World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares166 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We have to blow it up’: can never-Trumpers retake the Republican party?

      by

      The former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney “hopes to be able to rebuild” the Republican party after Donald Trump leaves the political stage. Mitt Romney, the retiring Utah senator and former presidential nominee, reportedly hopes so too.Among other prominent Republicans who refuse to bow the knee, the former Maryland governor Larry Hogan is running for a US Senate seat in a party led by Trump but insists he can be part of a post-Trump GOP.“I think there are a lot of people that are very frustrated with the direction of the party and some of them are giving up,” Hogan told the Guardian. “I think we’ve got to stand up and try to take the Republican party back and eventually get us back on track to a bigger tent, more [Ronald] Reagan’s party, that can win elections again.”Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chair turned MSNBC host, advocated more dramatic action: “We have to blow this crazy-ass party up and have it regain its senses, or something else will be born out of it. There are only two options here. Hogan will be a key player in whatever happens. Liz Cheney, [former congressmen] Adam Kinzinger and Joe Walsh – all of us who have been pushed aside and fortunately were not infected with Maga, we will have something to say about what happens on 6 November.”That’s the day after election day, when Trump will face Kamala Harris. If Trump wins, all bets will be off. If he loses, the never-Trumpers could try to reclaim their party. Few are under any illusions about the size of the task.“It’s going to take somewhere between six, eight, 10 years to defeat the Maga piece of the party resoundingly and definitively,” said Reed Galen, son of the late GOP stalwart Rich Galen. Galen is an adviser to George W Bush and John McCain, a co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, and now running Join the Union, a coalition of pro-democracy groups.“If you think about it, 85% of Republican primary voters this year voted for Trump. Now, is that bad for somebody who owns the party and is a former president? Yeah, electorally, it could be. But it also says that the people who actually choose nominees are Maga, right?“Do I think there will be some erosion if Trump loses? Yeah, but I don’t think it’s going to be below 50% and I don’t think that anybody who considers themselves a diehard Republican or a Maga Republican is looking to go back to the days of George W Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or even Nikki Haley.“If the establishment, such as it is, wants its party back, then it’s going to have to do some pretty serious work to destroy the parts of it that are anti-democratic and fundamentally dangerous to the country. I don’t know, based on their track record, whether they’re willing to do that. Frankly, I don’t think they are. I think they’re going to try and figure out how to survive long enough that maybe the thing burns itself out on its own.”Among elected or formerly elected Republicans with national profiles, Cheney has gone furthest, campaigning for Harris in battleground states. Romney has stayed quiet. He might thus seem better positioned to shape a post-Trump party but Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist turned publisher of the Bulwark, an anti-Trump conservative outlet, recently called his stance “genuinely insane”.View image in fullscreenShe said: “‘I can’t come out and endorse Kamala Harris because I have to maintain some juice to help rebuild the Republican party?’ No.”Trump and Trumpists’ grip on Romney’s party is too strong, Longwell said, to allow for such passivity.Cheney has hinted at interest in building a new rightwing party, telling an audience in Wisconsin that “it may well be [necessary] because … so much of the Republican party today has allowed itself to become a tool for this really unstable man”. But starting afresh would be tremendously difficult, not least because rightwing donors and advocacy groups have so successfully capitalized on Trump’s capture of the GOP, achieving epochal policy wins, not least the removal of the federal right to abortion.Galen said: “All of the people who built all of these front groups, whether the Heritage Foundation [originator of the controversial Project 2025 plan for a second Trump term] or the Conservative Partnership Institute, or [the dark money impresario] Leonard Leo, all these people have spent decades and billions of dollars building out this stuff. It’s not like they’re simply going to fold up their tent and say, ‘You guys in the establishment, take your party back.’ These people are true believers.”So are the younger donors, strategists and elected officials now led by JD Vance, the 40-year-old Ohio senator who once opposed Trump but became his vice-presidential pick with backing from billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.