Books

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

      by

      In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail. Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond. That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years. We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown. Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries. For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality. For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low.View image in fullscreenThat social contract began to break down in the late 1970s. The power of unions was undermined, and taxes on the wealthy cut back. Typical workers’ wages, which had previously increased in tandem with overall economic growth, started to lag behind. Inflation-adjusted wages stagnated and at times decreased. The result was a decline in many aspects of quality of life for the majority of Americans. One shocking way this became evident was in changes to the average life expectancy, which stalled and even went into reverse (and this started well before the Covid pandemic). That’s what we term “popular immiseration”.With the incomes of workers effectively stuck, the fruits of economic growth were reaped by the elites instead. A perverse “wealth pump” came into being, siphoning money from the poor and channelling it to the rich. The Great Compression reversed itself. In many ways, the last four decades call to mind what happened in the United States between 1870 and 1900 – the time of railroad fortunes and robber barons. If the postwar period was a golden age of broad-based prosperity, after 1980 we could be said to have entered a Second Gilded Age.Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation. A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase. As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia. In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system. As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines. The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within. View image in fullscreenOne result of all this political dysfunction is an inability to agree on how the federal budget should be balanced. Together with the loss of trust and legitimacy, that accelerates the breakdown of state capacity. It’s notable that a collapse in state finances is often the triggering event for a revolution: this is what happened in France before 1789 and in the runup to the English civil war.How does this landscape translate to party politics? The American ruling class, as it has evolved since the end of the civil war in 1865, is basically a coalition of the top wealth holders (the proverbial 1%) and a highly educated or “credentialed” class of professionals and graduates (whom we might call the 10%). A decade ago, the Republicans were the party of the 1%, while the Democrats were the party of the 10%. Since then, they have both changed out of all recognition.The recasting of the Republican party began with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in 2016. He was typical of political entrepreneurs in history who have channelled popular discontent to propel themselves to power (one example is Tiberius Gracchus, who founded the populist party in late Republican Rome). Not all of his initiatives went against the interests of the ruling class – for example, he succeeded in making the tax code more regressive. But many did, including his policies on immigration (economic elites tend to favour open immigration as it suppresses wages); a rejection of traditional Republican free-market orthodoxy in favour of industrial policy; a scepticism of Nato and a professed unwillingness to start new conflicts abroad.It seemed to some as though the revolution had been squashed when a quintessentially establishment figure, Joe Biden, defeated Trump in 2020. By 2024 the Democrats had essentially become the party of the ruling class – of the 10% and of the 1%, having tamed its own populist wing (led by the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders). This realignment was signalled by Kamala Harris massively outspending Trump this election cycle, as well as mainstream Republicans, such as Liz and Dick Cheney, or neocons such as Bill Kristol, supporting the Harris ticket.The GOP, in the meantime, has transformed itself into a truly revolutionary party: one that represents working people (according to its leaders) or a radical rightwing agenda (according to its detractors). In the process, it has largely purged itself of traditional Republicans.Trump was clearly the chief agent of this change. But while the mainstream media and politicians obsess over him, it is important to recognise that he is now merely the tip of the iceberg: a diverse group of counter-elites has coalesced around the Trump ticket. Some of them, such as JD Vance, had meteoric rises through the Republican ranks. Some, such as Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, defected from the Democrats. Others include tycoons such as Musk, or media figures, such as Joe Rogan, perhaps the most influential American podcaster. The latter was once a supporter of the populist wing of the Democratic party (and Bernie Sanders in particular).The main point here is that in 2024, the Democrats, having morphed into the party of the ruling class, had to contend not only with the tide of popular discontent but also a revolt of the counter-elites. As such, it finds itself in a predicament that has recurred thousands of times in human history, and there are two ways things play out from here.One is with the overthrow of established elites, as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions. The other is with the ruling elites backing a rebalancing of the social system – most importantly, shutting down the wealth pump and reversing popular immiseration and elite overproduction. It happened about a century ago with the New Deal. There’s also a parallel in the Chartist period (1838–1857), when Great Britain was the only European great power to avoid the wave of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848, via major reform. But the US has so far failed to learn the historical lessons.What comes next? The electoral defeat on 5 November represents one battle in an ongoing revolutionary war. The triumphant counter-elites want to replace their counterparts – what they sometimes call the “deep state” – entirely. But history shows that success in achieving such goals is far from assured. Their opponents are pretty well entrenched in the bureaucracy and can effectively resist change. Ideological and personal tensions in the winning coalition may result in it breaking apart (as they say, revolutions devour their children). Most importantly, the challenges facing the new Trump administration are of the particularly intractable kind. What is their plan for tackling the exploding federal budget deficit? How are they going to shut down the wealth pump? And what will the Democrats’ response be? Will their platform for 2028 include a new New Deal, a commitment to major social reform?One thing is clear: whatever the choices and actions of the contending parties, they will not lead to an immediate resolution. Popular discontent in the US has been building up for more than four decades. Many years of real prosperity would be needed to persuade the public that the country is back on the right track. So, for now, we can expect a lasting age of discord. Let’s hope that it won’t spill over into a hot civil war. More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Bill Clinton grapples with his past in memoir – too much, too little, too late

