THE POLITICS OF “NO” IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN DEMOCRACIES

“Stay away from negative people. They have a problem, for every solution.”
Albert Einstein

The British and American political experiences have traditionally been based on positivity. Democracy thrives when the electorate is given a vision of moving forward, building on the past, correcting past mistakes.  The major distinction between authoritarian regimes with market economies (think Russia, China, Vietnam) and democratic ones is that in the latter case, voters not technocrats get to chart the future. 

Democracies do not operate efficiently in an environment of negative polarization. The politics of “no” is based on emotion, not reason.  Compromise becomes difficult if not impossible and the wheels of democratic government, never quick to turn in good times, grind to a halt.  In my view, the present political crises occurring on both sides of the Atlantic are the result of the politics of “no” and its inability to perform within a democracy.

First, a review of the Brexit debacle that has consumed the United Kingdom for the past several years.  The vote to leave the European Union was a “no” to many things. Among them: wage stagnation in the middle class, immigration, the EU assuming more political power, London overpowering local governments, the political elite, multiculturalism and political correctness. The Referendum to leave the EU had the great advantage of not having to specify what was being left behind.  Any “no” would fit the bill. 

The same phenomena is apparent in France where the gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) have taken to the streets of Paris each weekend since November. An open-ended “no” can mobilize a greater number of people than “yes” without the need for a consensus on what is being negated.  When the protests began the gilets jaunes refused to appoint leaders or to submit a list of demands to the French government, rightly assuming that a non-specific “no” would continue to attract more followers.

In the United Kingdom, the conservative government of David Cameron, made a major error in the framing of the Brexit Referendum, which stated: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?  What kind of national identity or vision for the future does “leave” assert? The wording simply gave every British voter with an axe to grind a way to express displeasure. Many observers have contrasted the Brexit Referendum with the campaign to legalize abortion in Ireland. The Irish Referendum was a masterpiece of positivity and won with an overwhelming yes.

The Brexit vote has created a political crisis in Britain of epic proportions. The devil was in the details and no majority in parliament can now agree on the details of leaving the EU.  There never was a plan to follow the Referendum vote to “leave.”  Being against something in a democracy is relatively easy. Formulating a replacement is fraught with peril. 

It is now clear, there is no parliamentary majority that will support a reasonable withdrawal agreement. The office of Prime Minister has been left in shambles.  Whatever the outcome, Britain has lost international standing in the world. London is on the brink of being replaced as the financial capital of Europe.  Corporations and financial centers have fled the United Kingdom and Scotland is considering the same.

A similar politics of “no” has captivated the United States in recent years with similar results as those experienced in the United Kingdom. When Republicans captured both chambers of Congress during the Obama administration it became clear that any Obama initiative would receive a resounding “no” during the remainder of his Presidency.  If the Republican obstructionism was designed to bring governing to a halt, it succeeded.

Rather than working in concert, the executive branch and Congress were reduced to testing their respective limits of power.  Through the politics of “no” Republicans were able to win many disgruntled voters to their side without offering a solution on any major issue, domestic or foreign, for eight years.

The Trump presidency was built on a foundation of “no”.  Make America Great Again was defined by negativity.  This included his campaign pledges of: no immigration, no Moslems, no Obama Care, no foreign Involvement, and no NAFTA.

 As in the case of Brexit and as with the French “yellow jackets”, American voters had a long list of grievances that could be thrown into the mix of Trump’s politics of “no.” But it was also true to form that few positive solutions were being articulated.  It was enough to get elected that Trump could point to his credentials as an astute business leader who could solve any problem through the “art of the deal” and transactional politics.

After the election the Trump presidency continued to expand on the politics of “no.” No to NATO, legal immigration, negotiated treaties, trade agreements, the rule of law, a free press, the European Union, the United Nations, and most exasperating of all: “no” to funding the federal government unless his unrealistic demands on building a wall along the Mexican Border were supported by Congress.  As with Brexit, there is never a plan moving forward after each “no” decision is made by the President.

President Trump’s politics of “no” have developed several interesting corollaries.  First, it has resulted in an authoritarian presidency where advisors within his administration cannot speak for the President with any accuracy. Trump is in charge of the daily messaging and often contradicts himself or is unclear. Debate within the White House is either not permitted or ignored. His obedient staff is reduced to stating that their opinion is irrelevant because the President will say and do what we wants, with little notice or discussion.  The only thing that is absolutely clear, is the “no.”

Secondly, the politics of “no” reaches far beyond the White House. Republican leaders are not made aware of the President’s policy positions in advance. On other occasions, the President reverses his position after deals are worked out with Democrats.  Foreign leaders are not consulted or briefed on the President’s views. Even small details are left to chance before summits or conferences are scheduled.  While all world leaders are aware of the “no”, getting a positive agreement is impossible under these circumstances.

Since the election of Donald Trump, many Democrats have continued the disheartening spectacle of the politics of “no” by calling for no more Trump, without considering the political implications for the 2020 presidential election. The repellant and dangerous antics of the President coupled with the Mueller probe brought to investigate theories of collusion and obstruction of justice have made his impeachment too enticing to ignore.

Removal of Trump in America has become analogous to leaving the EU in The United Kingdom. In both cases negative goals that are easy to support, but with far reaching consequences beyond the initial vote of “no.” With Brexit and Impeachment, what comes after the vote has not been thought through.

  Democrats who want Trump gone are calling for his impeachment no matter what the political cost. They seem oblivious to the need to invest scarce political capital addressing the important policy issues facing the nation in preparation for the next national election.  This is so even though impeachment is more likely than not to fail and to invigorate Trump supporters. Moreover, impeachment success would only place a more conservative and tactful political operative in the presidency, Vice President Mike Pence.

Nancy Pelosi and others have wisely fought against the politics of “no” and the call to remove Trump at any cost.  These Democratic leaders are aware of a simple truth. Trump is the master of the politics of “no”.  The remedy for Trumpism is not more negativity through political revenge but rather the development of policy positions that bring about positive results for all Americans.  Further, there must be development of a Democrat political coalition not focused solely on defeating Trump but also dedicated to preparing America to thrive in a post Trump world.