Vox.com’s Matthew Yglesias reminded us on Thursday that he’s not a terribly good political analyst.
Enter these gems on Twitter.
Although if Nick Clegg and David Cameron had taken a comparative government class in college, they might have learned how a Westminster political system works and not done all this nutty stuff with coalition, fixed-term parliaments, non-binding referenda treated as binding, etc.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 27, 2019
Okay, yes, British politics currently appears so chaotic as to make Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., look sensible. But just as Britain’s 1940 destiny wasn’t defined by the wreckage the Luftwaffe wrought on Parliament, nor will Britain’s future be defined by the current parliamentary absurdity. On the contrary, political maneuverings over Brexit reflect vast political opportunities in a moment of vast political consequence. In a democracy, this kind of chaos is to be expected. As a means of contesting proposals in pursuit of best outcomes, perhaps it is even desirable.
Unfortunately, as with most political matters of consequence, Yglesias doesn’t understand this.
Instead, like Tim Robbins in Team America, Ygelsias uses ignorance to paint good as a picture of great evil. He pretends that Brexit is bad because a random newspaper owner wanted it. He thus also pretends that Brexit has nothing to do with the plurality of 17.4 million Britons who actually voted for it in 2016. Nor does Ygelsias see the irony in presenting himself as a master of political virtue while simultaneously disregarding Brexit as the worthless product of a “nonbinding” referendum. Yglesias’ implication is that all would be good if only more sensible Napoleons like himself were in charge.
Of course, he’s wrong. Brexit is an act to restore parliamentary sovereignty from an organization that has very little regard for it. Mandated by popular democratic action, Brexit’s abandonment would dishonor the sacred bond between people and power.
This, Ygelsias calls “wreckage.” I call it freedom.
