For those who haven't seen the bizarre UK news, the government of England opened up voting to name their newest Arctic exploration vessel. Long story short, the people did their thing, and the name "Boaty McBoatface" was the massive crowd favorite. Government elites scoffed in disdain at the childish, un-serious name, and decided it would not be the official name of the boat, overriding the popular will. On the surface, this is a relatively trite story of people being silly across the ocean. But there is an important and upsetting lesson embedded in this narrative. Something that hits to the heart of how Western Democracy functions.
See, this strikes me as a classic example of people flexing an untested muscle, seeing what sort of power it actually has. For the majority of the time, democratic elections and processes essentially rubber stamp the decisions already made by leaders in power. The primary election cycle in the US is a great example of this: most election years, the party coalesces around a consensus candidate, endorsements flow in, donor money gets the word out, and party regulars fall in line. The chosen candidate at the beginning of the cycle becomes the candidate that eventually runs, think Mitt Romney, Bill Clinton, etc. Occasionally the first choice doesn't get backing, but one of the back-up choices does and all is still well. The leaders are happy to sign off on a choice that is still in their wheelhouse(think Barack Obama.) When things proceed according to this plan, there's a sort of utopian validation, where leaders get what they want with the added validation of mass support while the people feel as though their voices are heard and effective. Of course in this scenario, people are not truly the originators of the ideas and people that they are confirming. They are involved, but at the late stage, like when you were younger and your mom asked whether you wanted hotdogs or grilled cheese for lunch. You feel you have a choice when in fact your choices have been limited from infinity, to two. And in that case, it's for the best, you were probably not the best cook at the time, nor were you likely paying for all the food that made the meals, nor are you likely the most rational decision maker as a child(I for one would have often asked for candy instead). It's a clearly subservient relationship, and in this case it makes sense because you were a child and needed to grow into the circumstances and skills needed for you to have full choice over your food.
Only this is not how the power structure in democracy is supposed to work. The people are ostensibly sovereign in democracy, not the petulant children of the state, to be guided and goaded into making "the right choices" between predetermined options. This is where Trump and Boaty McBoatface share a common thread. Both seem to be ridiculous choices to all those looking at the process from experience and leadership. The UK government is as unhappy to entertain the prospect of a silly name as the Republican National Committee is to support and attach itself to a Trump candidacy. But both are the will of the people.
This says something upsetting about both sides of the equation. The scenario suggests Western Democracy's power relationship is like that of a parent state and child population, rather than peers, or vice versa as it should be. From the people's side, this is a problem; it means the state has an improperly large influence on choices and the direction of history. On the other side though, there are equally important concerns: the populace has, in the course of being governed, lost some of the maturity and capacity needed to govern itself. At least, it appears that way. A democratic population making decisions so easily and accurately identified as childish like silly names and tough guy candidates is a pretty clear indicator. Maybe the leaders are right to try to be the adults in the room. We're stuck with a chicken and egg scenario here, where some side has to give to allow both to rebalance. The stakes are higher though than letting a kid grow up. This correction is unlike when your parents allow you to pick your outfit for the first time for school pictures and you choose the dragon shirt with Hawaiian print and the only consequence is a funny picture. If a people makes silly mistakes on the process of relearning to govern themselves, the consequences can be destructive on a global scale. At the same time, a state that helicopter parents it's people is only setting itself up for some serious teenage rebellion, though when a people do it it's called revolution.
The state isn't our parent though, and it disgusts me how well that metaphor fits. Examples like this are, sadly, freeflowing. They show us the backwards toxicity of the way we have let things become. Hopefully, the Trump McBoatface phenomena are a clarion call that allows us to look deep and deliberately correct our course. I remain a pessimistic optimist about it.