The Washington Post - 05.09.2019

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A21

A

mid the storms of autocratic populism, democratic victories are especially precious. In Tur- key, the new mayor of Istanbul represents a hopeful challenge to the 16-year rule of the country’s strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In Hong Kong, the student protesters have forced the withdrawal of a hated extradition bill. And in Britain this week, Parliament is standing up to a cynical prime minister bent on a destructive policy backed by the s limmest o f possible m andates. Three years ago, Britons voted by a narrow margin of 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the European Union. They were assured that the manner of the leaving would be smooth and even prof- itable. The Europeans would be desper- ate for a new trade relationship with Britain, b ecause German carmakers love to sell into the British market. Quitting the E.U. would liberate money for the National Health Service and other public programs. There would be no serious fallout for the British economy or for England’s relationship with Ireland or Scotland. Three years on, these promises have been exposed as lies. A fractious negoti- ation with the E.U. y ielded a withdrawal agreement so unappealing that it could not get through Parliament; the work of crafting a new trading relationship to replace E.U. membership has not even started. Rather than saving British tax- payers money, the withdrawal agreement lays down that Britain must pay a hefty exit fee of almost $50 billion to Europe. The British economy, which used to be one of the best performers in the Group of Seven leading industrial countries, has slumped toward the bottom of the league table. Peace in Ireland is at stake, and the Scots are again talking independence. Although opin- ion has shifted less than you might expect in the face of this evidence, a second referendum would probably overturn the vote to leave the E.U. Before the referendum, the current prime minister, Boris Johnson, seemed unsure which s ide he favored. As m ayor of London, he had privately dismissed the idea of quitting Europe, recognizing the damage it would do to the city’s exports of financial services. In the run- up to the referendum, he drafted an unpublished newspaper column warn- ing that Brexit would cause an economic shock, embolden enemies such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and perhaps even trigger the breakup of the United Kingdom. But, caring passionately and exclusively about his prime ministerial prospects, Johnson came out swinging in favor of Brexit. Johnson was fired from his first job as

a journalist for fabricating a quotation. He was fired from a later job for lying about adultery. During the referendum campaign, his campaign bus was plas- tered with a big fat lie about taxpayer savings from leaving the E.U. Now, having secured the prime ministership by winning a paltry 92,000 votes from members of his Conservative Party — a total representing about 0.2 percent of the British electorate — Johnson has descended to new depths of cynicism. Contrary to Johnson’s referendum promises, but consistent with his unpublished fears, the Brexit process is threatening peace in Ireland. The Brit- ish economy shrank in the most recent quarter. But rather than soften his pro- Brexit position, Johnson is doubling down, promising to get Britain out of the E.U. by the end of October by dis- pensing with the need for a withdrawal agreement. The prime minister pre- sents this folly as a way to get the Brexit process over with, much as a dentist might end your agony by yanking out your molar. But Johnson’s latest promise is just another cynical lie. If Britain left the E.U. without a deal, it would immediately need to negotiate with Europe about customs arrangements, food safety r ules, the treatment of expa- triates and so forth. Europe is not a rotten tooth that can be extracted and forgotten. Johnson is coupling a destructive ob- jective with equally destructive tactics. A majority of voters oppose his n o-deal exit plan, and a majority of elected lawmak- ers regard it as madness. So the prime minister resolved to silence opponents by suspending Parliament. Until a few days ago, this anti-democratic coup seemed set to work. But this week law- makers are seizing the last days before their suspension to block a no-deal out- come. A series of defeats for the prime minister in parliamentary votes suggests he has lost control of the government. One way or another, the chaos will probably result in an election. The out- come is deeply uncertain, because John- son’s main opponent, the anti-Semitic and anti-capitalist Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is no more appealing than he is. The one hope is that a new political center will rise out of the may- hem. It is not the sort of miracle that sober pundits would bet on. But nor did they predict Istanbul’s new mayor. Or the student protests in Hong Kong.

Se bastian Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing columnist for The Post. He is the author of “The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan.”

