restraint are, shall we say, not exactly encouraging.
All things considered, I believe President Obama had his share of successes and failures, but his inability to bring about much of the change he promised leaves his legacy in an ambiguous position. And although many will remember him more kindly as the Trump presidency wears on, I think it is wise to reflect critically on Obama’s accomplishments before donning our rose-colored glasses.

Holding Fast

Gaining political perspective through the season of the Advent

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

Ryan Ward

Columnist

December 2, 2016

In the wake of this year’s presidential election, I think most of us in this country are ready for some Christmas cheer to liven our spirits as we count down the days to Donald Trump’s inauguration. But before we rush to forget our collective sorrows in the ritual consumption of the holiday season, I think we would do well to remember that Christmas is still a few weeks away, and we are just now entering the Christian liturgical season of Advent. Although today it is drowned out by the good cheer marketed by corporations looking out for their bottom line, we should not forget that Advent is primarily a time for somber reflection in anticipation of the birth of Christ. And I think there is no better time for an honest evaluation of the seemingly hopeless nature of our political situation.

Now I know many of you may not share the Christian faith that informs my reflections here. But I do hope that what I have to say about what this time of year means to me may provide you with some degree of hope in light of the present political circumstances.

Christ’s Advent is the fulfillment of centuries of Messianic expectations of the nation of Israel, which remained at the hands of foreign oppressors through much of its history. God promised his people that he would send a Messiah to sit on the throne of David and to conquer their enemies. Many of these promises come out of the Book of Isaiah, which was written at a time of great political turmoil. King Ahaz had formed an alliance with the Assyrians to protect Judah against attack, but because he did not trust in God to deliver them, that alliance would lead to years of Assyrian domination.

It was in this context that Isaiah wrote the words of prophecy that form a common backdrop to Advent reflections: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). In the face of imminent political oppression, this promise gave Israel the hope of a ruler who would not only conquer its enemies, but would also establish an everlasting Kingdom founded with “justice and righteousness.” The message of Advent is that this king has come and that he arrived in the unexpected form of the infant Jesus.

The good news for us is that with the coming of Christ, the promise of deliverance God made to Israel is applied to all of humanity which yearns for liberation from the oppression of sin and death. Christians believe that we are now living in the time between Christ’s first coming, when he conquered death through his resurrection and established his eternal Kingdom, and his second coming which will bring that Kingdom to full fruition on earth. In the meantime we live under the authority of rulers on earth while still bowing to Christ the King, whose first coming we celebrate and whose second coming we await in eager anticipation. All political activity exists within this framework, in this in-between time that the season of Advent represents.

Now what has any of this to do with our own political situation? I suggest that these Advent reflections should give us a hopeful outlook on all the uncertainties and political troubles of our time. President-elect Donald J. Trump is just another of a long line of rulers to assume power during this time of waiting for the fulfillment of God’s promised Kingdom. But the important lesson of Advent is that power does not belong to him, nor does it belong to the political structures that he now has authority over. Trump may turn out to be a good or a bad ruler, but his power is no more than temporary in light of the Advent promise of the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.

This is the hope that I wish to inject into some of our more depressing political conversations. Now, I obviously don’t expect everyone to share my faith in Jesus Christ, but I do hope that there is still something very valuable to be gained from these reflections. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of political happenings and forget that there are things that lie far beyond the horizons of our recurring election cycles. These lasting things should give us grounds for hope by allowing us to see all of our troubles within a much more comprehensive framework. For me, it is my faith in Christ’s Advent and in the coming of his Kingdom that allows me to set my sights beyond the uncertainties of our political moment.

Comments are permanently closed.