news

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

“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

Bad and Badder, Dumb and Dumber

The Conservative leadership process has whittled the runners down to two. This may be as a result of an incompetent attempt to game the process or it may be the will of the Party but the two candidates are vying with each other to appear farthest to the right. The continuous drift in that direction over the past decade has resulted in a number of bizarre decisions. With “One Person Toryism” exemplified by Boris Johnson removing the whip from such giants of “One Nation Conservatism” as Michael Heseltine and perhaps culminating in the appointment of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. Someone whose blind ideological fervour was only excelled by her gross incompetence and lack of personal insight.

At one time this drift to the right would be seen as a strategic mistake. The orthodox view being that there were bedrocks of political support on the right and the left and in order to win, parties had to extend their appeal as far as possible in the direction or their opponents to secure the floating voters who would determine the outcome of the election. This had a moderating effect preventing parties drifting too far away from the centre ground.

It may be argued that this balancing process reasserted itself at the last election. However other “theories” are available to explain this landslide shift. The “pendulum theory” which suggests the electorate just feel its time to give the other side a go. A theory based on young children’s universal appeal to fairness when they have not “had a turn” on the bouncy castle yet. Another is that a party which has been in government for a long time has “run out of steam”. They are “exhausted” and unable to come up with new ideas to address the evolving challenges they face. Again it relies on an analysis which simplifies and anthropomorphises a complex social/political reality.

My own guess is the main driver of the last election was, above all, the complete lack of credibility of the Tories, informed by their spectacular incompetence in managing, public services, the economy, a global pandemic, the national finances, in fact, pretty much anything they turned their inattention to.

Supporters of the Labour party may rejoice at the options being put forward for the Conservative Party leadership. They may feel the option of bad or badder for their opponents is a positive thing as both candidates seem set to push the party further away from the “centre” where elections are supposed to be won.

This view may be too optimistic. If we look across the Atlantic we have in the Republican Party a situation which could be characterised as dumb and dumber but none the less may have a winning strategy. A strategy based on moving the bedrock.

Donald Trump is certainly not the sharpest knife in the draw. His record demonstrates he does not have the moral insight, the intellectual capacity nor the personal interest to address the fundamental problems facing the United States at the moment. His shortcomings are well documented and largely come out of his own mouth.

He does have one real strength however. He has, inadvertently, acted as a lightening rod for the broad discontent which has been building across America for at least the last two decades, but with roots going much further back. The growing awareness that the age of the American Dream has passed and the sense that history might be moving East has created a level of uncertainty about the future which has not existed previously for many Americans. Whilst the Dream may never have existed as promoted, there was a long period of sustained and significant growth in the US which meant it was normal for parents to expect their offspring to be better off than they were.

The tectonic plates of growing inequality, a concentration of economic power and willingness to use this to exercise political influence/control, ignored by both Republicans and Democrats, began to reveal themselves in tensions and fissures in the body politic. This process exploded into sharp relief in the earth shivering event which for short hand was called the credit crunch in 2007/8. The credibility of the political elite was significantly undermined by its response to this crisis created by the purely profit motivated innovations of the banking and wider financial sector. To address the rapidly building catastrophe Main Street was sacrificed to Wall Street. Millions of hard working Americans lost their homes and their life savings whilst the banks were bailed out.

Prolonged austerity, “difficult decisions”, technological change and globalisation seemed to be leaving huge numbers of Americans behind. Low wage, short term jobs replaced the blue collar jobs that had sustained decent lifestyles for millions, their circumstances becoming increasingly challenging and, indeed, desperate if any members of the family fell ill. A widespread feeling they were the victims of processes they did not understand but a strong feeling of unfairness, being ignored and left behind.

Fertile ground for someone to come along with slogan simple solutions. Particularly, ones which focused the blame on foreigners in general and immigrants in particular. This approach has manifest risks both for the United States (indeed their very unity) and the wider world given the pivotal role the nation plays in global economics and diplomacy.

To blame the current problems of the United States just on Donald Trump, even accepting the wide range of personal failings he suffers from, is unfair. The leadership of the conservative right in the US has to accept a substantial proportion of the blame. They have remained dumb when some of their number have turned their back on bipartisan politics and the conventions which resulted and sustained that approach. The refusal of a Republican Senate to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court of the sitting president was a particularly egregious example of this, which happened before Trump was elected.

When you start down this road you are faced with having to rationalise and make sense of statements and policy proposals which are incomprehensible, inconsistent or even contradictory. A lot of very clever people have to race around trying to minimise the damage being done. Ultimately you end up having to support a convicted felon as your candidate for the White House.

Remaining dumb in the face of a clearly unqualified candidates ramblings, or “weavings”, results in a spiral into a realm of dumber and dumber actions which may have existential implications not just for the United States and not just for countries around the world but indeed for the future of the planet.

The party political system has many functions. One of its key functions in the past has been to train and develop political leaders. And, perhaps more importantly to winnow out those who are simply incapable of doing what is a very difficult task. On both sides of the Atlantic the parties of the right have failed in this critical function. Their desire for power has overwhelmed all other considerations. Leaders and political policies have become judged first and foremost on whether they will secure power not whether they will contribute to the welfare or wellbeing of their citizens.

Such a value free environment is set I fear to end badly. Conservatives who should and probably do know better need to stand up and be counted. Easier to propose than to do. Liz Cheney, a person of impeccable right-wing conservative credentials took a very public and brave stance against Trump and paid the price as her party turned against her and ousted her. Indeed there are many Republicans who have made a stand but the Republican party machine is so much in awe of Trump’s ability to shift a bedrock of voters that they continue to boost his credibility by backing him.

Going back to the theory about how the floating voters in the centre of politics are a reassuring stabiliser against extremist positions. This mechanism breaks down if the bedrocks of political support move and the centre ground is shifted to the right or indeed the left. What The Republicans have done in the US has been to shift the centre to the right. This process has been going on for many years however it became supercharged when Donald Trump came to dominate the political landscape. His character, or lack of it, has raised the stakes significantly. His challenge to the rule of law, constitutional conventions, the very notion of rational argument and, indeed, any view of the world other than his own has changed the very nature of politics.

This same process of the centre right being undermined from the far right is evident in the the United Kingdom but has not had a character as egregious as Trump to supercharge it. However problematic they are bad and badder do not constitute the same level of threat to democracy as the dumb and dumber issue that the States face… yet.

It may seem odd for someone on the left to be concerned about the health of the right. However, democracies have to be based on compromise. There needs to be a broad degree of agreement of what is acceptable and what the aims of government, in the broadest sense, are. When this breaks down, whatever the longevity or sophistication of its institutions and conventions might be, democracy is at risk. When this is combined with an unstable demagogue much worse may happen. If Donald Trump is elected in November the Republican Party will have to take responsibility for what follows. They may regret this for a very long time.