SEBASTIAN MALLABY

What could rise

from the Brexit chaos

T

wo stories at the center of the news — the Brexit mess in Britain and the Senate’s failure to act on gun violence — should force us to think hard about what it will take for historic democra- cies to make their systems work again. We need to accept that different conceptions of democracy some- times contradict one another, and that some of our governing struc- tures are the antithesis of democratic rule. The implosion in Britain has creat- ed what usually sober and moderate analysts have taken to calling a “revo- lutionary moment.” Prime Minister Boris Johnson took office this sum- mer committed to getting his country out of the European Union by Oct. 31, even if he failed to make a deal with Britain’s former E.U. partners to min- imize disruption. He insists that all he is doing is living up to what 52 p ercent of British voters supported in the 2016 referendum by casting their ballots in favor of leaving the E.U. Opponents of “no-deal” Brexit argue that the majority for “leave” was not a majority for the chaos that crashing out of the E.U. could leave in its wake. Johnson — made prime minister by the 92,000 members of his Con- servative Party in a country of well over 45 million eligible voters — knew he lacked a majority in Parlia- ment for a no-deal Brexit. So he tried to get around Parliament by “pro- roguing” i t. After a brief sitting this week, under Johnson’s ukase, Parlia- ment was not scheduled to meet again until Oct. 14, leaving him with a lot of unaccountable power. But Parliament wouldn’t have it. A 328-to-301 vote on Tuesday, in which 21 members of Johnson’s own Con- servative Party bolted to the opposi- tion, gave Parliament control of the process — and the 21 dissenters were thrown out of the Conservative Party. On Wednesday, the House of Com- mons passed a bill to block a no-deal Brexit. Note how many times I have used the word “majority” and how everyone in this debate claims the “real” majority is on their side. There is also a tension between the majority in the Parliament elected by the people and the majority verdict the people ren- dered in the referendum. Polls make a good case that many who v oted f or Brexit did not e xpect it to be this difficult — Brexit support- ers such as Johnson suggested it would be a piece of cake — and that no-deal Brexit is not popular. Writ- ing on the BBC’s website, the re- spected British political scientist Sir John Curtice calculated t hat an aver- age of the polls shows 44 percent opposing no-deal Brexit, with only 38 percent favoring it. Of the rest, 11 percent said “neither,” and 10 percent didn’t k now. T here is no majority here — and very little support for crashing out. Personally, I am on the side of those in Britain who want a second referendum now that everyone knows just how messy this process is. A 21-year-old anti-Johnson demon- strator shrewdly echoed words once used by a Brexit advocate. “If a democracy cannot change its mind,” Caitlin O’Hara told the New York Times, “it ceases to be a democracy.” Referendums, in principle the most democratic way of solving problems, can be highly imperfect instruments in gauging t he public’s w ill, especially when the views of a significant number of those making a binary choice are complicated or contingent. When it comes to gun control in the United States, the democratic failure is more straightforward. In blocking a vote on a House-passed bill requiring universal background checks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is clearly foiling the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans. A July NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found that 89 percent support background checks, including 8 4 percent of Republicans. It’s not just that the Senate is a wildly undemocratic institution — 41 senators representing about one- fifth of the country’s population can block action through the filibuster. It’s also that organizations with ex- treme views on guns hold outsize sway over the GOP. As a Post editorial spotlighted this week, it seems that no number of casualties from mass shootings will ever be enough to move McConnell off “his insistent inertia.” So friends of liberal democracy need to revisit the classic questions about what direct role voters should play, how referendums should be structured and what decisions are best made by representative bodies. And in the United States, we need to confront how radically undemocratic the Senate has become. Per- haps the mass-shooting crisis will force us to acknowledge that what fancies itself as the world’s greatest deliberative body is now one of the free world’s least representative institutions. Twitter: @EJDionne

E.J. DIONNE JR.

The

antithesis

of democracy

BY JENNY A. DURKAN

W

e are living through the m ost disruptive era since the In- dustrial Revolution. From lifesaving discoveries to green technologies to better ways to stay connected, the new economy’s gains have been enormous. But, for too many workers, the shifts have been dramatic and unsettling. Hard-fought worker protections, wages and benefits have faded along with the bricks and mortar of the old economy. Now, l ong-term jobs are giving way to gig w ork. R eal w ages have barely b udged for workers. For many Americans, own- ing a home is o ut of r each. The transition is threatening the fabric of our country. We n eed to change course. Cities like Seattle are at the intersec- tions of these seismic changes. We are America’s fastest-growing city over the past decade, fueled by innovation, technology and jobs. But our s tory is, i n many ways, still a tale of two cities. Exploding housing costs have pushed too many longtime residents out of our city and into the suburbs. To o many of our neighbors are e xperiencing homelessness. To o few are building any wealth. Bridging the gap between what we need and what we can a fford i s the key to America’s future. While a number of outdated laws and regulations need to be changed, four steps will help create the n ew f ramework we need throughout the country. And we already know they work. First, workers must be paid fair wages. Seattle was one of the first cities to raise the minimum wage to $15 and to require paid sick and safe leave. Alarm- ist predictions that it would kill jobs proved incorrect. More money in workers’ pockets has meant more money in the economy. Second, we must move quickly to create a workforce ready for jobs that don’t exist today but will be commonplace by

