US politics

by

“Manners Maketh the Man”

In 1487 William Caxton wrote “according to an old proverb he that is not mannered is no man for manners maketh the man.” Now, it is as pointless to berate Donald Trump for the absence of manners as it is to berate Vlad the Impaler for cruelty, or indeed, water for being wet.

The White House press conference, however, went far beyond bad manners. It was a trap set by President Trump and Vice President Vance (VP) to goad, belittle and embarrass President Zelensky, an attempt to present him as an ungrateful recipient of US support whilst simultaneously demanding more for his country.

The Vice President led the attack with an inappropriate and untrue claim that President Valentsky had never thanked the US for their support to date. When he pointed out that he had indeed thanked them many times the VP shifted ground to he hadn’t done it today in the Oval office. Petty? Duplicitous? Inappropriate? I think we can award Vance a hat trick on this.

Putting rhetorical questions to him, making false statements about him and his country, not allowing him to answer, shouting over him, pointing and waging their fingers at him like an outraged school master of yesteryear. Their behaviour was shameful. Even on the grounds of basic common decency and manners there actions plumbed new depths of outrageous behaviour. It will be interesting to see what the bulk of American citizens felt about this extraordinary display by their Commander in Chief, the representative of their country.

As part of a diplomatic process the angry hectoring was something that has not been see since the start of World War Two when the doctrine of “might is right” was last so obviously in evidence. They clearly reveal President Trumps approach to dealing with those who have little or no power. Or indeed, to those who simply have less power than the most powerful country in the world.

But then it seems strange that precisely because of the power disparity between the two nations it was felt necessary to behave in such a loud and aggressive manner. President Roosevelt was often heard to say in relation to diplomacy that you should “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The US has the biggest stick on the planet. Why did they have to behave in that way? Is it simply Trump’s mercurial character or were they frightened of something?

Whatever the answer, there is not excuse for the behaviour.

There are a lot of people around the world trying to excuse, explain or even, simply make sense of what comes out of the Trump White House. It is difficult to do this as often what comes out of his mouth appears to be the first thing that pops into his head, with little engagement with the brain on the way through.

There are, however, some worrying areas of consistency, and the relationship with President Putin is one of those. It seems clear that there was a concerted effort by the Kremlin to support Trump’s first candidacy in 2016 with fake news, social media campaigns. When in office Trump met with Putin in Helsinki and afterwards defended the Russian leader against claims by the US’s own intelligence services that he had authorised such a covert programme of social media support for Trump. Indeed Trump made a habit of private meetings with Putin without advisors present and keeping the translators notes of the meetings during his first term in office.

After a recent discussion with Putin he came out rehearsing Russian talking point about the war in Ukraine including the charge that Ukraine started it? A classic example of newspeak. His actions since culminating in todays suspension of military aid make clear who’s side President Trump is on in the current war. There can be no mistake, he is not an impartial arbiter.

Few things in Trump world are consistent. But all those that are, are inimical to the interests of democracies wherever they are, to equality of any kind, and, without hyperbole, the existential future of the planet.

Europe may have to speak to President Trump with a soft voice, but they need to work furiously to build a big stick. Trump is not an unreliable ally that is confused or does not really understand the implications of his actions. Rather, he displays all the characteristics of an enemy and he is certainly aligning himself with all those that are opposed to liberal democratic values.

If anyone thinks a strategy of, wait until he is gone, is sensible, I think they underestimate where Trump might be taking America. We are less than three months into the new Administration and constitutional conventions have been breached willy nilly, indeed some of the clauses of the Constitution have been challenged, like that guaranteeing American citizenship to anyone born in America.

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States confirms that, once elected President, “He shall hold his Office during the Term of Four years,…” The Constitution, did not set a limit on the number of terms an individual can hold the office. Amendment 22 however, ratified on 27 February 1951 states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”

If the current presidency does not collapse under the weight of it own hubris, which is a real possibility, I fear Amendment 22 might be subject to challenge. Indeed it may simply be ignored by an incumbent who has filled all the key posts of government and the judiciary with yes men, including the leadership of the armed forces, which already seems to have started. The doctrine of “might is right ” may be applied at home as well as abroad.