“The worst kept secret in the world is that JD Vance or [Texas senator] Ted Cruz or [Missouri senator] Josh Hawley all desperately want Trump to lose, because they want their shot,” Galen said. “Trump is [nearly] 80. They’re in their 40s, maybe early 50s, and they want him to go the hell away.“But even if he loses, they can’t separate themselves from them him completely. They they may try but the truth is we’re talking not just about the Republican party, but the American body politic. This a decade-long program, at least, to get this thing back into some sort of healthy state.“Beating Donald Trump is like surviving a car crash. It doesn’t mean you’re not in the hospital, and it doesn’t mean you’re OK. It just means that they got the jaws of life out and they yanked you out of the car.”To Galen, wondering if the Republican establishment can take back its party is ultimately a waste of time – with the emphasis on “time”. Cheney is 58, Hogan 68, Romney will be 78 next year. Mike Pence, the vice-president Trump abandoned to the mob on January 6 but who stays quiet, is 65 himself.“They’re the dinosaurs of the Republican party,” Galen said. “The comet has hit, the cloud has covered, it’s just a matter of accepting your fate.”In his late 40s, Galen professes energy for the fight to come. Nonetheless, he describes a sobering recent experience in London, when he sat with “Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera, and he was battering some Trump spokesperson in a debate”. That was fun, but Galen had a confrontation of his own. One of the panel participants, a younger Trump supporter, leaned over and told him: “You know, we killed your party, and we couldn’t be happier about it.”“The Republican party is a nationalist, nativist party,” Galen said. “All of this stuff that I grew up with as far as the party was concerned, the idea of moral and muscular foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty?“All that stuff’s gone. It’s gone.” More

    • 238 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      Polling has turned the US election into a game. We need to take a reality check | Peter Pomerantsev

      by

      In Washington DC, I measure out my life in polls and heart palpitations. The polls are relentless, nail-biting, maddeningly contradictory. There are national polls, swing state polls, polls from tiny counties that predict a whole election, partisan polls designed to demoralise the other side.There are polls on whether a candidate inspires confidence, compassion, leadership. I’ve noticed how, after a bad poll, I start looking for another that tells me numbers I like. I’ve also noticed how, after a good one, I will look for a bad poll to bring me down, as if I’m trying to prick the balloon of self-confidence and remind myself of “reality”.But the polls never do quite take you to reality. Instead, they shape it. It’s not just what the polls are saying, or even how they were put together, that’s the great problem here – it’s how the obsessive focus on polls is symptomatic of how we view politics.Polls make politics feel like a race, a game, a sport of feuding personalities. Who’s up? Who’s down? What tactics have they used to get one over on each other? What does it say about their personality? Words are seen as weapons with which politicians show off their ability to subvert or scare the opposition – not as substantive statements about what they intend to do.And what sort of politician will thrive in this world where political speech is just a game? A candidate such as Donald Trump.It was the communications professors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella who first noticed the connection between describing politics as a series of strategies and a growing cynicism among voters.This was back in the mid-1990s, when the media was constantly analysing the rivalry between US president Bill Clinton and speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, the early iteration of today’s identity-based partisanship. Jamieson and Cappella found the media was focusing less on the issues the two were debating – often around health reform – and more on how they were competing.The coverage fixated on who was winning, utilised the language of games and war, emphasised the performance and perception of politicians, put a new weight on polls.This sort of coverage activated people’s cynicism about politics – the sense that it’s just a game between self-serving schemers – and then made them more cynical about the media.Decades later, this “spiral of cynicism” is all around us: from the exploding popcorn of polls to the headlines. After Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly compared him to a fascist last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote: “Harris uses ex-Trump chief of staff’s remarks to paint him as unfit for office”.The question of whether Trump is a fascist or not was reduced to highlighting a rhetorical tactic. The idea that all politics is just a cynical game, and that the “mainstream media” is not really looking out for the cares of the voter, has become so pervasive it has helped pave the way for politicians who stand on sweeping away the whole edifice of democracy as we know it.It’s no coincidence that this turn began in the 1990s, when the cold war had finished and the big philosophical debates about policy seemed to be over. Instead, politics became about entertaining performance – the era of Blair, Clinton, Zhirinovsky, Yeltsin. And the media began overgenerating coverage that replaced ideological debate with personality and tactics.The 1990s were also when the reality show emerged as the dominant entertainment format. It initially grew out of observational documentaries seeking to understand society better by ceaselessly filming ordinary people in their homes in such a way that they would forget about the cameras and be more themselves.It quickly became the opposite: a circus where all behaviour was for the cameras. Contestants learned to say and do the most vile things just to engineer scandal and generate attention for themselves.American political TV debates started to imitate the same logic. In a busy primary debate, candidates only get a little sliver of airtime. The way to get more is to attack another candidate in the meanest and most personal way possible, and thus provoke them to attack you back. If you are attacked, then you are allowed more time to respond.So you quickly got debates where supremely clever candidates sling personal abuse at each other to get more attention. The debate stage was set for reality show host Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe design of most social media has followed the same incentives: rewarding taking the most extreme and often nasty statements to generate attention. And Trump has flourished on that as well.The 1990s is when World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) boomed, with its cabaret wrestlers pulling obviously fake fighting moves, where violence is theatre. Trump was always an aficionado of WWE, even taking part in mock fights, and a member of its hall of fame.This year the 1990s wrestling star Hulk Hogan spoke at the Republican National Convention; Trump enters his own rallies to the theme tune of the Undertaker, who, at the height of WWE, was the “evil” foil to Hogan’s all-American “goodie”. Many of Trump’s followers apply the cultural logic of WWE to his statements. Sure, the argument goes, Trump might say some very authoritarian-sounding things – but it’s just a game.So can we ever find a way back to reality? To issues rather than strategies? We can, and we can even use polling to do so. When pollsters recently gave voters a choice of policies, rather than personalities, to choose from in this election, the majority, including Trump supporters, preferred Kamala Harris’s.Partisan polarisation dissolves when we change how we cover politics. We can also develop different TV political debates, which preserve the excitement of competition but repurpose them to reward collaboration instead of abuse.Imagine a debate format where candidates had to solve a real policy problem, and show how they would work with each other and with the opposition party to achieve it. We could also scale social media platforms that algorithmically detect the commonalities in political disagreements to generate common policy solutions. Such platforms are already being used in Taiwan.Of course, there’s appeal in fleeing from reality to the grotesque circus of politics. But if we can’t face facts, others will force us. This month, at the Wilson Center in DC, Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute and Sam Cranny-Evans of the Open Source Centre presented a chilling analysis of Russian weapons manufacturing and supply chains.The slideshow featured satellite photos of munitions factories where freshly cleared tracts of land are being readied to produce more weapons. Vladimir Putin is preparing for a vast war. China’s arms production is on a wartime footing. They are not playing. More

    • 200 Shares137 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for Harris | Observer editorial

      by

      ‘It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings” – that well-known if dated American sporting adage – may afford Kamala Harris a little comfort in the final, testing days leading up to the US presidential election on 5 November. The contest is too close to call. That has been the case for weeks, if not months. The latest national poll averages, putting Harris and her Republican rival, Donald Trump, on roughly 48 points each, confirm it. The deadlock extends to the seven most closely fought battleground or swing states.And yet, in recent days, the impression, the feeling, the fear – call it what you will – has been growing that Trump may have the edge. Maybe the Democrats are scaring themselves unnecessarily. Maybe it’s media hype. Maybe it’s true. What is certain is that this nail-biter is going down to the wire. We hope, when it’s over, that there will be plenty to sing about – and that Harris will become the first woman and woman of colour to be elected president of the United States.If Harris pulls it off, it will be a remarkable achievement, a success against the odds. Due to the unexpected implosion of President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign in July, triggered by concerns about his age and mental fitness, her campaign has been unusually short-lived. As vice-president, Harris was best placed to take on the Democratic party’s nomination, and she did so with aplomb. Her national profile rose spectacularly overnight.Yet she was handicapped from the start by the unpopular Biden’s legacy and her inability, or unwillingness, to distance herself from his record. Harris has also struggled with perceptions that she lacks political savvy, is a relative unknown who is vague and uncertain on the issues, and that she failed as vice-president, or so Republicans claim, to curb illegal cross-border migration.A happy knack of connectingThese doubts have not been entirely dispelled in the ensuing three months. Harris comes across as a likable, energetic, trustworthy and inclusive politician. Confounding criticism that she speaks in “word salads”, she bested Trump in their only live TV debate, to the extent he declined a return bout. Harris seems to have the happy knack of connecting on a personal level with people she meets. She radiates joy, humour and humility.Yet Harris is no big-picture stateswoman, no powerfully impressive, slightly off-putting figure like Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in 2016. Nor is she charismatic like Barack Obama. Her national approval ratings are historically low. And that points, in part, to the largely hidden question of how her gender may affect the outcome. Polls show Trump doing better among men, especially white men. Women and minorities lean to Harris, though less so this year. So while it’s evident this election will be no slam dunk, to use another American sports metaphor, it’s equally plain that Harris, if elected, would make a decent, honest, possibly trail-blazing president, a strong ally for Britain, and an unexceptional but reliable leader of the democratic world.None of this may be said of Trump – and this, really, is all that matters at this moment. This is the crux around which the election turns. American voters may think they have a choice. But if they value their democracy, if they value their laws, institutions and constitution, if they value personal liberty, their country’s safety and international peace and security, indeed if they hope ever to vote again, then they really do not. The only choice is Harris.A retribution presidencyAn exaggeration? Not at all. Trump has a plan for a second term that could make his first spell in the Oval Office – when his former chief of staff, John Kelly, says he behaved like a fascist – look normal. Narcissistic Trump says it will be a retribution presidency. For him it’s all about getting even. Yet, if it happens, it will also be about abuse of power on a scale never before seen in America.Just look at what he’s promising: mass deportations of immigrants; the jailing of political opponents and anyone he dislikes; the use of the US military against civilians, loosely defined as “enemies within”; officially approved vigilantism; and the abandoning, again, of the Paris climate agreement.Trump’s stated agenda includes possible, devastating military action to destroy the cities of hostile countries such as Iran; the deserting of US allies such as Britain and Ukraine and the appeasing of Vladimir Putin’s Russia; a likely global trade war involving punitive import tariffs, principally aimed at China; and, overall, utter disregard for America’s treaty obligations, global responsibilities, international law and the UN system.Even if Trump does not do half of what he threatens, victory for him would be a disaster for America and the world – and this time, there will be few if any “adults in the room” to restrain him. His first victim could be US democracy, targeted on 6 January 2021 by his Maga mobsters, and now once again in his sights. Basically, Trump wants to change federal, state and local rules to ensure future elections produce the “right” results.Trump appears only too happy to further subvert the supreme court and the justice department in pursuit of this objective. Abortion rights, a key issue for Harris, will be further eroded if Trump wins, cheered on by conservative Christian evangelicals and Republican-led state legislatures. And human rights in general will suffer, whether they be those of migrants and their families, black men and other minorities, or gay and trans people. Free speech and independent journalism will also be at risk. Trump cannot abide contradiction. He demands sycophancy or silence.The prospect of Trump #2 should make America’s allies tremble. This is the man who kowtowed to Russian, North Korean and Saudi dictators, tore up the landmark Iran nuclear deal, threatened to quit Nato and rowed constantly with Europe’s leaders. Trump encouraged Israel’s hard-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to ignore the Palestinians, cut money-making deals with Gulf Arabs and call it peace.