In the state of Washington, we
know that a majority o f jobs will r equire a
postsecondary credential or degree and
will be in top industries such as health
care, information technology or e-
commerce. We know that automation
and robotics are already becoming the
norm in places such as grocery stores and
factory floors. We know we are unpre-
pared f or that workforce o f the future.
To g et r eady, we are making e ducation
more affordable. Seattle will pay for two
years of community college for any pub-
lic school student t o prepare our kids f or
the jobs of the future. And to start pre-

paring kids even younger, we offer free preschool and subsidized day care to families that need it most. Next, we must come together around a national plan to create more a ffordable housing. Though our city has leveraged more than $700 million in public and private resources in affordable housing over the past two years, it is not enough. One of the greatest drivers of inequity in our cities is skyrocketing housing costs. According to a new report, n early 1 o ut o f 3 middle-class households spends more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. That i s an unsustainable trend. We need to acknowledge that government policies have helped create and continue racial disparities, including in housing. Lack of access to homeownership is one of the key contributing fac- tors to the racial wealth gap. We need a national housing plan that prioritizes wealth-building and homeownership, especially for c ommunities of c olor. Finally, we need to build in financial fairness for gig-economy workers, most of whom are independent contractors. This large (and growing) group of workers, such as ride-hailing drivers, often work long hours to enrich companies that are not providing minimum wages, sick leave, retirement or health-care benefits. Unchecked, these new employ- ment models will destroy what’s left of the covenant between labor and man- agement t hat built the A merican middle class. Balance needs to be restored by creating workplace standards for gig workers. To do that, different industries will require tailored solutions. Seattle was the first city in the country to have a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which guarantees to more than 30,000 nan- nies, house cleaners and other domestic workers the m inimum w age, rest breaks and d iscrimination p rotections. A nd our Domestic Workers Standards Board has been charged with developing strategies on other potential portable benefits such as r etirement. None of this will be easy, of course. Many in Washington, D.C., and state capitals will work hard to protect the status quo; others in business will work to protect their bottom lines. But America’s workforce, living in cities or not, cannot wait. If our country takes action, we might still have a chance to save our disappearing middle class and, with it, to renew the nation’s greatest promise.

Th e writer, a Democrat, is the mayor of Seattle.

What U.S. workers need most

I

n recent weeks, President Trump has found time to tweet about the birthdays of wrestling impresario Vince McMahon, talk-show host Regis Philbin and actor Sean Connery; to attack the mayor of London, former FBI director James B. Comey and the “LameStream Media”; to praise himself ad nauseam; and, of course, to play lots and l ots of golf. So riveted is Trump to trivialities that he all but ignores a serious and growing dispute between two of the United States’ most important allies — South Korea and Japan — even though Trump himself admits that their failure to get along “puts us in a bad position.” “ South Korea and Japan have to sit down and get along with each other,” h e said plain- tively on Aug. 9. In the month since, he has gone radio silent even as the feud between To kyo and Seoul has taken a turn for the worse. The current crisis began in the fall of 2018, when South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of elderly Koreans who had sued Japanese companies, which the plaintiffs alleged h ad profited from their slave labor during the Japa- nese occupation of Korea between 1910 and 1945. The Japanese government was outraged. It argued that it had resolved all Korean claims with a series of agreements, ranging from a $500 million economic aid deal when To kyo and Seoul established diplomatic relations in 1965, to an $8.3 million settlement in 2015 for “comfort women” who had been sexually enslaved. But South Korea’s progressive president, Moon Jae-in, had scrapped the comfort- women agreement and sided with Ko- reans who are convinced that Japan hasn’t done enough to atone for its historical sins. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the grandson of a wartime minister and postwar prime minister who was indict- ed (but never tried) on charges of war crimes, is one of many Japanese right- wingers who think their country has apologized e nough. He r esponded to the Korean Supreme Court decision by re- moving South Korea from a “white list” of countries receiving p referential trade treatment. This resulted in s tricter rules governing the export of J apanese chemi- cals that South Korean companies such as Samsung and LG need to manufac- ture flat-screen televisions and semi- conductors — which are used in, among other products, i Phones. S outh Korea, in turn, removed Japan from i ts own white list, while ordinary Koreans boycotted Japanese products. A Korean man even died by setting himself on f ire in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Moon briefly held out a n olive branch

