Who are "The Establishment"?

Is the idea of a single monolithic Establishment a myth?
(Pic : The Spectator)

2016 will be marked by a revolt against the status quo in liberal democracies. In Wales we've seen the election of UKIP AMs for the first time, followed by Brexit. Earlier this year there was an inconclusive Irish general election. There's also the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn in the face of opposition from Labour's aristocracy and finally Donald Trump's victory last week.

It's not just contained to the Anglosphere either.

The Filipino president, Rodrigo Duterte, makes Trump look like the next Jimmy Carter. Although the Icelandic Pirate Party didn't perform quite as well as expected, they still made sizable gains. In Lithuania, an obscure anti-emigration party (which is a change from what's happening elsewhere in Europe) that previously held one seat came from nowhere to become the largest party. There are popular mass movements to change leaders in Venezuela and South Korea, while the Brazilian president was impeached.

Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) – the German equivalent of UKIP – performed well in this year's federal state elections going into what promises to be a very difficult election for Angela Merkel next year. While the Front National and Five-Star Movement in France and Italy respectively continue to make progress (with a few bumps along the way).

In nearly every case it's been portrayed as a fightback against an "establishment". The question is, who, or what, are "The Establishment" in the first place?

Establishment vs Establishment
(Pic : Guardian)

They don't actually realise they're "The Establishment" – Some people and groups are universally acknowledged as being part of it – i.e. the monarchy, church, politicians, business executives, academia, judiciary. There's no badge or club, it's about where hard and soft power lies any given moment. Many people may not even consider themselves a part of it. Pretty much all forms of media are part of the establishment - even when they rail against it - because it's a form of soft social power that influences opinion and sets agendas.

As a political blogger who generally falls in line with the liberal consensus I probably count as part of "The Establishment" too; I was as gutted as most people reading this would've been about UKIP, Brexit and Trump. The only difference is that as a somewhat detached observer with no ties to a party I saw it coming in my head, if not wanting to believe it would happen in my heart.

They're always there; there's no such thing as an "anti-establishment" party or figure, just competing establishments – There's no single "establishment". There's a conservative establishment, a centrist establishment, a progressive establishment, an economic establishment, a cultural establishmen; at a Welsh level we have "The Crachach". When they cross-pollinate each other they set the tone of social, political and economic progress until another establishment takes over, enabled by their own media narrative and pressure for change from below.

Between the mid-90s and 2015-2016, most of the West has been under a centrist/"Third Way" establishment that's supported: liberal intervention in foreign policy, globalisation, free trade, socially progressive domestic policies, fostered (perhaps even exaggerated) identity politics and some element of fiscal conservatism.

We're replacing that with the sort of right-wing populism and hard-nationalism that existed under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, UKIP etc. are nothing new and no change at all, just a more cartoonish version of what's been before; in fact Trump's very similar to Silvio Berlusconi.

The "outsider" is just a front; the people around them will be familiar faces with familiar ideas and familiar policies, with very similar backgrounds to the people they've just ousted. Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle, for example, are creating their own ideologically pure establishment in the form of Momentum.

They're a self-selecting elite – As said, those at the top of an Establishment usually come from similar backgrounds. This can be good as it means everyone is on the same wavelength and likely to agree with each other. However, if this goes unchallenged, the focus on staying "on message" limits the idea pool, and as soon as an establishment runs out of ideas, they're replaced.

I don't know much about American politics, but from what I've seen (and it's something that happens everywhere, including Wales) it looks like there was a determination at the top of the Democratic party that only Hillary Clinton could be the candidate because she's Hillary Clinton and "it was her turn".

This attitude leads to arrogance and complacency, so when an "outsider" manages to get a real movement behind them – like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump or Jeremy Corbyn – the promise of a "real change" can sometimes trump (excuse the pun) the prevailing orthodoxy and it catches people off guard. Everyone's jaw drops because of....

A sense of entitlement due to an entrenched position – How many of you thought Clinton would win because when it comes to making their mark on a ballot, nobody would be dumb enough to vote Trump, just like nobody would be stupid enough to vote for Brexit "because it's against their own self-interest"? *raises hand*

Once an Establishment or prevailing system is seen as out of touch, broken or simply not working anymore, if there's no sign of them listening or adapting (like Welsh Labour sometimes do), and you were looking at it from an objective point of view, you should see the floor shifting and throwing up wildcard possibilities however unlikely.

The trouble is very few people look at things like that because they are so certain. You get stuff in the media about how so-and-so is unelectable (and almost treated like a joke), the celebrities offer their endorsements as if their opinion matters (I'm sure blue collar folk are delighted to see multi-millionaires tell them how to vote), while people answering polls might publicly say one thing but privately do another because....