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s past stupidity and cupidity played a big role in stoking the Middle East crisis, which has escalated with Israel’s latest bombing of Iran. On China, America’s most important global relationship, Trump promises only greater confrontation, especially after last week’s revelations that Chinese hackers targeted him and his weird running mate, JD Vance. On Ukraine, his policy is betrayal and surrender.All this can and must be avoided, yet America’s friends and allies, looking on powerlessly (despite the well-intentioned interventions of some Labour party activists), have no say in heading off disaster. Nor, in effect, do most Americans, because of the anachronistic, scandalously unreformed electoral college system. The Harris-Trump result in at least 40 of the 50 states is a foregone conclusion.Brutal, desperate personal attacksThis election may pivot on choices made by a few thousand people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona. It could be that, as happened to Clinton in 2016, Harris wins the national popular vote but loses the electoral college. Or this wacky system could produce the opposite result. It’s estimated that about 15% of voters remain undecided. That’s more than enough to settle the outcome. It’s still all up for grabs.It’s going to get frantic. It could be terrifying. Expect bread and butter economic issues – food prices, jobs and housing – along with abortion and migration to dominate the final days, not weighty questions of governance, ethics and foreign policy. And expect ever more brutal, desperate personal attacks as each candidate demonises the other.This behaviour comes naturally to Trump. Not so Harris, though that will not stop her doubling down on her justified belief that this unhinged convicted felon, ageing roué, and most divisive, immoral and vindictive of politicians is indeed a fascist who cares only for himself and will sacrifice democracy, liberty and the constitution in an egotistic orgy of self-worship. Harris will doubtless remind voters, too, that Trump is again refusing to promise to accept the result if he loses. Endless, vexatious litigation and furious disputes are a certainty. Violence is a distinct possibility.It’s ironic – but those Americans who truly believe in democracy really have no choice at all on 5 November. The US remains a great country. It has many strengths. It also has many problems. Trump is not the answer. He will only make it worse. Vote Harris! More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US election and foreign policy: the world can’t afford Trump again | Editorial

      by

      This spring Josep Borrell, the EU foreign affairs chief, warned bluntly that Europe should prepare itself for potential war: “Maybe, depending on who is ruling in Washington, we cannot rely on the American support and on the American capacity to protect us,” he said. Weeks earlier, Donald Trump had remarked that he would encourage Russia to attack Nato countries who paid too little.Japanese defence spending has soared. In South Korea, there are growing calls for an independent nuclear deterrent. America’s allies are nervous as they contemplate next month’s election. Autocrats, upon whom Mr Trump lavishes praise, are hopeful. The votes of tens of thousands of Americans in battleground states are likely to prove profoundly consequential for the rest of the world.The assumption is that a Trump victory would be felt first and hardest by Ukraine. Whatever his precise relationship with Vladimir Putin, with its cosy phone calls, the former president’s sympathies are clear. He blamed Volodymyr Zelenskyy for starting the war with Russia. Mr Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has urged an immediate end to assistance.On the Middle East, Kamala Harris has been more sympathetic to Palestinians and critical of Israel than Joe Biden, but there is no sign yet that she differs on policy. The dramatic erosion of Arab American support does not appear to have prompted a long‑overdue reconsideration of arms shipments to Israel. Yet Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is thought to eagerly anticipate the return of a president who rewarded and encouraged the Israeli right. Mr Trump pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, with which Tehran was complying – though at least his aversion to “endless wars” held him back from a strike on Iran. Would that hold now?Mr Trump’s presidency made the world more dangerous. Since his blustering mishandling of Kim Jong-un, North Korea has accelerated its nuclear programme and moved closer to China and Russia.The Biden administration did not reject all aspects of Mr Trump’s tenure. Hawkishness on China is one of the few bipartisan issues left. But the White House’s targeted approach is in contrast to Mr Trump’s crude economic nationalism – threatening 60% tariffs on Chinese products and up to 20% on all imports – which could spark a global trade war. He initially wooed Taiwan, but now says it should pay the US for its