to To kyo with a conciliatory speech last month, in which he said: “If Japan chooses t he path of dialogue and c ooper- ation, we will gladly join hands.” But, unfortunately, his attempted outreach was met with silence from To kyo. So, on Aug. 22, Moon escalated by pulling out of an intelligence-sharing pact, known as the G eneral Security of Military Infor- mation Agreement, with Japan and the United States. The move could not have come at a worse time — just as North Korea is t esting a potent new generation of short-range missiles that can hit any target in South Korea or southern Japan. This makes no sense from the stand- point of South Korean security. Seoul probably benefits more than To kyo from the intelligence-sharing agreement, because it receives access to Japan’s ad- vanced technical surveillance capabili- ties. Why would Moon do this? In part, because catering to anti-Japanese pas- sions is a welcome distraction from his own troubles, which range from a stagnating peace process with North Korea to a stagnating economy. B ashing Japan is always a voter-pleaser in South Korea — as it was in the United States during the 1 980s. But Moon’s drastic decision should also be understood as a plea for help from Washington. By blowing up an intelligence agreement in which the United States has invested a lot of capi- tal, South Korea’s president is trying, among other things, to get the attention of his distracted U.S. counterpart. I sus- pect that both Moon and Abe would welcome U.S. mediation to resolve a dispute both men know is not in their nation’s interests. They simply need a way to de-escalate without appearing weak and thereby alienating nationalist voters in both countries. Lower-level U.S. officials have done their best to urge a settlement, but their words d on’t c arry much weight. It w ould take direct involvement by Trump to have a hope of ending this dispute any- time soon. Trump would have to engage in roll- up-your-sleeves diplomacy — but that’s the last thing he wants to do. He prefers to bluster and bloviate — to play at b eing president without doing the hard work required. He prefers to speculate about the “deal of the century” between Israelis and Palestinians — something that is never going to happen — rather than try to resolve a less sexy but still vitally important crisis in East Asia. While the president tweets and golfs, the hard-won, U.S.-led international order goes the way of Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump casinos, Trump steaks, Trump vodka... Twitter: @MaxBoot

MAX BOOT

Tr ump could fix this Asian

crisis. He ignores it.

UK PARLIAMENT/JESSICA TAYLOR VIA REUTERS British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the House of Commons in London on Wednesday.

A

mong them are two former chancel- lors of the exchequer, an array of former cabinet ministers, and many old and familiar stalwarts of Con- servative Party conferences and Conservative think tanks. One of them, Nicholas Soames, is Winston Churchill’s grandson. Another, Ken- neth Clarke, is the longest- serving member of the House of Commons. All of them were told that if they voted against the Conservative government Tuesday night — paving the way for the British Parliament to block a damaging, “no-deal” Brexit — they would be expelled from the Conservative Party. Not only that, but they also would be prevented from standing as parliamentary candidates at the next election. They would be out of politics. Finished. Ye t all of them, all 21 of them, did it anyway. Why? Firstly, they did it because — of course — it’s an idiotic idea for Britain to sever, from one day to the next, all of its relationships with all of its closest and most important neighbors: not just trade but also security arrangements, scientific agreements, legal pacts, diplomatic deals, everything. During the Brexit referendum campaign, nobody ever said this kind of total break was a possibility, nobody voted for it, and only a minority of the public says they support it now. The 21 To ry rebels know that the diplomatic and economic consequences of a break like this, without transitional treaties and negotiated arrangements, will last for dec- ades. Just about everybody else knows this, too, including the p rime minister, Boris John-

son. But only 21 members of the party were willing to act. Secondly, they did it because a few days earlier, Johnson h ad announced a suspension of Parliament that will begin next week. This unprecedented a buse o f power was a ccompa- nied by a series of open lies, bullying language and threats of a kind that Conservative gov- ernments don’t, historically, use toward their members. T he 21 Tory rebels aren’t j ust standing against an ugly legal and economic mess; they also are standing up in favor of constitu- tional, behavioral and legal norms that they see being broken. They are standing up for a set of parliamentary traditions and customs that they fear w ill be destroyed f orever. Thirdly, they did it because they know — everybody knows — that members of the current Tory leadership have chosen this destructive path not for the sake of the country, not for the well-being of the British, not for the future of their children, but because they are afraid that, having promised Brexit and failed to deliver, they will lose the next election. They a re putting party o ver country. By contrast, the 21 To ry r ebels have decided to put country over party, indeed country over career, in defiance of their leaders. These 21 rebels, in other words, stood up against a national l eader f rom their own p arty to prevent him from harming the country, undermining the constitution and damaging democracy. Imagine how different U.S. politics would be if we could find 21 Republican senators to do the s ame. [email protected]

ANNE APPLEBAUM

Putting country over party

The Washington Post - 05.09.2019

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources