The laziness of, could be, Brexit = President Trump

In most every post of any length, I strive, in my own obscure little way, for at least some whit of originality — of original thinking, of signature style, of something, anything differentiated from the millions of words pumped out daily on the Internet. Otherwise, I figure, there is no point to my posting. I appreciate that I don't always succeed; some days, creativity just won't come. But I do try, for I also figure I owe you that much: the attempt, if nothing else. I never wish to squander your time on words you can read most anywhere else.

Mine is, of course, no singular philosophy of political commentary. It is, rather, the fundamental force that underlies the writing of all readable commentary. If C and D are to write precisely what A and B have already written, already observed, then C and D should spare us. We find it offensive — or rather we should find it offensive — when political commentators trundle out the already and vastly available. They — especially the well-compensated ones — owe us more than that. Each post, each piece, each column, should contain something of some originality.

And yet we are cheated, regularly. Roaming the cyberpages of major journalistic organs is the all too familiar herd — which, once it espies others grazing on some sexy narrative, just can't help itself. It swarms the easy pastures of prefabricated thought. Case in dreadful point … This morning I somewhat randomly clicked on Kathleen Parker's latest — "Brexit, meet America’s Trexit" — only to be rudely and instantly met by: "With Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, did Donald Trump just win the presidential election? On the surface, this may seem an odd question…."

No, it seems a silly question. In fact it is a silly question.

It's also a question that took instant hold on much of America's commentariat, and so within 24 hours we were reading it damn near everywhere.

Brexit, Ms. Parker et al, wasn't a mentally unbalanced toddler. Brexit wasn't subject to America's diverse electorate. Brexit wasn't detested by overwhelming numbers in virtually every voting bloc. Neither was Brexit subject to a partisanly entrenched Electoral College map that will reject "Trexit" for the roundly distasteful pathogen it, he, is. Brexit may resemble a Trexit, or rather a Trexit may resemble a Brexit, but there the fundamentals end.

Nonetheless, the slothful comparison has issued forth with undifferentiated vigor and almost indistinguishable wording. It is plausible, it is said, that Brexit over there portends the triumph of Trump here. Well, such fearmongering (in some cases, cheerleading) fills space and elicits gobs of clicks, I suppose; we do so like to be frightened. I enjoy a good scare myself every now and then, so to that, I don't object.

I do object, however, to the pounding sameness of this herd's, ahem, observations. We deserve at least a touch of originality — which sure as hell isn't to be found in the undiscerning, monotonous cries of "Brexit foretells a President Trump." That's just lazy.

 

Comments

[JG]

Just so you know..... you regularly and emphatically succeed in providing original thought and insight. And thank you for that. Your words are an island of sanity in the political commentariat sea. I think more people would benefit from a visit here.

[Prozač]

Oh, I think these discussions can only do good. Anything to get leftists and liberals to shape up and vote for results instead of engaging in gestures to "send a message to the establishment."

[Marc McKenzie]

Agreed.

[Peter G]

I found the consensus of the punditry offensively simplistic as well. The contrary is likely to be true. Within hours of the vote results being known the other chief topic was buyers remorse. Here is a curious fact: the number two Google search in the UK on the day of the vote was What is the EU? Boris and the the other leaders of the Brexit movement are now of the spot. Well boys you've taken your country back. From whom is unclear. For what reason equally so. Far from being a sign that Trump will be victorious, it is much more likely to serve as an example of what shooting yourself in the foot to show "them" looks like.

[Peter G]

Btw I meant to add that I read a lot of crap on the Internet for one must observe how the other half lives. But that isn't why I infest this place.

[Mike]

To those who see this as a precursor to the tRumpisation of the USA, I remind you of the 2008 meme that asserted any "big" news event as "good for John McCain", remember? In fact Brexit will ultimately be seen as one more nail in the Donald's electoral coffin. As he, the Iranian Ayatollah and Putin cheer on economic chaos and imminent recession in Great Britain, cooler heads, including Ms. Clinton's, will once again highlight tRumps impulsive narcissism, and his gross unfitness for local dog catcher.

[Ken Hoop]

Carpenter wisely rarely attempts to utilize whatever distinctively creative talents he possesses to portray Clinton as a successfully, non-corrupt, anti-Elitist
reformer candidate.

[Turgidson]

Thanks in part to the leadership of Barack Obama, the US experience during the Great Recession was nowhere near as crippling as the UK's or most of Europe's was. Because aside from the ill-fated 2011 austerity Kool-Aid bender even Obama succumbed to briefly, we steered more of a Keynesian course.

So the level of anger, while very real as Bernie and the Short-Fingered Vulgarian have shown, isn't the same. And as PM noted, our electorate is far more diverse.

Trump = Brexit is lazy and ridiculous even by the absurdly low standards of Villager punditry. There may be a conceivable confluence of events that could occur that give Trump a path to the presidency, but the Brexit stupidity is no more of an omen of me shitting out a Trump-shaped turd tomorrow would be.

[Ed]

Brexit: Aftermath | Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbZ9EIOQzXU

[Peter G]

You know the Quebec separatists said exactly the same thing before and after their referendums of separation and they lost them. Why, they asserted, there would be no reason for the majority of Canadian banks to leave Quebec once it was a different nation. And now they are all headquartered, with the exception of a regional Quebec bank, in Toronto. It did take a couple of years for them to move.

The Brexit idiots can whistle in the dark all they like but the EU is not going to allow Britain unilateral legislative and regulatory control over the bulk of their financial sector. They'd have to be idiots to allow that to happen. And they are not idiots.

I remember well during the Quebec referendum when I used to do a fair amount of business in the heart and soul of separatist country pointing out things that shocked them. They firmly believed that the agricultural supply control system that gave them vastly disproportionate amounts of quota for dairy and poultry and egg production would continue. Umm no I said. If Quebec leaves Canada the politicians in the rest of Canada would be committing political suicide to allow that to continue. Ditto for every other wealth transfer mechanism that existed. Nope. All those things would be lost to Quebec. The Brexiters hold similar beliefs, that they will have all the benefits of being part of the EU while being, as the Quebeckers used to assert, masters in their own house. That's not going to happen.