      by

      In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George HW Bush, a sitting Republican president. In 1996, Clinton won re-election over Bob Dole. A former Democratic governor of Arkansas, Clinton had a flair for policy and retail politics. He felt your pain, garnering support from voters without a four-year degree and graduates alike. He played the saxophone, belting out Heartbreak Hotel on late-night TV. Redefining what it meant to be presidential, he told a studio audience he preferred briefs to boxers.He oozed charisma – and more. But his legacy remains deeply stained by allegations of predatory conduct and questionable judgment. He is one of three presidents to be impeached – in his case, for lying under oath about his extra-marital relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Before leaving office, to avoid professional discipline, Clinton surrendered his law license.Congress twice impeached Donald Trump. His legal problems range far wider than Clinton’s. Nonetheless, there are echoes. Back in the day, Clinton and Trump golfed together, each a tabloid fixture. Clinton crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein too.View image in fullscreenClinton’s fame outstrips his popularity. Like an old-time vaudevillian, the 42nd president, now 78, finds it hard to leave the stage. His second memoir, subtitled My Life After the White House, is a stab at image rehabilitation and relevance.Densely written, the 464-page tome is a prolonged stroll down memory lane that never quite reaches a desired destination. It is too much, too little, too late – all at once.Clinton grapples with his past. In January 1998, news broke that the president, then in his 50s, had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a 22-year-old intern. It gave a nascent internet culture – most of it following and shaped by Matt Drudge – plenty to talk about.Newt Gingrich, the soon-to-be disgraced speaker of the House, and Ken Starr, an independent counsel turned modern-day Torquemada, did their best to bring Clinton down. Lindsey Graham, then an eager young congressman, now the senior senator from South Carolina and a key Trump ally, dutifully fanned the flames.Fast forward 30 years. In 2018, Craig Melvin of NBC asked Clinton if he apologized to Lewinsky. Clinton did not take kindly to the question. He now admits the interview “was not my finest hour”.“I live with it all the time,” he writes, reflecting on the affair. “Monica’s done a lot of good and important work over the last few years in her campaign against bullying, earning her well-deserved recognition in the United States and abroad. I wish her nothing but the best.”Lewinsky is probably unimpressed. In 2021, NBC asked her if Clinton owed her an apology. “I don’t need it,” she said. “He should wanna apologize, in the same way that I wanna apologize any chance I get to people that I’ve hurt, and my actions have hurt.”In his new book, Clinton stays silent about other women who accused him of sexual misconduct – Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick – but gingerly rehashes Trump’s Access Hollywood moment and proliferating allegations of groping. As for Epstein, the financier and sex offender who killed himself in jail in New York in 2019, and whose links to Trump are perennially discussed, Clinton pleads ignorance.“I had always thought Epstein was odd but had no inkling of the crimes he was committing,” he writes. “He hurt a lot of people, but I knew nothing about it and by the time he was first arrested in 2005, I had stopped contact with him.”Clinton adds: “I’ve never visited his island.”Clinton does acknowledge two flights, in 2002 and 2003, on Epstein’s plane, luridly known as the “Lolita Express”: “The bottom line is, even though it allowed me to visit the work of my foundation, traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward. I wish I had never met him.”In 2016, Trump beat Hillary Clinton for the White House. On the page, Bill Clinton burnishes the memory of his wife’s failed campaigns – though he is ever aware of her shortcomings. He recognizes the meaning of her Democratic primary defeat, by Barack Obama in 2008. Blaming the media, in part, Clinton implicitly acknowledges that Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, was a better candidate than Hillary, then a former first lady and junior senator from New York.“Obama’s best decision was to start his campaign early with a full 50-state strategy, something Hillary’s campaign had to develop after she strengthened her leadership team in February,” Bill laments. “But she never really caught up.”Said differently, 2008 was a change election. Obama stood atop history. Hillary was in over her head. She was also the status quo. As for 2016, Clinton pins his wife’s loss on James Comey, the FBI director who investigated her private email use; WikiLeaks, which released Democratic emails; and Vladimir Putin, who capitalized on such scandals in order to boost Trump.Elsewhere, Clinton revisits his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich – a scandal from the last day of the presidency, 20 January 2001. Denise Rich, the fugitive financier’s ex-wife, donated $450,000 to the Clinton library and wrote to him, seeking a pardon.“I wish Denise hadn’t written to me, for her sake and mine,” Clinton writes. “I knew she had made plenty of money on her own, did not get along with her ex-husband, and didn’t know he would apply for a pardon when she gave money to the library fund.”Again, parallels to Trump are apparent. At the end of his first term, the 45th president gave get-out-of-jail-free cards to cronies and the connected. Charlie Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, was one who benefited. So did Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. A robust pardon pipeline emerged with an ultimate audience of one. Trump will soon wield the pardon power again.On the whole, Bill Clinton’s latest book will be remembered for its omissions. It usually works out that way.

      Citizen is published in the US by Knopf More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      War by Bob Woodward review – the Watergate veteran on Gaza, Ukraine and Trump

      by

      Bob Woodward is probably the best-known journalist in the world. He built his reputation on Watergate, of course, and just about everything he and Carl Bernstein wrote about it turned out to be entirely accurate: including the existence of Deep Throat, who was sometimes thought to be a “Woodstein” invention, but was much later revealed to be a top FBI official. If you talk to Woodward on deep background, he won’t break trust with you and leak your name; so hundreds of senior officials and politicians over the years have had the confidence to speak to him on condition of anonymity. In War, as in every other one of Woodward’s 22 books (this one billed as a “behind-the-scenes story of three wars – Ukraine, the Middle East and the struggle for the American Presidency”), you can have total faith in the accuracy of every quotation he provides.But there’s a problem. Although the confidences which Woodward passes on to us are no doubt exactly as his interviewees gave them to him, how do we know these were the words originally spoken in the moment being recalled? Reading War, like so many of the other monosyllabically titled books Woodward has given us, you find yourself wondering if some of the key stuff isn’t l’esprit de l’escalier – the things people wish they’d said; or maybe wish they’d said more clearly and toughly and quotably, instead of mumbling or trailing away into aposiopesis. Personally, I prefer the rigorous methodology of Norma Percy’s brilliant television documentaries (The Death of Yugoslavia, Putin vs the West, Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil, etc). She interviews everyone again and again, on the record, then plays each interviewee’s words back to the other participants. They can then answer, “Well, he/she may say that now, but that wasn’t what they said at the time.”Still, we can have little doubt that Joe Biden genuinely said things like, “That fucking Putin … We are dealing with the epitome of evil,” or “That son of a bitch Bibi Netanyahu. He’s a bad fucking guy.” It’s entirely credible, as Woodward’s sources say, that Donald Trump had up to seven phone conversations with Vladimir Putin after leaving office, that he sent him boxes of Covid-19 tests, and that Biden thought there was a 50% chance that Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Yet these things don’t exactly come as a huge shock.And that’s my main beef with War: it simply reinforces everything we already know about Ukraine, Gaza, and the presidential campaign. I read this book, which like all Woodward’s work is well-written, even a page-turner, without coming across a single thing that was a genuine surprise. We don’t need Woodward to tell us that the CIA and MI6 had complete knowledge of Putin’s plans for the invasion of Ukraine, because the two intelligence agencies made it absolutely plain at the time. They told us the day and even the hour when the invasion would start.Pungent quotes do a lot of heavy lifting (“Barack never took Putin seriously,” Biden says about Russia’s theft of Crimea in 2014. “We gave Putin a licence to continue. Well, I’m revoking his fucking licence!”), yet the language distracts our attention from the issues that provoke it. We may still get the occasional flash of juvenile pleasure at hearing the great ones of the world calling one another “pricks” and “morons”, but it really doesn’t mean much. The Watergate days, when we were genuinely shocked to learn that Nixon F-bombed his way round the White House, are long gone.Still, the fundamental verdict of War is a powerful one. Trump is “the wrong man for the country” and is unfit to lead it, Woodward says, magisterially. (In return, Trump calls Woodward a liar, and his spokesman has implausibly denied that most of the quotes in the book were genuine.) Yet here again there’s a problem. Woodward is no longer the impartial recipient of the confidences of hundreds of well-placed people across the spectrum; he has got his own strong views, and he wants to convince us they’re correct. The fly on the Oval Office wall has fluttered down and joined in the argument. Where does Woodward’s long, masterful, often mesmerising series of Washington insider books go after this?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Fascism comes not with goose-steps but dance moves’: European writers react to Trump’s win