The European political elite seem to be focused on placating Trump. One can only hope this is to buy time for them to establish a credible set of bargaining chips to defend, democratic, liberal and humane values. No one should underestimate the threat he represents to civilised order nor to the future viability of the planet as a place for human beings to thrive. There has never been a more dangerous challenge to the world than a Trump presidency.

There is a saying oft quoted by parents and teachers to their children. “Good manners cost nothing but mean everything.” If Trump ever heard this I am pretty sure he stopped listening as soon as he got to “cost nothing”. Anything that costs nothing must be worthless in Trump’s transactional world. No wonder values pass beneath his radar without causing a flicker.

by

A House Divided.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at the Illinois Republican State Convention, which had just nominated him as their candidate for the position of Senator. The speech was about the issue of slavery and how it was dividing the States of the Union. His key phrase in the speech was that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The divisive issue of the time was slavery. An appalling institution but one which has a very tangible and clear definition.

At the moment the US is a house divided probably as vehemently as it was in 1858. Three years after that speech America was at war with itself.

The dividing line this time is less tangible. It is those that see MAGA as a theory of the world. One which addresses the reduction of well paid, middle class, jobs to the, “others” within, (or immigrants), and the “others” without, (notably China). A host of other economic and social issues are swept up into this portmanteau of grievance.

What it does effectively is point to genuine failures of the US to protect its citizens from the ravages of a financially driven economic system, one which is, wholly and exclusively focused on achieving the maximum rate of return on investments. A system which had concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and, with that wealth, power. Power, which has been used to defend existing riches and support their increase, partly by diverting resources from public services which historically played such an important role in redistributing wealth.

Simplistic slogans, like smaller government and lower taxes together with a host of socially repressive measures are presented as the way of MAGA.

At the moment the other side of the debate is poorly articulated and weakly promoted. The Democrats are AWOL, providing little incisive critique, nor the volume of justifiable outrage at the actions of the new President. Actions which are contradictory, but shifting, on the diplomatic level; the US from its Atlanticist position to little more than a mouthpiece for Putin; on the economic level, towards trade wars which will damage the US as much as its targets; and on the social level towards a patriarchy opposed to every form of equality which challenges white male supremacy.

Some of these shifts will be difficult for traditional Republicans. The GOP has, however, been cowed by Trump’s electoral success. Power before principle is an ever present risk in democracies. As his actions become increasingly outrageous one can only hope some may start to raise their heads above the parapet. An immensely brave action given the awesome power a US President wields, particularly one with little regard to the Constitution, much less the conventions which have evolved to ensure it remains fit for the operation of a liberal democracy.

It is quite possible that this Presidency will implode at some point. If it does, however, it will only be after millions of people have suffered and died, at home and abroad because of his megalomaniac certainty. If it does then it will likely not be because of the actions of the political elites. Rather, some more popular revolt, as the damage he inflicts on the US becomes apparent to some of those who voted for him because they thought he would bring positive change.

The MAGA brethren, those who have a millenarian faith in the truth and power of their leader will never change. But many ordinary Republicans may come to regret their vote.

Implosion is one option but there is a far darker one. The Nation made clear their concern about the sacking of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General, Charle Brown Jnr, by Trump, and his replacement with a far less qualified loyalist. The headline “Make No Mistake, This Is Trump’s Worse Move Yet”. The reason they felt this was set out in the sub-heading which concluded, “Prepare for autocracy.”

In four years time the US tradition of a peaceful handover of power will be put to its most severe test in its history.

by

Trump – Cracks and Crumbles

Ex-President Trump still holds substantial sway over the Republican Party. The leader of the GOP in the House, Congressman McCarthy, is arguing the Independent Inquiry into the storming of the Capitol Building should include in its terms of reference consideration of ANTIFA’s actions following the murder of George Floyd. He has also turned a free vote into a party vote on the matter. This is all very much at the behest of the former president.

However, Mitch McConnell has not jumped on this issue so far. Further, Lyndsey Graham, a Trump loyalist for the 4 years of his presidency has now indicated he wants to move on from the Trump assertion about a stolen election. Liz Cheney may have been removed from her position within the party, but putting her outside the tent may prove to be a big mistake. She has unimpeachable conservative credentials and is a formidable and effective political operator. At the least she is likely to complicate the 2024 election.

