democracy

by

Trump Administration: Incompetence and Its Consequences

What does the breach in US security tell us about the Trump Administration.

  1. They are incompetent. Sharing battle plans on a non-approved communication channel, hours before the action is due to take place would probably result in the court martial of a serving officer.
  2. Pete Hegseth’s response was to blame the journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was invited onto the group by national security advisor (?!) Mike Waltz. In a vicious and specious personal attack he characterised Mr Goldberg as a “…deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist…” I guess, at least he could hold on to a secret until it was safe to go public and indeed refrained from leaking information that could have put troops lives at risk. More than could be said for Mr Hegseth.
  3. Mr Hegseth’s response might have been better and shorter on misplaced vitriol if he had just said “Sorry”. He is the man who is putting military personnel in harms way. Those going into battle for their country cannot have been impressed by the cavalier approach to security, nor the unprofessional tone of the conversation revealed in the leaks.
  4. The Trump Administration mean what they say. They do not like Europe indeed they have contempt for it. There actions indicate they are much more in line with the strong men leaders in the world. Those that have least regard for democracy.

Based on everything we have seen so far of the Trump Administration there are certain things we can be sure of.

There will be no ceasefire of any consequence in Gaza or Ukraine. The leaders of Russia and Israel have Trump exactly where they want him, supporting their illegal actions which are causing misery to millions of people and death and maiming to tens of thousands.

Europe cannot gain the confidence of the US. They should stop trying.

In 2029 there will be no peaceful transfer of power. Trump will do anything including a military coup to stay in power.

The only bright spot is the administration’s incompetence and hubris. Business leaders have often come unstuck in politics. They think running a nation is just like running a big company. It is not. Citizens are not employees. They are employers. They decide who should administer their country. In healthy democracies that process is peaceful and full of compromise. In tyrannies, brute force is used to prevent the people from having their say, for example, Turkey. If the tyranny delivers: food; jobs; stability; an improving standard of living; they may be able to sustain themselves for years. If they cannot do that then they often end badly.

The Trump administration is not proving to be very competent. Neither does it seem to be considering the political consequences of some of the actions being taken. Protests are gathering momentum across the country and even republicans who voted for Trump are starting to have doubts.

One positive is that the military are unlikely to feel keen to support a leadership so incompetent in holding its waters on live military actions. This might be crucial in 2029.

Whilst Trump still seems to have total control of the Republican Party, the incompetence of the administration and its random and reckless axing of “big government” may be losing it wider support in the country. If the midterms proved to be a bloodbath for the Republicans, Trumps control over the party may evaporate overnight.

We can only hope.

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

Democracy Matters

Against a nation with the second largest number of nuclear missiles and one of the largest armed forces in the world Ukrainians are preparing to fight in the streets of their capital to defend democracy. Given the significance of this for Putin’s own future, without a Russian coup, their resistance is almost certainly doomed to bloody defeat.

However the capture of Kyiv will only create a running sore of opposition to Putin which may well rally others within Russia. This will be reinforced by the country becoming a pariah state with sanctions bleeding the country slowly but surely over time.

The swiftness and scale of the western response and the contrasting laboured pace of the invasion have probably taken Putin by surprise. His fellow “strong” leaders in Hungary and Turkey have abandoned him and even China is far from offering unqualified support.

There are almost certainly members of the officer class in Russia and members of his golden circle of oligarchs who will be wondering where Putin is leading his country. The destruction of Kyiv and the associated bloodbath that seems inevitable will be a hollow victory and will raise even more questions amongst ordinary Russians.

The west’s strategy seems to be to sacrifice the Ukrainian people on the premise that they cannot risk a nuclear confrontation, and the hope sanctions and the ostracisation of Russia will lead to some change in Putin or a change of Putin. Given his actions nuclear escalation can certainly not be ruled out and so caution is wise.

However, if he takes Ukraine and creates a vassal state and then starts military “exercises” on the border with Finland what should the west do? Does the bloody destruction of every non-NATO country in Europe become the price to be paid for “peace”. Do we risk deterrence becoming a one way street?

The future for Ukraine looks bleak. They are on the front line of democracy. If our strategy is as set out above then every support we can provide should be given to its people. Weapons both now to support its defence and in the future to support its opposition. Humanitarian aid to meet whatever disaster Putin creates, and safe haven for the refugees fleeing the country mostly, women and children. And we should be ashamed that a Minister of our Government suggested they apply for potato picking visas.

Sadly our country has adopted Churchillian rhetoric about defending democracy but applied Chamberlainian procrastination in its actions to support those that are doing the work. We have been on the coat tails of pretty much the rest of the west. Germany acted decisively and swiftly at real risk of negative economic consequences for its country.

At the moment this sadly has the look of a war of attrition which will not end with the bloody destruction of Ukrainian cities and the murder of its leaders. Ultimately, the only resolution will be the deposition of Putin. The longer that takes the worse this will be for Ukraine, for Europe, and for Russia.