      by

      Ece Temelkuran: ‘Some, who you assume to be your people, will normalise Trump’Dear American friend,By the time my letter reaches you, you’ll have heard all the clever ways of saying, “We are fucked!” Thousands of soundbites will have told you, “Get up and fight.” Others will have shared tips on mourning and healing. The strange thing is that even though you’ll be in the same dark circus of emotions, everything you hear from your political side will add to your anger. That is what defeat the second time around does: the shame of losing morphs into self-hatred. You begin to be enraged by your ilk more than the opponent. That is why I am writing directly to you. Because in the coming months, your emotional state will impact domestic and global politics.View image in fullscreenSure, you remember. In 2016, when you were in a similar state of rage and depression, the collective consolation was political humour and the idea that Trump would quickly crash and burn. This time around, whenever he comes up with an outrageous idea or promises some other lunacy, you’ll again see people saying, “No, he wouldn’t do that.” Because when people feel helpless, they soothe themselves with wishful thinking. This was what we witnessed in my home country of Turkey, as well as Italy, India, and all the other countries that have been down the same road.Yet, the new chapter will come with an additional surprise: you will experience the magnetic magic of power. Some, who you assume to be your people, will decide tonormalise Trump and find ways to make themselves at home with the insanity. Hopefully, it won’t happen, but just in case, prepare yourself for the most painful bit. The absolute desperation when you witness some friends, first hesitantly murmuring, then confidently saying, “It is not as bad as we imagined.” You will watch in horror as they fall in line without being forced.Then, you’ll notice that the new morality created in the White House trickles down to the people. The fundamental moral values you assumed were non-negotiable will be debated shamelessly. They will not right away cancel women’s rights, but they will begin to float questions about those rights. They will not destroy the rule of law tomorrow afternoon, but you’ll hear Trump’s pundits say how courts are slowing down the process of “making America great again”. Trump will not walk into the White House with military boots, but here and there, you’ll see more police violence on campuses and hear people saying, “Well, the protesters were crossing the line anyway.” The political debate will be turned into such a mess that you’ll forget that in the 21st century, fascism comes to power not with goose steps but through elaborate dance moves.Meanwhile, in about one or two years, you will have shouted “No” so often and against so many things that you will be exhausted. Many will ask again, “So, where is hope?” However, you’ll realise that this time, it is not hope but something more essential that is lost: faith – in politics and your people. And that is the loss that will turn you into a neutral element, a zero in the political equation.So, this is a friendly warning to stop the emotional spiralling in its early stages. Try to put self-sabotaging emotions in the freezer for four years. Your job is not to have quarrels with Trump supporters now or get pissed off with your side. If I may, your job is to replace your anger with attention. Trump surely will drive you crazy every day with new outlandish stuff, but that is only showmanship. The dangerous bit happens through the change in the institutions. Keep your eye on the institutions.It is not as thrilling as the blame game on your own side, but it is essential to keep it together so you can tell the Democratic party to get serious. Tell them that Trump is the strange fruit of the political system, not a deviation. To change the broken system, Democrats must consider how to achieve equality, dignity and justice for all. They must restore trust in politics and cure the nihilism and cynicism that had taken overlong before Trump came on to the scene.And please, this time around, don’t assume that what happened in all those “crazy countries” won’t happen to you. Because, for us, it started just like this. How To Lose A Country: The Seven Steps From Democracy to Fascism by Ece Temelkuran is out now published by Canongate.Joseph O’Connor: ‘He might see it as a badge of honour to be dissed by liberal countries’View image in fullscreenCaptain Punchdown returns. The man who once publicly mocked a disabled reporter. And it’s no more Mister Nice Guy. Political thugs all over the world will be emboldened. The anniversary of the January 6 attack on the Capitol will be memorable. He’ll probably make it a national holiday.I think it will mean the end of the Democratic party in its current demonstrably unelectable form, and that will be no bad thing, although the splits will be painful. It will also pour concrete on the grave of the McCain-era Republican party. Far from making America great, Trump Redux will see the United States become a further-divided nation that is increasingly misunderstood and disliked around the world. Probably he doesn’t care; he might see it as a badge of honour to be dissed by countries where they have liberal fripperies like a social welfare system. But the isolationism will isolate. It’s sad.The return of the wall-builder-in-chief is extraordinarily damaging to the valuable and honourable idea that electoral politics is a profession best begun with an apprenticeship of service. The victory of a four-times criminally indicted, twice impeached felon will encourage a particular type of newcoming extremist. That’s what’s most worrying. His cabinet will look like the cantina in Star Wars.It will set back the progress on climate change by a decade we don’t have to spare. Women will be looked after, ‘whether they like it or not’. The suffering of the Palestinian people will worsen, if such a thing may be imagined. Immigrants and asylum seekers will be targets for even viler abuse. It is hard to see how his promise to deport 15 million people could be carried out, but it seems likely that mass expulsion at gunpoint will become an everyday reality in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Families will be separated. More children will spend time in cages.Here in Dublin, where I live, the news has been greeted with gloomy resignation in government circles and with much practice of the ancient art of putting on a brave face. The relationship between Ireland and the United States is old and close, but there are concerns that Trump’s planned tariff war and tax changes will rock the Irish economy. Irish membership of the EU is valued deeply by most of our people; there’s a sense that pro-European sentiment will be regarded as a shootable offence in the White House and that the affection of recent American presidents for Irish culture will, for a variety of reasons, not be continuing. Seamus Heaney may not be quoted quite so often, let us say.In essence, Putting America First means seeing everywhere else as an inconvenience. The Irish know a bit about what that feels like. His rhetoric about immigrants could come straight from the ugly pages of Punch magazine in the 1850s, in which refugees to England from the Irish famine are portrayed as apes and murderers, bringers of terrorism and disease.Once, during the campaign, he made me laugh. Onstage at a rally, wearing a truck driver’s fluorescent safety vest, he quipped that it made him look thin. But most things he said ranged from disconcerting to truly terrifying. Presumably, that’s what they wanted, the millions of decent, betrayed Americans who voted for him: a guy who doesn’t play by the rules. Be careful what you wish for. The Ghosts of Rome by Joseph O’Connor will be published by Penguin in January.Andrey Kurkov: ‘Without American aid, Ukraine may find itself in a hopeless situation’View image in fullscreenTrump’s victory in the US presidential election initially silenced Ukraine. Only weapons – all along the more than 500 miles of the front line – continued to roar, while Russian missiles and drones made ever fiercer attacks against Ukrainian cities and villages.In silence, Ukrainians mourned the loss of one more shield of hope. Pre-election commentaries from journalists and political scientists, and the speeches of Trump himself, had made it very clear that Trump in the White House would mean greatly reduced military aid to Ukraine and that this would force President Zelenskyy to sit down at the negotiating table with Vladimir Putin.The outcome of such negotiations is easy to predict. Russia continues to demand that the Ukrainian leadership “recognise reality”. This is shorthand for saying that Ukraine must give up to Russia the territories which have been captured and occupied, and also the areas of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions which are currently free. These free territories are huge and include two major cities: Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.But today the shock wave has passed. People are beginning to share their dark visions of the future. In his video address about the US election, Zelenskyy tried to calm Ukrainians, assuring them that he and Donald Trump had established cordial relations and that, during a personal meeting in September, Donald Trump heard everything that Volodymyr Zelenskyy wished to tell him.Ukrainians are waiting for Trump himself to address them, as Biden did on his visit to Ukraine. Ukrainians need to hear Trump promise not to abandon them to their fate. Few believe the president-elect will make any such promise. It is not in his character or on his agenda. Neither will Zelenskyy be pushed into unfavourable, not to say dangerous, negotiations with Putin. There will most likely be a reduction in military and financial aid.The “Ukrainian problem” will be handed over to the European Union as the leaders, and some of them have already taken up the baton. Trump’s victory in the presidential election will force the EU to focus on its own military doctrine and a common defence policy. European military aid to Ukraine will continue, but, as before, it will be delivered haltingly, preventing Ukraine from planning ahead in general, let alone planning for a counteroffensive.Ultimately, without American aid, Ukraine may find itself in a hopeless situation, and then unfavourable negotiations with Russia may become inevitable. This in turn will lead to more migration from Ukraine, especially of young people.The silence has been broken, but Ukrainians are still only murmuring their disappointment. The discussions on social media are muted. In the US, the majorityof the older generation of the Ukrainian diaspora voted for Donald Trump, but this is not discussed here either. Ukrainians who know about it keep quiet, understanding that this sector of the US population, just like most post-Soviet US citizens, want a “firm hand” in politics and in the economy. And in this they are somewhat similar to today’s citizens of the Russian federation. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A vivid distillation of a deeply fractured country’: a history of the United States in nine photographs

