More stories

  • in

    US election: what a Biden or Trump victory could mean for Britain

    US election: what a Biden or Trump victory could mean for Britain

    Boris Johnson and Donald Trump meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly in New York in September last year.
    Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

    It could be the most significant election for US foreign policy since 1940, with huge implications for the UK
    by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor

    Main image:
    Boris Johnson and Donald Trump meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly in New York in September last year.
    Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

    The British government has a long history of misreading America – from Lord Palmerston expecting the Confederacy to survive the civil war, to Ernie Bevin being shocked that the US would not pay the UK’s postwar bills, to Tony Blair believing in 2003 that he could ride the US military tiger in Iraq and create a democracy.
    Few serving or former British diplomats are confidently predicting the outcome of this November’s presidential election, or even whether an increasingly erratic Donald Trump will accept the result as legitimate. The collective delusion about the 2016 election hangs heavy.
    Between now and polling day, two fears will stalk the Foreign Office. The first is of a late October surprise – a Trump military showstopper in the Middle East or the South China Sea, designed to convulse America. The betting is that caution will prevail. “Trump talks very tough, but he has a habit of not following through” said Peter Ricketts, the former UK national security adviser.
    The second is of a November impasse – a constitutional crisis as Trump disputes the result. One former Foreign Office staff member said: “It is noticeable that Trump’s most consistent message this election is that it is rigged.” Kim Darroch, the former UK ambassador to Washington and an early Trump sceptic, notes all the preparations being made for a challenge in the supreme court.
    All observers agree that if the US can reach a consensus on the outcome, it will be the most consequential election for American foreign policy since 1940. The implications, in turn, for the UK and for the kind of government Boris Johnson will lead are enormous.
    Lord Ricketts points out that the UK is already at a historic turning point. “Put together Brexit, the return of muscular nationalism and the pandemic, you have an extraordinarily important moment, probably the biggest strategic moment facing the UK since the war. The US election only adds to that.”
    The outcome will throw up a particularly acute personal dilemma for Johnson. He knows Trump is wildly unpopular with the British electorate. The latest Pew research shows that only 19% of Britons have confidence in Trump.
    Yet if Trump wins, Johnson can reassure his party that rule-breaking populists still have a winning appeal for those who feel betrayed by mainstream politics. What have been described as “counter-order movements” will have shown they have not run out of steam. More

  • in

    The curious case of Princess Diana, the two fake bank statements, and a Panorama interview

    Imagine, if The Sun, the Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday were accused of securing a soul-baring interview with a senior member of the royal family by using falsified documents. How great do you think the controversy would be? At the very least there would be questions raised in parliament, select committee hearings, and calls for a public inquiry, apologies and resignations.Martin Bashir, then the BBC’s Panorama reporter, faked two bank statements in the run-up to obtaining his sensational interview with Diana, the late Princess of Wales, in November 1995.The 25th anniversary of Diana telling the world via Bashir that she believed there were “three people in the marriage” in reference to her then husband Prince Charles’s relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles is upon us. This evening (11 October), Channel 5 is airing a documentary, Diana: The Interview That Shocked the World. I was interviewed for the programme because 25 years ago I was an investigative reporter on The Independent and I revealed some of lengths the then young and little-known Bashir had gone to in order to gain his scoop. More

  • in

    Is Donald Trump a bully or bold protector? That depends on whom you ask | Arlie Hochschild

    It’s said that to every man with a hammer, the world looks like a nail. So it is, too, that to every bully, a conflict looks like a brawl, a debate looks like a shouting match and even a pandemic an occasion to “bully” the truth. And so it has proved with the president of the United States.As children, I would guess that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden were bullied, Trump by his demanding father and Biden by schoolmates for his stutter. If so, the two have dealt with their shared challenge in nearly opposite ways, with great consequences for the people each has become and for the nation faced with a choice between them.Most polls suggest that Biden will win the election, although none has really probed the effect of bullying in the recent TV debate – Trump’s doing it or Biden’s inadequate handling of it; nor the effect of Trump’s bluster since. But with the citizenry so stressed – by Covid-19, job losses, fires, floods, urban unrest and more – it’s important to ask what voters are looking for in a leader. Do some Americans actually want a bully?Many studies have shown that Republicans yearn for a “strong leader”, a “fighter”, and this may make them hesitant to condemn bullying. I came to know Sharon Galicia, a lively single mum and medical insurance saleswoman from Louisiana, while researching my 2016 book about the American right, Strangers in Their Own Land. “The man liberals see as an arrogant bully,” she told me, “conservatives see as Rocky Balboa.”Many good-hearted blue-collar voters with American flag decals on their pickups tune into Trump on a frequency that secular liberals cannot hear. Where most liberals hear bullying, Trump supporters hear: “I’m your guy. I do all I do for you and I deliver.” Where liberals hear an interrupter, many conservatives hear, when Trump speaks: “My enemies – the deep state, whistleblowers, impeachment-seekers, the mainstream media, the Democrats, Covid-19 critics – bully me. I suffer for you. Stand by me as I bully back.”A good leader also needs to be able to face and admit the existence of a national threat, as Biden hasTo bully someone is to seek to harm, intimidate or coerce another who’s perceived as vulnerable. As the National Center Against Bullying elaborates, there are many types of bullying. Reviewing them, we, especially liberals, can recall times when Trump has exemplified nearly all of them. There is physical bullying – tripping, kicking, hitting; remember his calls in 2016 to oust Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the “old-fashioned way” (with a show of fist in palm). There is verbal bullying – name-calling (Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary, Little Mario). There is mockery by imitation. Recall his laughing imitation of a disabled reporter, palsied arms and hands shaking. Then there is social bullying – showing contempt for someone’s social reputation (think of the Gold Star parents, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, ridiculed for the silence of the grieving mother).The wider consequences of this approach are huge. The way Trump works is to promote violence and then pose as the law-and-order answer to that violence. In the near absence of any other ways of managing social unrest arising from the death of George Floyd, and a steady refusal to disavow armed white supremacists, he has been “fanning the flames of hate”, in Biden’s words, and “recklessly encouraging violence” in Oregon and Michigan (where extremists plotted to kidnap the governor). “Stand back and stand by,” Trump told the Proud Boys, a militant far-right group, a phrase it soon emblazoned on its logo. Trump thus helps bring on the storm, then hands out Trump-branded umbrellas.When he ominously declares that the only fair election is one in which he himself wins, many fear that he plans to bully his way into a second term even while talking freely of a third. So, many now ask where the bullying stops and what it might take to stop it.With Biden, where do we look for evidence of strength to combat the president? As a child, he recalls when his father lost his job, money got tight and he was sent to live with grandparents. When his first wife and 13-month-old daughter died in a car accident, and, much later, his grown son Beau died of brain cancer, a steely but not-unfeeling resilience showed through again. Now that America is enduring a series of hits to its health, economy and soul, it may be just such resilience we need.But beyond resilience, a good leader also needs to be able to face and admit the existence of a national threat, as Biden has done. Although early in declaring himself a commander in the war on Covid-19, Trump did not fully face or tell his troops when or how the “enemy” was arriving. He said it might disappear “like magic”. He spoke before maskless crowds, routinely refused to wear one himself and, in one of his 128 debate interruptions, mocked Biden for the size of his mask. He encouraged citizens to flout their (Democratic) governors’ orders about precautions, as if there were no enemy at hand and as if it were a sissy thing to imagine that one existed. He issued too few boots and guns and, indeed, aimed his own fire at medical advisers.In short, and to continue with the martial imagery, Trump told troops to leave the battlefield while missiles whistled through the air. And some have recently hit home. Twenty lawmakers and 120 Capitol Hill workers, including 40 members of the US Capitol police, have been diagnosed with Covid-19. One staff member for a Republican congressman has died of Covid. But as if bullying did the trick, Trump stands by his statement to the American people: “Don’t be afraid of Covid.”As the nation faces the enormous challenges ahead – jobs, climate change, automation, racial justice, drug addiction, Covid-19 – the truth is that the bully’s hammer causes many more problems than it solves. Bullies do not solve such problems. Leaders do.• Arlie Hochschild is professor emerita in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right More

  • in

    Inside Politics: Rishi Sunak set to reveal local furlough scheme for pub workers

    Have you tried the new government website for career switches? Some furloughed workers have been told to try their luck as stunt doubles. Boris Johnson must wish he could call upon a stand-in right now. The PM faces fury from northern leaders over looming lockdown measures, and pressure to finally decide whether to go for a Brexit trade deal. Fortunately, Johnson has hired a mouthpiece to stand in for him at press conferences, the former TV journo Allegra Stratton. Unfortunately, she doesn’t start for another month – so the PM will have to explain any political stunts all by himself for a little while longer.
    Inside the bubbleOur political editor Andrew Woodock on what to look out for today: More