Other senior Republicans outside of Washington are starting to question the sense of denying what every recount, every investigation and every court challenge has confirmed. The Joe Biden won fair and square and by a significant margin. Republican Governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, talked about the dismissal of Cheney as “doubling down on failure”. It may take time but the incredible claims will, over time, have to be abandoned if the GOP wish to remain a credible mainstream party of the centre right. The current cracks will continue to widen and eventually the whole disreputable edifice will be swept away.

On another front, or fronts, the news in not good for the ex-President. Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General, has just confirmed a) that her civil investigation into the business affairs have just been combined with investigations into criminal matters; and b) that her department will be working with Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, to investigate these matters.

Claims that ex-President Trump’s business routinely manipulated the valuation of assets have been under investigation for some time. His ex personal attorney, Michael Cohen, outlined how these had worked following his indictment for illegal payments to Stormy Daniels. Pressure is now building on the Trump organisation’s Chief Finance Officer to co-operate with investigators to avoid serious personal legal jeopardy. The tower that once was Trump may be about to crumble.

by

Freedom of Screech

In 1987 the US Federal Communications Commission abolished the “fairness doctrine”. This had been in place since the 1940’s and required broadcasters to provide a balanced hearing for different viewpoints on topics. It did not specify how this should be done, for example with equal amounts of time, however it meant that a broadcaster’s licence could be in jeopardy if they failed to allow different sides of an argument to be aired.

The repeal of the doctrine paved the way for talk radio to give birth to the shock jock. In 1988 Rush Limbaugh was recruited for a nationally syndicated radio show which by 2020 had become the the most listened to talk radio show in the US with just over 15m listeners every week. The next most popular radio show was that of Sean Hannity with 15 million listeners.

Both broadcasters espoused extreme right wing views on race, feminism, climate change and a range of other liberal causes. Like President Trump, for example, they claimed climate change was a hoax. Thus not only were they extreme, they were also wrong.

They are often portrayed as the leading edge of a process where the media began to divide into liberal and conservative channels with the distinction between them ever more stark. Cable TV networks and the advent of Fox News in 1996 reinforced this evolution. Donald Trump’s channel of choice it also drew some 87 million other older viewers (median age 68) providing a diet of climate change deniers, gun lobby supporters and anti-government groups of all sorts.

The rise of an increasingly militant right wing media has often been presented as one side of a process of increasing partisanship. A process where those on the right and those on the left retreat to their respective extremes and eschew any common ground in political debate.

Whilst it is clear what broad political stand point networks like CNN and MSNBC support there is a false equivalence to their partisanship. First, in terms of degree the right has moved much further to the right than the left has to the left. But worse, they have they have moved to the wrong right. The right which rejects trade, science and experts, (apart from brain surgeons and airline pilots when you are on a hospital bed or in an airplane!) not the right which promotes entrepreneurship, business, commerce, markets and an effective welfare state..

If we take climate change, the consensus scientific view on this has been in place for decades. The rejection of this science is not, inherently, a shift to the right, it is just wrong. That the Republican Party and the right in America have hitched their wagon to that… ass, is not only wrong but in the medium term politically risky. As the scientific reality of climate change becomes a physical reality pretending it is a hoax when it is taking peoples lives and homes must become an increasingly difficult sell.

When mainstream media turn their back on notions of impartiality, truth and scientific facts it is unsurprising the volume goes up and the quality down. Unless the Republican Party takes some serious action to distinguish itself from Donald Trump and connect with the issues the majority of Americans care about they are going to be trapped in a declining market of those who think the First Amendment is really a license to lie.

On this side of the Atlantic we need to be wary of moves which seem to be testing our desire to travel the same road. We have in the BBC a global brand which is highly respected and indeed revered in some countries. It is an important part of our soft power and that may become the only power we have over time so we lose it at our peril. No one would say the BBC is perfect, far from. However, it may be that it is like democracy, the worst broadcaster in the world, apart from all the others. And also like democracy something you really regret losing when it is too late.

Abolishing the fairness doctrine probably seemed like a minor change when it occurred. Its effects have, however, cast a long shadow over US and consequentially global politics. Perhaps it is time to restore it.