Wars by the elites on the people are flaring in English-speaking nations on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s being waged fiercely in Westminster Palace’s House of Commons and also in the House of Lords — and in the newsrooms and green rooms of American journalism as well.

You could argue it’s the subject, open or veiled, of almost all recent British and American opinion journalism. But what I find most interesting is that the same elites who proclaim themselves the guardians of accepted mores and norms of civility have been freely, and self-righteously, abandoning those very mores and norms without a hint of embarrassment.

Consider what’s been happening in Westminster. Some 21 MPs elected as Conservatives voted against Prime Minister Boris Johnson and effectively placed control of the agenda in the hands of the leftist anti-Semitic Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. That goes against the long-established norm of voting with your party.

They were able to do so only because the House Speaker, John Bercow, abandoned longstanding precedent to allow such a vote, making it clear he did so to undermine Johnson’s policy on Brexit. That goes against the long-established norm that the British speaker (unlike the speaker here) is politically neutral and follows precedent, whatever the political effect.

The issue that divides Johnson and the large majority of Conservative MPs from the party rebels and the speaker (who was originally elected to Parliament as a Conservative himself) is, of course, Brexit.

British voters in June 2016, more than three years ago, voted to leave rather than remain in the European Union. Turnout was huge; discussion was thorough, and dominated by the pro-"Remain" leaders of all parties and the pro-"Remain" BBC. Nonetheless, some 52% of British voters voted for leave — a larger number than have ever voted for any party in the nation’s history.

Yet, Britain hasn’t left yet, for reasons set out by Christopher Caldwell in the Claremont Review of Books. Johnson’s feckless predecessor, Theresa May, made unilateral concessions to EU negotiators, guided by pro-remain career civil servants. The Commons rejected her agreements three times by nearly 2-to-1. She effectively abandoned the alternative that Britain would leave without a deal, reverting to WTO trade rules.

Johnson has said he’ll negotiate with the EU but, absent an agreement, will leave on the Oct. 31 date which Parliament voted and revised the parliamentary schedule to facilitate that.

Remainers in Parliament and the press attacked his determination to carry out voters’ solemn verdict as “undemocratic.” Some called for a “unity” government, as if a position rejected by voters could forge unity. They routinely dismissed "Leave" voters as ignorant, bigoted, or manipulated by campaign trickery. The two lead editorials in the pro-"Remain" Economist incongruously lament voters’ cynicism and yet urge overturning voters’ Brexit verdict.

Contempt for voters as ignorant and bigoted unites English-speaking elites on both sides of the Atlantic. Here it is apparent, or lightly disguised, in New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet’s remarks at a newsroom meeting of reporters and editors last month.

The precipitating event seems to have been a Times headline reading “Trump urges unity vs. racism.” This accurate description of a presidential speech inspired Twitter rage from readers and Democratic politicians and was dropped for one with an anti-Trump hit, “Assailing hate but not guns.” So much for the norm of journalistic objectivity.

Baquet also reflected on the Times’ coverage of the Trump presidency. “Chapter One of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice?” But then, “the day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand,” he went on, “our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy [expletive], Bob Mueller is not going to do it.”

One of the hallmarks of a great journalist is an instinct for stories that are going to pan out; by his own account, Baquet and the Times lacked it utterly for two years. So, what’s the paper’s new number one story? “[t]o write more deeply about the country, race and other divisions.” Hence the Times’ 1619 Project. The news hook is the arrival of slaves in Virginia 400 years ago, with articles repeatedly asserting the centrality of racism in America ever since, in everything from the lack of universal healthcare to the routes of the freeways in Atlanta.

In other words, having failed to oust Trump on Russia, the Times will try to discredit the elected president, his policies, and his voters as racists. Contempt.