Looking at both the US election and the revived Brexit debate in the UK, the question is not: who wins? but: how did we get here?
The outlook for both countries might look short-term negative, but I'd argue that it's likely to be long-term positive. In the UK, we're now discussing the Royal Prerogative, which I suppose still merits capitals. The vote on 23rd June has disrupted everything - disruption can be real, eh? - in such a way that absolutely everything is up for debate. Not to go back over it all, but political parties collapsing, constituent nations of the UK voting in opposite directions ... when the dust settles, everything will have been aired, so to speak.
The debate in the UK could just about be framed as being between the establishment and the underprivileged, assuming both terms can be used very loosely here. But the more important points are, first, that the debate is happening at all, and secondly, that it's going so deep. And that a lot of hitherto unchallenged assumptions don't seem to be holding up too well under scrutiny. See also Robert Shrimsley's article 'Life as a victim of democracy' in today's Weekend FT magazine. But again - the rare thing is that there is scrutiny at all. This may be a bigger shift than we realise.
In the US, there is an individual we are obliged to accept as the candidate of the Republican Party, and an individual ... ditto ... of the Democratic Party. Back in 2009, newly in office, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The new president's rhetoric about hope was new back then, and capable of inspiring even the Swedish establishment. Regardless of who wins the current election, it seems a fair bet that the 2017 Nobel Peace prize will not be awarded to a US president.
I think Trump might win.
Then what?
The outlook for both countries might look short-term negative, but I'd argue that it's likely to be long-term positive. In the UK, we're now discussing the Royal Prerogative, which I suppose still merits capitals. The vote on 23rd June has disrupted everything - disruption can be real, eh? - in such a way that absolutely everything is up for debate. Not to go back over it all, but political parties collapsing, constituent nations of the UK voting in opposite directions ... when the dust settles, everything will have been aired, so to speak.
The debate in the UK could just about be framed as being between the establishment and the underprivileged, assuming both terms can be used very loosely here. But the more important points are, first, that the debate is happening at all, and secondly, that it's going so deep. And that a lot of hitherto unchallenged assumptions don't seem to be holding up too well under scrutiny. See also Robert Shrimsley's article 'Life as a victim of democracy' in today's Weekend FT magazine. But again - the rare thing is that there is scrutiny at all. This may be a bigger shift than we realise.
In the US, there is an individual we are obliged to accept as the candidate of the Republican Party, and an individual ... ditto ... of the Democratic Party. Back in 2009, newly in office, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The new president's rhetoric about hope was new back then, and capable of inspiring even the Swedish establishment. Regardless of who wins the current election, it seems a fair bet that the 2017 Nobel Peace prize will not be awarded to a US president.
I think Trump might win.
Then what?