      by

      The American photographer Peter van Agtmael experienced a life-changing moment, aged 19, when he happened on a copy of Magnum Degrees, a photobook published in 2000 of dramatic images from the previous decade.“I got an instantaneous education in the beauty, violence, mystery, complexity and simplicity of photography,” he writes in his afterword to Magnum America, a much bigger, more mysterious and complex compendium of photographs spanning nine decades, from postwar 1940s to the present day.Magnum was formed as a cooperative by a group of renowned war photographers, including Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson, in 1947. It’s cooperative nature was initially a reflection of its founders’ stoical postwar optimism in the face of the horrors and traumas they had witnessed, but also their shared spirit of creative independence.Magnum America traces the nation’s often turbulent journey from those tentatively optimistic postwar years to the existential anxiety of the present political moment in which democracy itself hangs in the balance. Though punctuated by celebrated portraits and observational series on ordinary American lives, it is the hard-hitting photojournalism that arrests, from Capa’s blurred but powerful images from the D-day landing at Omaha beach to Van Agtmael’s eye-of-the-storm reportage of the siege of the Capitol by Trump supporters in 2021.Van Agtmael and his fellow editor, the curator and feminist academic Laura Wexler, have not attempted to create a definitive visual history of the United States as reflexed through the lenses of Magnum photographers, but instead deftly explore ideas of history, culture, myth and national identity. The book comprises 600 images – some famous, some relatively unknown – culled from a total of 227,450. The selection here reflects that mix, but concentrates on images of conflict and political drama that are pertinent to today’s fraught pre-election moment.The book is also a revealing social history of Magnum itself: the ideal and the often problematic reality. For too long, it reflected the predominantly white, male world of photojournalism, the exceptions being pioneers such as Eve Arnold, Martine Franck, Inge Morath and, later, Susan Meiselas. And, though Magnum photographers made some of the most memorable images of the black civil rights struggle in the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1988 that Eli Reed became the first black photographer to enter the Magnum fold. That irony went unnoticed for a long time. Today, Magnum is a diverse organisation, but it is its relevance – and, by extension, photojournalism’s role – that is also at stake in a world of relentless image-making and instant image-dissemination, an environment unimaginable to its founders. The ongoing carnage in Gaza enters our consciousness daily on social media, where local photojournalists as well as ordinary people with mobile phones bear witness at great risk in the midst of an ongoing humanitarian disaster. Not one photojournalist from Magnum or any other western photo agency has reported from Gaza because of Israel’s refusal to admit even embedded members of the international media. The integral act of bearing witness, which is at the core of Magnum’s collective being, continues just as powerfully all the same. The next big volume of retrospective Magnum images may have to find a way of grappling with that dilemma.1940s: Robert CapaAmerican troops landing on Omaha beach, D-day, Normandy, France, 6 June 1944View image in fullscreenOn 6 June 1944, Robert Capa was one of a handful of photographers granted permission to cross the English Channel with allied forces during the D-day operation to liberate occupied France. He travelled with American soldiers from E Company of the 16th Infantry Regiment. This blurred but evocative image was taken in the immediate wake of their arrival at Omaha beach, where they were met with cannon and small arms fire from embedded German troops as they leapt off their landing crafts into cold, choppy waters. It remains one of the most visceral images of that pivotal, but at times chaotic, operation, during which about 4,440 allied soldiers lost their lives and close to 6,000 were wounded.Intriguingly, the circumstances in which the 11 images that comprise Capa’s reportage from Omaha beach were created – which he described in characteristically self-mythologising fashion in his memoir, Slightly Out of Focus – have recently been contested. Likewise his contention that they were all that remained of 106 pictures he sent to Life magazine on his return to England, the rest having been mysteriously destroyed after being left too long at a high temperature by an unfortunate lab assistant who was processing them.Whatever the truth, the photographs that were taken under extreme duress during his relatively short time on the beach – he made it on to a departing boat after a severe panic attack in which his hands were shaking so badly he could not reload his camera – are a powerful and up-close record of that day’s tumultuous events. There have been several attempts to identify the “soldier in the surf”, with Private Huston “Hu” Sears Riley the most likely contender. That he has not been definitively identified lends another level of poignancy to the image.Capa, one of Magnum’s founders, was arguably the most revered photojournalist of the 20th century. His most famous quote epitomised his cavalier approach: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” In 1954, 10 years after this photograph was taken, he was killed, aged 40, by a landmine in Vietnam, while covering the first Indochina war.1950s: Elliott ErwittWilmington, North Carolina, 1950View image in fullscreenElliott Erwitt was invited to join Magnum by Robert Capa in 1953. Having studied photography and film-making at college in California, Erwitt, aged 25, had already made a name for himself as an editorial photographer for various commercial magazines. He would go on to become one of the world’s most famous image-makers, best known for his striking, slightly surreal pictures of the everyday. His similarly offbeat portraits of dogs have been the subject of five photobooks to date. It is fair to say that Erwitt’s dedication to being, as he put it, “serious about not being serious” has tended to shift attention away from his more unsettlingly powerful images. One of the most rawly observant is his photograph of a grief stricken and bewildered Jackie Kennedy at her husband’s funeral.His photograph Wilmington, North Carolina, 1950 possesses a resonance that is at odds with its neutral geographical title. Like many images in Magnum America, it captures a significant moment, simultaneously evoking the darkness of the US’s past and signalling a turbulent future of hard-won progress. The tentative beginning of the civil rights movement was still four years away when this picture was taken, and it was 14 years before that struggle achieved one of its seminal victories when the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 outlawed segregation. The separate drinking fountains, marked “White” and “Colored”, the one modern and sleekly designed, the other makeshift and worn, speak of a time not that distant when discrimination was a given in certain states. The face of the man crouching over the sink beneath the Colored sign is blurred, and his stance suggests he is looking towards the other fountain that is so close yet out of bounds. As a signifier of the postwar era of US segregation in the south, Erwitt’s grainy image remains starkly affecting and deeply symbolic.1960s: Paul FuscoRobert Kennedy funeral train, USA, 1968View image in fullscreenIt was a year of sustained social and political turbulence in the US, the war in Vietnam dividing the country across generational lines and provoking widespread protests that often culminated in violence. The conflict on the streets reached a climax of sorts at the Democratic convention in Chicago in August 1968, when police brutally attacked activists and bystanders, the violence captured on TV cameras and broadcast nationally on news reports.By then, the already divided nation had been traumatised by the recent assassinations of two progressive leaders: the black civil rights figurehead Martin Luther King Jr and the Democratic presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy. Paul Fusco boarded the train taking Kennedy’s body from New York to Washington focused on how he would cover the senator’s state funeral at Arlington cemetery for Look magazine. When the train emerged from a long dark Manhattan tunnel into daylight, he was taken aback by what he saw. Ordinary citizens, young and old, had gathered in clusters by the railway track, standing in silent homage to the young politician whose death, like his life, had echoed that of his older, more famous brother, President John F Kennedy.The train moved slowly, perhaps out of respect for the dead senator, taking eight hours rather than the usual four to complete its journey. Along the entirety of the route, people congregated trackside in their summer clothes. Fusco shot about 2,000 photos en route to Washington. In them, he freeze-framed for posterity a nation in mourning: families and friends holding hands, men standing to attention to salute, a woman kneeling in prayer. Mostly, though, a seemingly endless succession of ordinary Americans of every race, creed and colour gaze upwards as the train trundles past from city to suburb and on through sun-dappled rural neighbourhoods, their collective silence palpable in every frame.At the time, the editors of Look bafflingly decided not to publish any of Fusco’s extraordinary funeral train series. After the magazine ceased publication in 1971, they remained unseen for another 30 years, consigned to the vast archive of the Library of Congress until they were uncovered by a Magnum researcher. Almost six decades on, they evoke another now distant US, one united in grief but also, as Fusco later put it, “grateful for the commitment and hope Bobby nurtured in the legions of the poor, the black and countless other forgotten Americans”.1970s: Alex WebbNixon resignation, Washington DC, 1974View image in fullscreenOn 8 August 1974, at 9pm, Richard Nixon, who was facing impeachment and removal from office for his role in the Watergate scandal, announced that he was resigning as president of America. He was the first and as yet only US head of state to do so. “As president,” he told the country in a live television broadcast from the White House, “I must put the interests of America first.”The evidence of his misdemeanours, as uncovered by the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with the help of an anonymous source known as “Deep Throat”, suggested that sentiment had not been foremost in his mind two years earlier, when a break-in had occurred at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee in Washington DC. It had been carried out by a group devoted to Nixon’s re-election, which included his former close associate G Gordon Liddy. Along with six others, Liddy was subsequently jailed for his part in the burglary.Woodward and Bernstein’s exhaustive investigation also uncovered evidence of wiretaps of the phones of those Nixon considered his most dangerous enemies. The break-in and cover-up was exposed in detail in the televised Watergate hearings that by turns enthralled and appalled the US public over 51 days in 1973.That Nixon hung on in office as long as he did was testament to his tenacity as well as his sense of entitlement. Tricky Dicky, as he came to be known, escaped the humiliation of impeachment and a possible prison sentence and was subsequently pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.When the news of his resignation broke, Alex Webb evoked the country’s collective response in his image of a single, anonymous individual intensely perusing the Washington Post on the streets of the capital. The front page headline, “Nixon Resigns”, resonates across the years, through the subsequent impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, as well as the turbulence of the latter’s first term of office, the incendiary nature of his departure from it, and the possibility of his imminent return. “It changed history,” Woodward recently said of the crimes he helped to uncover. “It was a red light for presidents.” We may find out soon enough if that is still the case.1980s: Susan MeiselasUS/Mexican border, 8am: undocumented workers discovered in a “drop off” site, Interstate 5, Oceanside, California, 1989View image in fullscreenThroughout his 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly promised his faithful that he would construct “a big beautiful wall” between the US and Mexico, one that stretched across its 2,000-mile length, thus ending once and for all the flow of illegal migrants that, he claimed, threatened the security and identity of the US. The construction of a border wall was already well under way long before Trump began his campaign, with more than 600 miles of the southern border barricaded and protected by immigration authorities. It signified the strategy of deterrence through military-style policing that had been officially sanctioned by President Clinton in 1995.This photograph by Susan Meiselas was taken in 1989, when the border was more porous and economic migrants regularly made the crossing, mainly to do the myriad low-paid menial jobs that helped keep the American, and in particular the Californian, economy afloat. By then, Meiselas had made her name with her documentary reportage from the long civil war in El Salvador and the Nicaraguan revolution.For her series Crossings, she worked with the migrants and the border security patrols tasked with apprehending them. Many of those sent back to their homeland would try to enter again by different routes, such was their dedication to the dream of reinventing themselves in the US. This image dramatically evokes the precariousness of the immigrant journey by capturing the moment some undocumented workers are discovered by a border patrol officer at the drop-off site they’ve been left at by smugglers after crossing the border. “When people are coming across the border, they are giving up on their homeland,” she said later of this photo and others like it. “That’s a very hard thing to do. There’s an uncertainty; maybe it’s that uncertainty that you are seeing.”1990s: Eli ReedMembers of the Nation of Islam among the ruins of the Rodney King riots, Los Angeles, California, 1992View image in fullscreenThe Magnum archive is rich in memorable images of the struggle – and solidarity – of African American activists during the civil rights era by the likes of Leonard Freed, Burt Glinn, Bruce Davidson and Danny Lyon. It wasn’t until 1988, 41 years after the agency’s formation, that Eli Reed became the first black member of the organisation. “By signing him on, the agency granted loftiness to its existence,” Gordon Parks would later attest. Four decades earlier, in 1948, he had made a similar breakthrough when he became Life magazine’s first black staff photographer.From the moment he took up a camera as a young man, Reed’s ambition has been to capture the full range of black people’s experience, from the everyday to the politically seismic, the intimately tender to the collectively traumatic. To this end, his book Black in America, published in 1997, is punctuated throughout with moments of tentative optimism but also tempered by a deep anger and frustration that Reed, an activist with a camera, shared with many of his subjects.This striking image was made in the immediate aftermath of the riots in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of four LAPD officers who had been captured on camera a year earlier brutally beating a young black man, Rodney King. It features three besuited members of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist organisation that believes in the formation of a separate state for African Americans within the US. Despite their extremist views, they are regarded by some in the black community as role models who uphold the traditional values of discipline and self-respect, while espousing self-determination as the only alternative to endemic racism.Here, the three young men stand, alert and yet seemingly unconcerned by the proximity of Reed’s camera, in front of the ruins of a building destroyed in the riots. The stark contrast between their aura of calm authority and the wreckage that signifies chaos and disorder lends the image an edgy complexity. One of the underlying questions posed by Reed’s immersive reportage is how the black community should respond to often murderous police brutality. It has been answered in frequently dramatic fashion in the decades since, most resoundingly in the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, which became a global phenomenon after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020.2000s: Thomas HoepkerYoung people during lunch break in Brooklyn with the twin towers burning across the river, 11 September 2001View image in fullscreenThe terrorist attack on the twin towers in lower Manhattan on the morning of 11 September 2001 was captured by several Magnum photographers, and their images of the cataclysm and its aftermath were published in a large-format book, New York September 11, less than two months after the event. The exception was Thomas Hoepker’s complex and, for some, provocative portrait of a group of young people gathered by the river’s edge in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, while a dense plume of grey smoke billows from the familiar skyline in the middle distance. The image so disoriented its creator that he chose not to include it in the book, waiting until 2006, the fifth anniversary of the attack, before publishing it.Hoepker’s initial anxiety, it turned out, was justified. After its belated publication, Hoepker wrote a short article in response to a column in the New York Times that decried his “shocking” photograph and suggested that the five young people in it were relaxing, having already started to “move on” from the shock and horror of the attack. Hoepker admitted that he had initially found the image “ambiguous and confusing”, and had swiftly come to the conclusion that publishing it so close to the actual event “might distort the reality as we had felt it on that historic day”.This, in turn, prompted one of the people in the photograph, Walter Sipser, to respond, accusing both Hoepker and the NYT columnist of distorting his reality. He pointed out that the three people chatting to him and his girlfriend were passing strangers, the group having found themselves “suddenly bound together… in the aftermath of a catastrophe”. Rather than feeling relaxed, they were, he explained, united “in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day”. A scene that had initially appeared “ambiguous and confusing” to the photographer felt cynically manipulative to the subjects, for whom it is a stolen and distorted moment in which nothing but the unimaginable horror unfolding in the background is what it seems. Here, the idea of bearing witness that has traditionally underpinned photojournalism in general, and Magnum in particular, seems to collapse in on itself.2010s: Alec SothLockdown drill, Belle Plaine high school, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2014View image in fullscreenSchool shootings are a particularly American phenomenon, the deadliest of which have imprinted the names of their locations – Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech – on our collective consciousness. According to a recent CNN report, there were at least 58 shootings on US school grounds and collage campuses between January and mid-October of this year, resulting in 28 deaths and more than 72 injuries.Alec Soth’s dramatic photograph was taken during a school lockdown drill that had interrupted an eight-grade gym class at Belle Plaine high school in his home town, Minneapolis. These kinds of drills are compulsory in more than 20 states. That they are now such a common feature in US schools, that they have become almost normalised, speaks volumes about US gun culture and the failure of legislation to control it. Kenneth Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services, told the New York Times: “The majority of today’s generation of students and school staff view lockdowns as a routine part of the school culture, just as we have viewed fire drills for many years.”Soth’s deftly composed photograph is startling in its stillness and atmosphere of vulnerability. The young girls huddled together, faces hidden in hands, heads bowed in silent thought. Their pale limbs are in dramatic contrast to the deep red of their school T-shirts and the shiny gym lockers. The drama here lies in the dread possibility of what might one day come to pass, and one cannot help but ponder where the schoolgirls’ thoughts have wandered in this silent, confined space. It is an image neither violent nor transgressive but that disturbs all the same in its evocation of a singular kind of collective cognitive dissonance.2020s: Peter van AgtmaelStorming of the Capitol, Washington DC, 6 January 2021View image in fullscreenThe tumultuous events of 6 January 2021, when a riotous mob stormed the Capitol building after an inflammatory speech by Donald Trump, hang like a storm cloud over the imminent US election. As the election results pivoted towards a Democrat victory, Trump had urged his followers to converge on the Capitol to “stop the steal”. Many thousands responded, fighting their way into the Capitol building where they ransacked offices, smashed furniture and wandered the corridors in search of the politicians that Trump had demonised. Chief among them were Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Mike Pence, his presidential running mate, who had refused to challenge the result. Both were perilously close to the rioters inside the building before they were safely evacuated.Peter van Agtmael, whose photojournalism over the past few decades has interrogated the US’s foreign wars and its concurrent domestic discontents was in the midst of the mob at Capitol Hill on the day. From the eye of the hurricane, he captured protesters clashing violently with outnumbered police armed with batons and pepper spray. This image distills the greater scattered disorder that erupted around the Capitol building and the dogged determination of the protesters, one of whom has scaled a high wall, his hand clinging to a marble ledge as he bends to help others beneath him. Only his baseball cap is visible and beyond it a panoramic of the unruly horde spread out across the grounds, many of them carrying US flags.In the background, the tall Washington Monument, built in honour of the first US president, points towards the sky, a symbol of the birth of US democracy. Beneath it, all is chaos and disorder. Van Agtmael’s dramatic image is a vivid distillation of a deeply fractured US. It may also be an augury of more turbulent times to come.

      Magnum America by Peter van Agtmael and Laura Wexler is published by Thames & Hudson (£125). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Giuliani’s book is silent on $150m award for defamation but noisy on election lies

      by

      In a new book, Rudy Giuliani claims his extensive legal problems and those of Donald Trump are the results of persecution by “a fascist regime” run by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden – all while avoiding mention of a $150m defamation award against him won by two Georgia elections workers and repeating the lies about electoral fraud which saw him lose law licenses in New York and Washington DC.Giuliani’s book also ignores the widely reported autocratic tendencies of Trump, which have triggered numerous warnings, including from former staffers, that he is a fascist in waiting, should he return to the White House.The New York mayor turned Trump lawyer even avoids mention of fascistic sympathies in his own family, specifically those harbored by his mother, whose own sister-in-law said she “liked Mussolini”, the dictator who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943.Giuliani’s book, The Biden Crime Family: The Blueprint for their Prosecution, is released in the US on Tuesday. The book’s title betrays the reason for its delayed release – it is largely a propagandistic election-season attack on Biden, the president who stepped aside in July, amid concern that at 81 he was too old for a second term, ceding the Democratic nomination to Harris, his vice-president.Giuliani’s book is finally released a week from election day but even he may not have foreseen it landing amid explosive debate over whether Trump is a fascist himself.Mark Milley, formerly the chair of the joint chiefs of staff under Trump, and John Kelly, another retired general who was Trump’s second White House chief of staff, have said Trump deserves the label.Speaking to the reporter Bob Woodward, Milley said Trump was “fascist to the core”. Last week, Vice-President Harris said: “It is clear from John Kelly’s words that Donald Trump is someone who, I quote, ‘certainly falls into the general definition of fascists’, who, in fact, vowed to be a dictator on day one and vowed to use the military as his personal militia to carry out his personal and political vendettas.”On Sunday, outside a Madison Square Garden Trump event many observers compared to a Nazi rally at the same New York venue in 1939, Giuliani told reporters Trump was “the furthest from a fascist imaginable”.On the page, Giuliani’s case against Biden is undercut by omission of inconvenient details – as in the passage in which he complains of persecution by a “fascist regime”.“They … have sued me, sent me to bankruptcy court, and tried to force me to sell my homes,” Giuliani writes – not mentioning that such dire financial straits are the result of being ordered to pay around $150m for defaming Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, the Georgia elections workers, while pushing Trump’s lie about voter fraud in the 2020 election. This week, Giuliani was ordered to give the women control of his New York apartment, his Mercedes-Benz, several luxury watches and other assets.Giuliani was disbarred in Washington DC and New York. Claiming such moves were politically motivated, he nonsensically claims: “I have never been disciplined by the bar association and my record is unblemished.” His legal troubles, he insists, are the result of being “but one” political opponent of Biden and Harris.“They’ve indicted and attempted to disbar legal friends and colleagues like John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark for their work on trying to correct the stolen election results,” Giuliani writes, of disgraced lawyers who also worked on Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.“Others, like [Trump advisers] Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, actually had to serve four months in federal prisons for misdemeanor of contempt of Congress – while their cases were on appeal!”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBannon, Trump’s former campaign chair and White House strategist, was released from prison in Connecticut on Tuesday. He provides a short introduction for Giuliani’s book.Giuliani also cites court cases involving “a Florida social media influencer … arrested by eight FBI and other law enforcement agents for the ‘crime’ of posting memes mocking Hillary Clinton supporters on Twitter” and a “75-year-old grandmother with a medical condition sentenced to jail for two years for protesting outside an abortion center”.“These are the actions of a fascist regime,” Giuliani writes, adding, “So is the lawfare leveled against President Donald J Trump”, in reference to 88 criminal charges, 34 having produced guilty verdicts regarding hush-money payments, the rest remaining outstanding as election day nears.Giuliani does admit in his book to having “some criminal issues in my family background” – namely his father’s 1930s conviction and prison time for robbery, an uncle’s work as a loan shark, and a cousin who “turned out to be head of an auto-theft ring and died in a shootout with the FBI”. Such ties are well known but tellingly, in light of his accusation of “fascist” behavior by Biden and Harris, Giuliani chooses not to mention another famous family detail: his mother’s liking for Mussolini.In 2000, the Village Voice published an examination of Giuliani’s family background by Wayne Barrett, the legendary New York investigative journalist. Entitled Thug Life, the extract from Barrett’s biography of the then New York mayor told the story of Giuliani’s criminal father, including his work as a mafia enforcer. But Barrett also described conversations around the dinner table during the second world war.“The fact that their homeland was an Axis country did not diminish Helen Giuliani’s sense of patriotism,” Barrett wrote of the future mayor’s mother. “‘Helen was a little sticking up for the Italians, a little on the Italian side,’ recalled Anna, Rudy Giuliani’s aunt.“‘She liked Mussolini and things like that.’” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in UK Politics

      Boris Johnson’s memoir flops as sales slump despite ‘£2m advance’

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreSales of Boris Johnson’s political memoir are understood to have slumped well below expectations, with the much-advertised release now on track to be overtaken by a cookbook.Despite an apparent £2m advance on the 784-page account of his time in Downing Street, Unleashed only managed to sell 42,528 copies in its opening week, far fewer than his publishers, HarperCollins, had likely predicted.The former prime minister suffered a 62 per cent reduction in his sales lead this week, narrowly managing to cling onto the number one spot, selling just 133 more copies than Tim Spector’s The Food for Life Cookbook.Mr Johnson’s sales figures fall far short of predecessors Margaret Thatcher, who sold an estimated 120,000 copies upon the release of her 1993 memoir, and Tony Blair, who sold 92,000 copies in the first week of his.Despite the barrage of press attention, the book’s lacklustre reception has reportedly left shops with “piles and piles” of copies, and sales figures are likely to continue to plummet.Despite a sizeable £2m advance on the 784-page account of events, Johnson only managed to sell 42,528 stories in its opening week, far less than his publishers HarperCollins predicted he would sell More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bob Woodward’s new book War is a sober but alarming must-read

      by

      The Middle East and Ukraine are ablaze, the US mired in turmoil. An octogenarian president recedes from view. The threat of a second Trump term hangs like the sword of Damocles. Fifty years ago, with Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward captured Watergate and the downfall of Richard Nixon. Now, the US sits at an inflection point once again. Woodward’s fourth book at least in part about Donald Trump is a sober but alarming must-read.War depicts an administration under Joe Biden that is often behind the curve, at times captive to its own wishful thinking. The withdrawal from Afghanistan haunts. Trump mesmerizes. Yet as Woodward tells it, Biden and his team did clearly see the menace Russia posed. Unlike George W Bush, Biden did not need to gaze into Vladimir Putin’s blighted soul. Unlike Trump, he did not feel compelled to fluff his ego like a besotted fanboy.True to form, Woodward gets his sources to talk. “All interviews were conducted under the journalist ground rule of ‘deep background’,” he notes. Unless the source agreed to be named. “It’s still a mystery to me how he deals with Putin and what he says to Putin,” Dan Coats, director of national intelligence under Trump, says of his former boss. “Is it blackmail?” There’s something there, Coats is sure.In the fall of 2021, the Biden administration concluded that Russia would soon invade Ukraine. They had the intelligence to prove it. They mounted a full-court press. On the front pages of the Washington Post, they laid out what was coming. They warned and later armed the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, despite his initial skepticism, and they rallied the west.“You have no reason to invade Ukraine,” Boris Johnson, then British prime minister, told Putin in October 2021, according to Woodward. Woodward also says Johnson called Putin a “small, puckish lowlife”, for whatever that is worth. The Biden administration looked further afield. “We are highly confident Russia is going to do this,” Kamala Harris told Emmanuel Macron, in November 2021. “France is prepared to impose costs,” the French president answered. “I’m on board for that.” As war broke out, Germany announced that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project with Russia would not proceed.Woodward also quotes Biden sharply criticizing Barack Obama for a half-hearted response to earlier Russian aggression. “They fucked up in 2014,” Woodward quotes the president telling a friend, of the year of the annexation of Crimea. “That’s why we are here … Barack never took Putin seriously … We gave Putin a license to continue! Well, I’m revoking his fucking license!”Predictably, Trump and his minions hold a different view of Putin. “This is genius,” the once and possibly future president said, after Putin declared regions of Ukraine independent, on top of invading them. “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy,” Trump said. “I know him very well. Very, very well.”Woodward also reminds readers that after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, Trump heaped praise on another terror group, calling Hezbollah “very smart” and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, a “jerk”. At a recent speech in Detroit, Trump delivered a shout-out to Massad Boulos, father-in-law of Tiffany Trump, the former president’s daughter from his second marriage. Boulos, a Lebanese Christian, is reportedly aligned with Hezbollah. Having run unsuccessfully for a seat in Lebanon’s parliament, he plays a role in Trump’s Arab-American outreach.Back to Woodward’s text. Over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Maga fell into line. “This is going to be old-school original gangster,” said Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign chairman and White House strategist, now close to finishing a four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress. The former Fox News host Tucker Carlson minimized the invasion as a “mere border dispute”.On the Middle East, Woodward writes of a cacophony of wrath, relations between Washington and Jerusalem strained, even as the US supplies ammunition, aid and backup at the UN. Early on, Woodward writes, Biden branded Benjamin Netanyahu as a “bad fucking guy” – a story initially denied by the White House.Woodward portrays Biden and advisers as more myopic when it comes to domestic events, misjudging their mandate and the mood of the country. Woodward also says Biden kept close tabs on the government prosecution of his son, Hunter, on charges concerning taxes and guns. “I love what you are doing. Keep doing it,” Biden reportedly told Abbe Lowell, Hunter’s lawyer. Since then, Hunter has been convicted. Woodward also shows Biden lamenting picking Merrick Garland, the man overseeing such prosecutions, as attorney general.Trump, though, is in Woodward’s eyes “the wrong man for the presidency … unfit to lead the country”, far worse than Nixon, “the most reckless and impulsive president in American history”.And all the while, on the campaign trail, Trump rages on. “I am your warrior. I am your justice,” he tells supporters. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” Mark Milley, chair of the joint chiefs of staff under Trump and Biden, now retired, tells Woodward he fears being court-martialed if Trump returns to power.“He is a walking, talking advertisement of what he’s going to try to do,” Milley warns. “He’s saying it and it’s not just him, it’s the people around him.” Woodward quotes Bannon: “We’re gonna hold him accountable.”The culture wars burn. All eyes are on the southern border. Abortion rights may not be the Democrats’ silver bullet. Harris falters. Obama is back on the campaign trail, to bolster a sagging ticket. Less than a month before election day, a second Trump term looms large. In the battleground states that will decide the election, he may carve out a victory.

      War is published in the US by Simon & Schuster More