I was born in England, but since 1973 was happier to think of myself as European. Today, with the UK choosing to leave the European Union, I feel diminished, a member of a small, belligerent island nation more than half full of bitter, cowardly people. (Or, to quote my Brazilian wife, "Why would they want to be a standoffish gloomy little island instead of being partners with France and Italy where people have fun?")
It is indeed baffling, particularly given how many warnings there've been about the economic consequences of this. The thing is -- and this is true of America, too -- you ignore "regressives" at your peril. Trump appeals to the same type. The slogan, "Make America Great Again," could just as easily have been used by the Brexit crowd: "Make Britain Great Again." These jingoistic phrases mean less than nothing. They are in fact actively and aggressively stupid.
America can't be "great again" in the sense of economically dominant, unless China and several other countries decide to implode, something beyond the control of anyone. Britain can't be great in the way it used to be without its empire and India isn't clamoring to go back under British rule. But just as sentimental appeals to regressive nationalism are wrong, so too is it wrong to dismiss people merely because they are ill-informed, afraid, or greedy.
In the U.S. and England, a lot of people hate immigration and government bureaucracy. Just because these antipathies come from an unattractively ignorant group of low class white guys in the first case and an unattractively greedy and careless business community in the second, does not mean they're all entirely wrong, or that you can ignore the issues.
I live one mile from the borough of Queens in New York City, which, according to the Guinness Book of Records, is the most "diverse" place on the planet. I go there, I like it, and I like diversity. Some people, most of them less fortunate than me, don't like it, and however nastily they express it, they have a right not to like it. To look at this from a different perspective: if I'm forced to flee President Trump, should I expect Burkina Faso to welcome me with open arms?
Maybe the country doesn't want white atheists who don't speak Dioula and aren't of either Mande or Voltaic origin. Maybe the country wants to preserve its political, cultural, racial, or religious identity. The argument Trump makes is no different. Democracy is its citizens, and if existing citizens don't want to admit people whose religious views are even more primitive than their own, and who will make this country even more backward than it already is, their argument is not so devoid of merit that you can just dismiss it with a sanctimonious smile.
As for bureaucracy, anyone who's had the slightest contact with it knows it can be infuriating, that it can spread like a weed, and that flexibility is not its defining feature. Denying this truth, or diminishing its importance, may well have been as important as anti-immigrant sentiment to Britain leaving the EU. Instead of defending bureaucratic expansion just because it's under attack by the enemy, progressives should loudly and publicly investigate inefficiency, wastefulness and pig-headed insensitivity at every level of government. Let it be their issue. Let the smart people take a whack at the problem for a change.
If Democrats want to win in the upcoming elections, England is a lesson and the lesson is this: never underestimate the power of a stupid idea because its stupidity may be its greatest appeal, a thumb in the eye of the elite. This is what worries me about Clinton. Her air of smug, superior certainty -- of course I'm right, nod, nod, nod -- is exactly what's not required. There's no "of course" about progress. Progress must be constantly defended and explained with passion and empathy, never with complacency.