The do-over delusion of Trump and Brexit
Sometimes the best option is the least bad one
It’s been a rocky few years for both sides of the transatlantic “special relationship.”
In the United Kingdom, Brexit has proven an unmitigated disaster. The campaign divided the country in two, and the months since the vote have seen only squabbling, grandstanding, and a refusal to confront the real and obvious consequences of leaving the European Union. Hard-right Brexiteers and the conspiracy-minded “European Research Group” have dragged the Conservative party further into political fantasyland, while the not-so-loyal opposition of Jeremy Corbyn seems solely focused on winning the next election. It says something about the severity of the leadership vacuum that Theresa May, for all of her mistakes and inability to stand firmly for much of anything, has been one of the few members of any party to approach the Brexit process somewhat responsibly.
Across the Atlantic, the United States has a president who is clearly unfit for the office. Donald Trump is impulsive and incurious. He appears almost entirely driven by vanity, insecurity, and deep resentment of those whose presence threatens him, such as women, people of color, and federal investigators. He’s corrupt. He’s a serial liar, spewing more than 6,000 “false or misleading claims” since his inauguration, according to the Washington Post. He has no concept of moral leadership, as his pathetic capitulation to Saudi Arabia’s crown prince reflects. As The New Yorker’s Adam Davidson wrote in August, “were he not President, Donald Trump himself would almost certainly be facing [criminal] charges.”
The head-shaking dysfunction wrought by Trump and Brexit has prompted growing support for the president to be removed from office (especially among Democrats), and for a second referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU. America’s midterm elections delivered an enormous blue rebuke to the Trump presidency and his enablers in Congress. Meanwhile, nearly 700,000 people marched in London in support of a People’s Vote earlier this fall. Recent polls suggest that if they had the chance to vote again, 54 percent would choose to remain in the EU.
There are, of course, key differences between America’s presidential elections, which have occurred regularly since 1789, and a remarkable one-off referendum. But among the many parallels that do exist, two stand out: Millions of people want a do-over. And by nearly every objective measure, from national security to economic well-being to citizen welfare to the promotion of democratic values like human rights and the rule of law, they have the facts on their side. It’s abundantly clear that the United States would be better off without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and the U.K. would be better off remaining in the EU.
So why not take the same capital-D-Democratic momentum that turned a blue wave into a Democratic House majority, and channel it into a campaign for impeachment? Why not seize the opportunity presented by Tory infighting and chaotic Brexit negotiations to push for a second referendum?
Because with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, Congress can reassert itself as a consequential branch of government, investigating and exposing much of the president’s wrongdoing and snuffing out his worst impulses — without the all-consuming and paralyzing spectacle of impeachment hearings.
Because with Brexit negotiations slowly inching away from a cliff and towards a muddling compromise that averts a nightmarish “no-deal” scenario, the U.K. can focus on confronting the mindbogglingly complex process of extracting itself from the EU — rather than waste further oxygen fighting the lies and fear-mongering innuendo of hardcore Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Because the same grievances that made the Trump and Leave campaigns successful the first time will make their undoing even more divisive and disastrous.
And, most critically, because as it stands right now neither impeachment nor a second vote are going to happen. With the U.S. Senate still controlled by a cynical and uncompromising Republican majority leader, and with most GOP elected officials in constant fear of a Trump-induced Twitter primary, impeachment isn’t happening. With the U.K. still led by a prime minister who triggered the Article 50 withdrawal process without a plan in place, and with May’s cabinet and party still largely dominated by Euroskeptics more interested in taking her job than helping her do her job, a second referendum isn’t happening. (Ironically, in two years America will get a second referendum on its Trumpian mistake, while Theresa May routinely faces threats of “impeachment” by members of her own party.)
As uninspiring as it sounds, when it comes to Trump and Brexit, “bad” and “slightly less bad” are the only options on the table. Every ounce of political capital and organizing energy that goes towards the fantastical scenarios of impeachment or a second referendum is an ounce not used to make these bad situations slightly less bad.
These circumstances could change. It’s hard to imagine what congressional Republicans won’t tolerate from Donald Trump, but the special counsel’s investigation could expose corruption or coordination with the Russian government so intolerable that even the GOP base turns on him. Parliament could defeat May’s unpopular Brexit deal, forcing the country to choose between a catastrophic no-deal and a divisive second referendum — and dragging all but the most hardheaded Leavers behind another vote. But we’re not there yet.
“Do less harm” and “Slog ahead with the cards as they’ve been dealt” aren’t nearly as satisfying rallying cries as “Not my president!” or “People’s Vote!” The least bad option doesn’t poll particularly well. It doesn’t address the long-term challenges of, say, an American judiciary stacked with Trump-selected judges, or a Britain trapped behind trade barriers with its European partners. It doesn’t punish anyone for the unethical and, in some cases, illegal activities that may have swung both of these 2016 elections. In an ideal world, the least bad option is almost certainly the wrong choice.
But as history reminds us time and time again, we’re not in an ideal world. Unlike campaigning, governing is defined by complexities and trade-offs. The ideal is always worth fighting for, but democracy only works if the pursuit of the ideal eventually yields to acceptance of the attainable, at least in the short term. No matter how misguided, irrational, or unfair an election or an entire system may be, sometimes the best we can do is accept a disappointing result and use it to chart the least bad path forward. There’s no “Edit-Undo” in the political process.
This argument is a frustrating one, particularly because accepting it means accepting that the opposing sides are playing for different stakes. Many who support impeaching Donald Trump also believe government can be a force for good in society. As destructive as his presidency has been, it’s hard to imagine anything more destructive to government than making articles of impeachment the defining plank of the opposition party platform. For better or worse, those who believe in government have a responsibility to fight for a functional one, even when — especially when — the other side isn’t playing fair.
Similarly, many of those advocating strenuously for a second referendum believe it’s vital to preserve economic and cultural ties between the U.K. and the European Union. Nothing would be more detrimental to that worthy goal than Britain crashing out of the EU without any agreement. For better or worse, those who believe in a strong British relationship with the rest of the continent have a responsibility to fight for the least bad option, even when — especially when — the other side isn’t playing fair.
As European Council president Donald Tusk noted recently regarding May’s proposal, “We have always said Brexit is a lose-lose situation and these negotiations were always about damage control.” The same is true for the Trump presidency. It’s a lose-lose situation in which the debate, at least until 2020, is about controlling and averting the damage we still can, not wringing our hands over the damage already done. That reality is complicated and uninspiring. But so is governing.