Brexit, Ordinary Voters, and the IRS: the Revolt of the Unwanted, the Unprotected and the Revolting

Several days have passed since British voters upended the status quo favored by experts, elites, and money managers on both sides of the Atlantic. Although trillions of dollars of nominal wealth disappeared within a few hours of the vote, the enduring effects, both political and economic, of this bombshell have yet to be felt in Britain, the European Union, or the United States.

Nevertheless, evidence has surfaced showing that a large fraction of those who voted to leave the EU were individuals who have failed to share evenly in the weak economic recovery from the financial meltdown in 2008. On the other hand, a majority of those who have benefited disproportionately from the freedom of movement of individuals, capital and goods, including elites and smart money bundlers from all political parties (both in Britain and the United States) favored the Remain campaign.

Members of the unprotected class include coalminers and coal producers that some wish to put out of business on grounds that neither carbon producers nor workers should be necessary in an economy run by experts and climate change apologists. The unprotected class, as Peggy Noonan has termed it, could also be called the unwanted class because of how many economic elites look down upon them condescendingly as a blight on society as progressives perceive it and wish it to be.

This unprotected and all-too-often unwanted class is frequently populated by good hard-working employees who have rarely seen a pay increase in real-terms during the past 20-25 years and too frequently have seen their values disparaged by those in power.  And as George Bailey says in the cinematic classic, It’s a Wonderful Life, these are the people doing most of the working and paying and living in our communities. They’re the ones making our communities, charities, and churches function and work.

But their economic circumstances have remained unchanged, irrespective of which political party held power and irrespective of the numerous free trade pacts that have been agreed to by Western governments. This phenomenon is true for both Britain and the United States, where the empirical evidence shows that upwards of 95 percent of the growth in real incomes during recent decades has gone to top one percent of the population.

It is clear that the economically and socially unprotected have failed to share in what is an increasingly globalized economy that has been disrupted by technology, increased reliance on information that moves at the speed of light, and the demand for an increasingly technically adept work-force. The unwanted have also been threatened by international events such as surging and difficult-to-control immigration, the global refugee crisis caused in part by establishment figures who persist in offering incoherent policies in the Middle East and Latin America, and the inability of the establishment on either side of the Atlantic to put together a credible and thoughtful plan that deals with the legitimate fears of ordinary voters, including terror. Among other things, the terror threat tied to refugees assumes greater prominence in light of the clear evidence that they cannot be properly vetted.

An understanding of the fears of ordinary votes does not necessarily mean that we close our borders entirely and run from humanity because terror groups will find other ways to inflict pain on the West. Instead, it means we should try to solve the refugee challenge at its heart in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere rather than through limitless immigration, which poses a direct challenge to the lives of the unprotected, and all of us at the end of the day.

Ordinary voters cannot afford to live in protected enclaves that are disproportionately populated by the wealthy and largely free of refugees or poor immigrants who pose a threat to the jobs, safety and futures of the unprotected. Put differently, ordinary people in Britain cannot afford to live in Kensington or Chelsea, protected areas favored by elites, nor can everyday Americans live in McLean, Virginia or Potomac, Maryland, American areas which are favored by establishment types such as former lawmakers who earn huge incomes and corrupt the political process at the expense of the interests of ordinary voters.

Rising anger among the “revolting” among us is signified by the creation of various grassroots groups that are frequently grounded in patriotism and liberty. Provoked by rising political opposition from such groups, the current Administration has engaged in numerous politically motivated IRS rulings that suggests that its opponents are driven by hatred and bigotry.

Consistent with the Administration’s narrative that is grounded in political correctness, evidence released this month shows that the IRS cast a wide net to harass and intimidate people seeking tax exempt status if they had the wrong politics. Rather than celebrate freedom, unelected bureaucrats and their political bosses can’t fathom or understand individuals who call themselves Tea Party Patriots. Hence these bureaucrats prefer to intervene in the lives of disfavored individuals and groups in order to advance an agenda that elevates elite biases, including the establishment’s palpable disdain for people they see as “revolting” simply because they cling to their traditions that include religion, guns, and patriotism.

Consistent with my points here, one Democrat party pollster confirms that only elites really care about the potentially adverse consequences of Brexit. The evidence on the ground suggests that, even if Brexit produces adverse economic consequences, it will make little difference to the actual lives of working-class workers on either side of the Atlantic. This signifies that there is a political opening for astute political leaders in all political parties in Britain and United States.

To wit, if they genuinely care about the issues and legitimate fears that animate ordinary voters, astute leaders will have a fresh opportunity to shape the populist mood in both Britain and the United States in order to ensure that common folks benefit from whatever comes next. In the absence of such a development, it is likely that elites will turn increasingly to authoritarianism, a possibility best exemplified by the Internal Revenue Service’s discriminatory treatment of grassroots, patriotic conservative organizations, in order to “control” the disaffected. Not only would a move toward authoritarianism prove damaging to prevailing notions of democracy, it would demonstrate that intellectual and financial elites who control London and Washington D.C. are adorned with far too little clothing and almost no moral legitimacy despite their oft-proclaimed commitment to tolerance, caring, and inclusion.

At the ACLJ, we represent 38 of these grassroots conservative organizations in federal court, challenging the Obama Administration Internal Revenue Service’s unconstitutional and illegal targeting of these groups.  We continue fighting for justice and freedom for all Americans.