Brexit and the Green New Deal: An Aesopian Analysis

What on earth could Brexit have in common with the Green New Deal?

At first glance, nothing at all. Brexit is populist and bad. The Green New Deal is progressive and noble. But perhaps we could apply the tenets of Gaddis from the last newsletter that leaders should be both a fox and a hedgehog and balance aspirations with capabilities? If faithfully applied, we soon discover that both movements suffer from a hedgehog syndrome and excessive aspiration for their capabilities at hand.

Brexit: Imperialistic Nostalgia and a Tortoise

“Rule Britannia” sings that Britons never will be slaves; but are they now slaves to Brussels or to their own nostalgia?

“Rule Britannia” sings that Britons never will be slaves; but are they now slaves to Brussels or to their own nostalgia?

After being rejected thrice in Parliament, Theresa May is seeking cross-party consensus with the opposition Labour Party and requested a further extension for Brexit to June 30th. For now, there is still hope to avoid a hard Brexit.

On a macro-level, Brexit reflects roughly half of its inhabitants’ false assumption that Brussels is suffocating Britain’s greatness as well as their fantasy that the empire on which the sun never sets could be revived by cutting ties with EU. Sam Byers mourns that Britain is drowning in nostalgia.

But what is such imperial nostalgia other than too grand an aspiration with too little capability to match it? The New Yorker reports that “[s]upport for Brexit correlated with ‘collective narcissism’—a belief in the unparalleled greatness of one’s country—and with a heightened fear of immigrants.” It’s narcissism against the cold, hard reality: the New York Times reports that “British economy is now 1 to 2.5 percent smaller than it would have been without the Brexit vote”. It could be worse.

Mrs. Theresa May is an Aesopian tortoise, but not the one that won the race.

Mrs. Theresa May is an Aesopian tortoise, but not the one that won the race.

On a micro-level, Brexit reveals a lot about Britain’s current leader, Theresa May. Though May campaigned for Remain, she has led with a stubborn conviction that Brexit is British people’s choice and must be enforced. The Economist offers a humorous yet incisive verdict on May’s leadership:

“Wilfredo Pareto…argued that effective leaders fall into two categories: lions, who rely on strength, and foxes, who rely on cunning. Mrs May represents a third type, the tortoise. Tortoises can achieve remarkable things in the right circumstances, thanks to their thick shells and plodding determination, as Mrs May’s six years as home secretary showed. But Brexit demanded different qualities—the cunning of the fox and the occasional raw power of the lion. And tortoises suffer from one big weakness: flip them on their backs and they are extremely vulnerable.

Hedgehog or tortoise, May lacks flexibility necessary to balance her negotiation within her government and with EU. The hedgehog spirit had led Britain through the darkest hours in WWII, but that Britain had enough wit to manoeuvre like a fox. Today’s Britain, headed by a tortoise and lion-cub-like Brexiteers with little teeth and claws, is reducing the empire to a farce, quite like Shakespeare’s “poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Green New Deal: AOC’s The Art of No Deal

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the congresswoman who champions the Green New Deal, which strives to be like FDR’s New Deal that restored American prosperity after the Great Depression, is uncompromising against billionaires, social inequality, and conservatism. Popular among the millennials, she is known for her outspoken democratic socialism, unwavering environmentalism, and social media skills. But her Green New Deal is, to my sadness, no deal at all, freshly rejected by the U.S. Senatelast week.

First of all, the deal’s noble promise of “high-quality health care; affordable, safe and adequate housing; economic security; and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature” has no details to back up the execution. It’s all bones with no flesh. There’s no question that climate change is happening and drastic measures are needed to revert its course. There is no question that we can do better on tackling inequality, especially as technological advancements are splitting the workforce in two. But empty promises are nothing but fantasy, and good intentions result often in tragedy.