Ukrainians are providing an object lesson in how valuable democracy is for people who have only relatively recently achieved it. Overnight they have transformed themselves from ordinary citizens to resolute defenders of democracy fighting for freedom. Many have been separated from their families many of whom have, in the blink of an eye, become refugees.

In much of the west, 75 years of democracy have made us complacent about its permanence and even its value. Some arguing enlightened dictatorship would be better. What people usually mean is an enlightened dictatorship doing what they think is right. The problem is once you get a dictator it is what they think is right which matters, and there is little you can do about it.

Democracy does not always secure the best leaders but just occasionally it does. Volodymyr Zelensky has risen above leaders across the west as someone who genuinely is willing to die for his country. He can be under no illusion as to what will happen to him if captured by Russian troops.

Putin is where you can end up when you have no effective way of getting rid of a leader.

If we are not going to fight with the Ukrainians, we should give them unstintingly of our support in every other possible way, even when it costs us. And we should humbly salute them and their leaders for their bravery in defending their country and defending democracy on our behalf.

by

Why Sue Grey’s Report is Irrelevant

Why are Conservative MP’s waiting for Sue Greys report? We are told it will establish the facts. But in reality the facts are no longer in question. Were there breaches of the law in relation to Covid? Did the PM attend where the breaches occurred? Yes to both as admitted by the PM at the dispatch box.

The question is, did the PM lie to Parliament and the country when he admitted the actions but claimed they were unintentional and the fault of the advice of others.

His ministers are running around trying to see if they can get a defence to fly with the country. Jacob Rees Mogg has tried them all. Blaming the civil servants for arranging the breaches; the complexity of his diary; advisors telling him the events were within the rules; a PM focused on his big job and not the meeting he was taken to.

All of these are attempts to demonstrate there was no intention to break, or knowledge he had broken, any laws.

If this does not work there is the defence about how good the PM has been on the “big calls” he has made. How, all this obsession with Partygate, driven by the media and opposition, is distracting the PM from dealing with a vast in-box of issues not least the attempt by President Putin to invade even more of the Ukraine. Mr Rees Mogg even had a go at trying to undermine the severity of the breach by talking about how excessive the rules were.

However well delivered in the meliflous tones of the upper class, however remorseless the politeness and however supported by classical references, Mr Rees Mogg’s arguments for the defence remain bunkum.

In essence the PM’s own argument seems to be the age old defence of the nursery. “He told me to do it.” To which over the years parents and primary school teachers have responded, “So if he told you to jump in the river would you?”

Despite what some people may call him the vast bulk of the population do not think the PM is stupid. And certainly not so mind numbingly stupid as not being able to distinguish, for himself, when he is engaged in breaking a law he has designed.

The country has decided he has lied. He has a track record of this which many people discounted when he was lancing the noxious boil of Brexit, which had petrified UK politics for years after the referendum. Lying about breaches of the Covid laws, however, are lies about something intensely personal for many people. His lies were about behaviour which was in direct contrast to the behaviour of millions of law abiding citizens convinced of the sense of what they were doing to control a deadly disease.

But does Partygate matter? In one view it pales into insignificance when you look at what is happening in the world at the moment. The challenges and threats are significant and many imminent. Ukraine and Putin more generally, the rise of China and its threats toward Taiwan, global Covid, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and the ticking time bomb of the existential climate crisis.

There is another view however which is about the challenge to democracy which is growing around the world. That challenge comes from “strong leaders” who certainly do not want to be held accountable for their kleptocratic behaviour by anything so awkward as democracy.

But it also comes from those within democracies who play fast and loose with the truth. Lying at the heart of government is corrosive. It involves more and more members of the government trying to defend the indefensible. Bending the truth, manipulating the facts, prevaricating to buy time. All the while undermining public confidence in the democratic system. It seems impossible to hold those who break the rules to account if they are rich and or powerful.

President Putin tells lies. He lies about state sponsored assassinations, little green men in Crimea, and the defensive purpose of a build up of 100k troops on the border with Ukraine.

It may be argued lying about breaking minor laws cannot be compared with the egregious life and death falsehoods of President Putin. But that would be a mistake. One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is trust in political leaders and this requires they speak the truth. If people do not feel trust in democracy they may be much less willing to defend it. Indeed they may be happy to try something different.

The PM behaved in a way which he knew would be totally unacceptable to the British public. He decided to try to pretend he had been misled into this behaviour. It does not wash. When you start telling lies to hold on to office you pave the way to ever more audacious falsehoods. Eventually, you do not lead by consent secured by convincing people with rational arguments you lead by force and state enforced “truth” which becomes whatever you want it to be.

The PM and President Putin may be at very different points on the spectrum in relation to lying. However, it is not a spectrum any leader should be on. People will forgive mistakes, they will even forgive some lies, but they will not forgive being taken for mugs. I am pretty sure the Tory party knows this and the PM’s days are numbered.