Guardians of "The Whistle" – The Establishment polices what's proper and improper discourse and thought, and if you step out of line you get "The Whistle" – a red-faced shout or a shrill screeching in your ears (or a figurative equivalent online). At the moment it sounds like, "racist, sexist, misogynist, safe space, privilege" from the left and "SJW, terrorists, unpatriotic, godless, liberal elite" from the right.

It's common sense that if you want to make substantial social and political progress in a democracy you need a broad base of support. That means getting perceivably advantaged groups on your side, otherwise you can't win and you can't change anything.

Bigotry should be called out for what it is, and bigots will have been amongst those backing the current changes, without question. It's just the ringleaders got to the ones who can make a difference – the struggling, predominantly white, lower-middle and working class - before "The Establishment" did and offered them easy answers to their problems; "kick 'em out, build a wall, take back control".

Aggressively labelling people isn't going to change their mind, and shaming or offending people to vote for you doesn't work. When the whistle's blown every time someone says something you don't agree with (for example equating all opposition to immigration with racism), people will get fed up of having their ears wringing with identity politics strawmen they either don't understand or leaves them feeling marginalised.

If anything it's more likely to entrench their position – and I suspect people on the left (and the right when they're in power) like that because it makes them feel better about themselves and morally superior. They don't have to confront difficult truths, come up with better explanations or work to convince opponents because "they're just a bunch of racists (or SJWs)".

Political discourse today.

They're urban – The thing that perhaps hasn't been commented on so much is this is generally urban/city states vs rural and de-industrialised hinterlands. There are exceptions to this for different reasons – Northern Ireland, north West Wales and Scotland in the Brexit vote for instance.

Metropolitan areas tend to be younger, wealthier, much more of an ethnic melting pot, attract better paying and higher-quality jobs, provide an environment fit for start up companies and tend to house the elite and future elite. They have the luxury of being able to think long-term because they have everything on their doorstep. Third Way centrism and globalisation made them winners.

By contrast, in rural America and places like the south Wales valleys, when a major employer closes its doors for the last time and moves production elsewhere that's it. Those jobs aren't coming back; throwing money at the problem on pork barrel projects simply isn't going to work, the young will keep moving away. Those who can't move keep working their arse's off to keep food on the table on a zero hour contract or benefits, while many of them may not have even seen an immigrant.

All they know is they're struggling and nobody's fixing it. All that's left is a sense of community amidst social and economic isolation, and nostalgia for "the good old days". The likes of Trump and UKIP got it.

Although the No vote in 2014 comes from the same political stable as Brexit, the SNP get it as well but have framed the argument in a more forward-looking way whilst still offering the same opportunity and hope for change. And that's the one anti-establishment movement I've neglected to mention so far.

In 2007, the SNP overturned decades of establishment Labour rule and have built a mass movement off the back of an ultimately unsuccessful independence referendum. As a result, the people who would've otherwise had their heads turned by right-wing populist demagogues are instead part of a broad-base civic Scottish nationalism.

Brexit aside, at a Welsh level we're still waiting for our own anti-establishment backlash untied to events in the UK even if we've been at the forefront of such events in the past – non-conformism, the Chartists etc. If it does happen, it's unlikely to be a change in government (because Wales is increasingly post-political). It'll be one of perhaps three Brexit-style events: the abolition of the National Assembly, a rejection of extra devolution in a referendum or Welsh independence.

All of those things are anti-establishment, though the difference between the the first two and the last is that while there's some residual support amongst the Establishment and other groups for rolling-back or scrapping devolution (in the same way as support for Brexit has always existed), Welsh independence enjoys very little, if any, support amongst the elites.

In the medium-term, the sort of groups backing direct rule will be discredited – they are The Establishment now, or at the very least hold sway. These populist backlashes (particularly when they're political not constitutional) tend to be short-lived too; Podemos and Syriza are falling back in Spain and Greece respectively, while support for the EU has actually increased in the EU itself post-referendum. That doesn't mean this wave is over, but it might not have any staying power once the cracks start to show.

So where will people turn to to "break the system" then?

Laugh all you want, but the success of Brexit and Donald Trump may be indirectly paving the way for Welsh independence if the argument's framed the right way.

It can have a positive message, doesn't have to fall back on bogeymen, demagogues or political incorrectness, yet can still make emotional appeals and come up with a credible plan at the same time. Economics aside, the pins are stacking up perfectly (even more so in Scotland), but at the moment nobody has the ball in their hand.