What’s more, there’s no bi-partisan ground for the deal. In a politically divisiveAmerica, featuring trillion-dollar price tags and an unrealistic economic plan raising debt or taxes on the rich invites only opposition from the backward-thinking Republicans who are only too ready to believe that lumping together climate and social policy serves as Democrats’ smokescreen for a left-wing economic agenda.

It also defies market economics. Climate change is a market failure that can be solved by including the social costs of emission into the prices consumers pay, reducing people’s emissions by making carbon-intensive activities pricier. An elegant solutionindeed. But it takes time when drastic changes are needed now. Therefore, AOC’s deal goal goes into extreme, ignoring economic principles and cost-benefit analysis, aiming at 100% decarbonisation within a decade when renewable capacity and market mechanism are not fully developed to match her aspiration.

Al Gore, a former vice president and environmental activist, is hopeful and optimistic about the Green New Deal. Unfortunately, despite his many talents, skills, and virtues, Gore isn’t a political genius on the rank of Lincoln, FDR, or LBJ. Walter Russell Meadcomments that Gore possesses “Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch.” Therefore, Al Gore’s approval can hardly add weight to AOC’s hedgehog scheme. Perhaps AOC only wished to serve as a pawn in a grand revolution yet to be steered by a real leader? If not, I hope she reads On Grand Strategy.

So What Kind of Leaders Do We Need?

You can say Lincoln and LBJ are two types of leaders, but they are both effective in getting the job done.

You can say Lincoln and LBJ are two types of leaders, but they are both effective in getting the job done.

Personally, I am in favour of a leader who has both a moral compass but also the patience and flexibility to wait for the best timing. Therefore, Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson are on the top of my mind to illustrate two archetypes of effective leaders: a fox that is morally good and a fox that appears morally questionable.

Lincoln and The Emancipation Proclamation

Despite morally opposing slavery, Lincoln knew an immediate abolition of slavery could harm the Union more than to serve any good. Instead, he patiently designed a plan to put slavery slowly to death. Why so? His “personal wish” had always been that all men could be free, but as the president he must be tactful with the timing and the momentum.

Captured slaves were tricky to handle during the Civil War. Being patient, Lincoln did not allow his generals to free captured slaves, but he also did not object to have the slaves put to work in supplying the army. Not only did this augment the Northern manpower in fighting the war, but it also unnerved the South, where people always feared slave revolts.

What’s more, no Northerner could support re-enslavement when these captured slaves had fought for the Union. The more blood the Union shed, the more just emancipation would be. Therefore, his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 was not declared in desperation by in full strength and legitimacy. From that moment on, Southern rebels were in passive defense.

LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement

A second exemplar of the leadership I desire to see is the controversial, or even awful, Lyndon B. Johnson. My favorite biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin expresses her hesitation when including LBJ in her most recent book, Leadership in Turbulent Times. But given the amount of legislations he passed and changes he made in society, LBJ is the epitome of a fox with moral rectitude.

In an interview with the New York TimesRobert A. Caro, the author of four volumes of biography on LBJ, sheds light on LBJ’s political genius:

You read in every textbook that cliché: Power corrupts. In my opinion, I’ve learned that power does not always corrupt. Power can cleanse. When you’re climbing to get power, you have to use whatever methods are necessary, and you have to conceal your aims. Because if people knew your aims, it might make them not want to give you power. Prime example: the southern senators who raised Lyndon Johnson up in the Senate. They did that because he had made them believe that he felt the same way they did about black people and segregation. But then when you get power, you can do what you want. So power reveals. Do I want people to know that? Yes.


As liberals and millennials who care about our Earth and all future generations, we are eager for change; we are eager for action. We blame the outdated conservatives and the corporate lobbyists, binging radical leftist ideas. But too much cynicism sink us into mud and too much idealism detaches us from the ground. Maybe we need visionaries like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to stir up the pot and get the discussion going. But to actually push the political wheel forward and make concrete changes, we need to think twice before jumping to the camp of “revolutionaries”.