  • in

    Inside Politics: Boris Johnson preparing to close pubs in parts of England

    The more things change, the more they stay the same. Donald Trump’s critics think he is suffering from a bout of “roid rage” – after he fumed incessantly on Twitter about Clinton, Obama and the fake news media. But how is Trump on steroids any different to regular Trump? Our own political meltdowns have a distinct feeling of déjà vu too. Boris Johnson is said to be ready to walk away from Brexit talks unless he gets what he wants. And the PM appears ready to follow rules laid out in Scotland, once again, by closing all pubs in the worst-hit parts of England.
    Inside the bubbleOur policy correspondent Jon Stone on what to look out for today: More

  • in

    Inside Politics: UK will be ‘world leader’ in wind, claims Boris Johnson

    Boris Johnson wants us to “go to the cinema” and save Britain’s movie theatres. Trouble is, there aren’t any films to see. It looks like James Bond may have mortally wounded the business after No Time To Die was pushed back to the spring. The PM has a licence to thrill today when he makes his big Conservative conference speech. The Tory faithful want to hear the man of action they voted for. But the coronavirus has left Johnson shaken, rather than stirred, and the faithful may have to put up with dark warnings about more things pushed back to the spring.Inside the bubbleChief political commentator John Rentoul on what to look out for today: More

  • in

    Welcome to Flatland, where shallow appeal ousts substance and reason | Kenan Malik

    Four international art galleries decide to “postpone” a controversial exhibition. Donald Trump and Joe Biden take part in what has aptly been called a “shitshow” of a presidential election debate. Celebrity activist Laurence Fox launches a political movement to reclaim “British values”. On the surface, these disparate events have nothing in common. However, that is also what they have in common – each shows how art and politics are now lived on the surface with little consideration of depth or meaning.The four galleries – Tate Modern in London, Washington’s National Gallery of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts – decided to postpone, until 2024, a long awaited show by the artist Philip Guston because the Black Lives Matter movement has shown the need for “the powerful message of social and racial justice that is at the centre of Philip Guston’s work… [to] be more clearly interpreted”.But why should the galleries do all the “interpreting”? Art, after all, is about engagement – the same painting, novel, play or film can have many readings. That’s one reason why art can be so thrilling. We live in a world, though, in which many insist that there can only be one way of interpreting contentious issues, whether racial justice or trans rights.The other side of the denial of independent interpretation is the tyranny of the literal: that what’s on the surface is all that matters, that the external form cannot be distinguished from deeper meaning. The problem with Guston’s paintings, for the show’s curators, seems to be that many depict the Klu Klux Klan in white hoods. Guston was unswervingly anti-racist – one of his works, The Studio, shows him painting in a hood, to illustrate what he saw as his own complicity in white supremacy. If any artist fits the current political mood, it’s Guston.Politicians today seem more interested in feeding the outrage machine than in illuminating debateHowever, the galleries seem to think it impossible for audiences to be able, without their aid, to tell the difference between racism and a critique of racism. So the cultural gatekeepers have taken it upon themselves both to interpret the paintings for us in the right way and to protect us from being upset or discomfited.A world in which we fetishise surface appearance, in which people cannot be trusted with their own interpretations and in which we fear being offended or unsettled, leads also to the spectacle that was the US presidential election debate. It was less a forum for politics than a form of real-life trolling.The character of the debate was clearly shaped by Trump’s needs and his insistence on dragging politics into the gutter. But it also exposed in a particularly extreme form an aspect of politics that extends well beyond Trump. Politicians today seem too often to be more interested in feeding the outrage machine than in illuminating debate, preferring slogans to reasoned argument, dismissing scrutiny as “partisanship” and treating truth as if it were a form of entertainment.And then we have Laurence Fox’s Reclaim, “a new political movement that promises to make our future a shared endeavour, not a divisive one”, the seeming opposite of the Trump approach. It has apparently already received £5m in funding.A political movement, though, needs, well, politics. And on this, we have so far heard nothing. Where does Reclaim stand on the question of “offshoring” asylum seekers? On whether people should be fined for breaking self-isolation rules? On how far we should be able to offend others? More