There's no denying that Donald Trump's election victory came as a shock to millions. One of our right-wing rags, The Sun, smirked triumphantly:"LIBERAL late-night show hosts were seen losing their minds following Donald Trump's sweeping election victory. The US TV stars (Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers) went into full-blown meltdowns with some tearing up and others becoming emotional live on air".
Kristin Tadlock-Hunter, an American living in Britain, told in The Guardian of her feelings:
“Devastated doesn’t cover it ... I think it’s a unique experience, to be an immigrant watching it from afar. It feels like you’re watching your house burn down from across the street, with all your friends and family still inside".
And I know that very many British people, including me, were shocked to see a convicted felon elected as leader one of the world's greatest democracies. I'm sorry to say, though, it was only similar to shocks to the system that I felt after Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol building, after the Brexit referendum vote, when Boris Johnson was elected and when Reform UK won seats in the last election. It was larger in scale, but similar in type - a dull horror, mixed with disbelief, at the triumph of the populist Right.
Like very many other people worldwide, I was wondering what had brought this about. Throughout the electoral campaign, I was convinced that Kamala Harris must win. After Donald Trump (DT) won, I struggled with a variety of explanations provided by the media. They all seemed valid. Then, on Friday, I did something I never usually do: I bought a copy of The Times (The Guardian had sold out) to read before meeting my wife for a meal out. The lead articles weren't as scurrilously gloating as the articles in The Sun, but, as expected, there was a message to us "Liberals" by Hugo Rifkind. "Face it, liberals, this is what millions wanted". I refuse to provide a link, as The Times will try to charge you for the privilege. Essentially, Rifkind provides the "bread and butter" explanation that DT appealed to US voters worried about declining living standards. He comments:
"...liberals will never understand Trump's success because they literally don't se it...it must, really, be about them...it can't possibly be about people thinking him to be a better bet for a bit less immigration, and a decent job, and perhaps slightly cheaper eggs".
The trouble is that DT is now in a position to influence international events such as the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. To its credit, The Times covers this in an article by Iain Martin: "Stand by for the West's betrayal of Ukraine". Now, that stirred a memory...
DT promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Neville Chamberlain, seen above, promised Peace in 1936, having sold Czechoslovakia out to Hitler. He failed dismally, as we know. DT is behind schedule, but the Ukrainians have good reason to be concerned. As Martin points out, DT:
"...has a friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin and it is likely the Russian leader will welcome an attempt to freeze the conflict..."
He continues by saying that a Peace Deal:
"...means surrender to Russia and the rewarding of aggression".
Martin hopes that DT might decide to stand up to Putin, but:
"...what seems more likely is that we will wring our hands while Ukraine is forced to endure ritual humiliation."
But there could be consequences for US democracy itself, as Kamala Harris predicted during the electoral campaign. It calls to mind an image I saw the other day on Facebook:
As DT has promised to forcibly deport 10 million men, women and children from the United States, there is a possibility that he will need to establish transit assembly camps. The parallels with the Nazi concentration camps are only too obvious and surely a breach of US law. Then there is the fact that DT has promised to exact revenge on all his active opponents and critics of the last four years. This could lead to journalists, lawyers, politicians, comedians, TV presenters, musicians, singers and Stormy Daniels facing vindictive reprisals, and all with enthusiastic presidential approval. Goodbye to the venerable American tradition (and constitutional right) of free speech.
The other day, I joked with a French lady, who lives in Geneva, that if the Statue of Liberty is indeed walking across the Atlantic, it could land at St Malo in Brittany. My friend said that it would look good in the port area. I concurred, and suggested that it could be turned to face towards America, where it it would provide a welcome to American refugees landing in France.
At the time I first wrote that, I thought it was funny. I'm not so sure now...
But, there is one UK initiative to befriend DT (I'm getting a dose of the DTs) of which I completely approve.
There has been a suggestion that we could send Nigel Farage to the US as our ambassador. I think this is a very good idea. If Farage goes to the United States, he might never come back...
Martin Woodford writes:
ReplyDelete"Well, Geoff
I agree in part but would explain it differently. I believe that there has been a break between the rulers and the governed. I suggest that Hilary Clinton loosing is a result if this. She is part of the political regime in USA and it seems the chatterarty just could not understand how a buffoon like Trump could beat her but it was because she was an insider and he was not, that his appeal to dissatisfied blue collar workers, amongst others, got him in. People were sick of being talked down to, patronised and lied to by the political establishment.
I believe the same is true here. 129 (?) Labour shadow post holders decided to overturn the decision of 700,000 Labour Party members who had elected Corbyn as Party Leader. I realise that MPs are not there to take instruction from the people who elect them but neither are they there to act in direct opposition to their electorate. To me, that was an outrage. If they did not like Corbyn, they should have hunkered down behind him in support for their elected leader, not abused their powers by unseating him.
Another example of the break between the electorate and government is Gaza. I know nobody who supports the genocide there, in fact, more accurately, I know nobody who does not want it to end, immediately. So, why is our government supporting and enabling the Israeli Governments actions?
'Here to serve', says Starmer. So why is it that I and many millions besides me, feel they have no representation through government. As we all know, the UK, although five years behind the US, is a pathetic clone of its "cousin"