defence. That reflects a nakedly short-termist, transactional approach to foreign policy – with domestic political needs the priority.The Democrats – and Ms Harris – have tacked right on immigration, but Mr Trump has snatched infants from their parents and now promises mass deportations. His fascistic language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America legitimised and spread racism. He has emboldened misogynists, the far right and strongmen internationally.Ms Harris is not thought to be as emotionally attached to Israel or Europe as her boss, nor to share his vision of a civilisational clash between democracies and their foes. She says she would “stand strong” with Ukraine, but might be somewhat more inclined than Mr Biden to push for a deal with Russia. While most expect there would be broad continuity, it is impossible to predict exactly what a candidate will do once in office.We can be sure, however, that while Ms Harris would not always get it right on foreign policy, she would bring stability, responsibility and dedication – in contrast to Mr Trump’s reckless, erratic, fact-free and narcissistic approach. And while climate action under her would still fall short of what is needed, her rival would deliberately wreck existing global accords. For all these reasons, the world cannot afford a second Trump administration. More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump really could be the next president. So it’s time to call his instincts what they are: fascist | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      There is a good chance that in 10 days’ time, Americans will elect the first fascist president of the United States. It sounds hyperbolic, it sounds hysterical. Indeed, for exactly those reasons, many of his opponents long held back from using that word about Donald Trump. But the hour is late. Voting is already under way. It’s time to spell out what Trump has said and done, what he threatens to do, what he is.Put aside the personal grossness, on display again in recent days with his reference to the size of the late Arnold Palmer’s manhood. Put aside the fact that he’s a twice-impeached, four times indicted, convicted felon who has been found liable by a court for rape. Put aside the latest accusations from a former model who says she met Trump through Jeffrey Epstein, and that the former president groped her in what she believed was a “twisted game” between the two men.Focus instead on the F-word. In recent days, the taboo on that word has been broken, starting with a warning from a former head of the US military, Mark Milley, that the president he once served is a “fascist to the core”. In an interview a few days later, the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi told me she shared that view, and Kamala Harris herself has spoken in similar terms. But this week came perhaps the most detailed, and therefore persuasive, deployment of that term.It came from a man who worked exceptionally closely with Trump, serving as his White House chief of staff: General John Kelly. Like Milley, Kelly did not use the word “fascist” to mean racist or really rightwing, as some loosely throw around that term, but rather to describe Trump’s attitude to power. Indeed, Kelly took pains to be precise.In an interview with the New York Times, he read aloud a definition of fascism: “It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said, adding that Trump fitted that description. “In my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.”It’s not a stretch to speak of “autocracy”. Kelly and others have told how Trump believed all power should reside in him, how he bridled at the insistence by senior officials in the government or military, including those he called “my generals”, that their loyalty was to the constitution rather than to him personally. Trump saw that and all such constraints on his authority, including the law, as irritating – if not illegitimate.That was troubling enough in his first term, but it would be more alarming in a second. For one thing, Trump will not repeat his mistake of appointing lieutenants who believe their duty is to serve the country rather than him, even if that means thwarting his will. Next time, he will be surrounded by loyalists. Some of them have been remarkably candid about their plans. In the words of one, Russell T Vought, speaking of how Trump aims to take direct control of every corner of the US federal government, “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.”An obvious early target will be the department of justice. Trump has left little doubt that he will not respect that body’s independence. Instead he will use it as a weapon to get the “retribution” he has promised by prosecuting his enemies. What’s more, a second-term Trump will be emboldened by an extraordinary ruling of the supreme court. In July that bench, remade in his image with three Trump-appointed judges, granted the president sweeping legal immunity.What especially alarms the retired generals is Trump’s repeated threats to use the US military against American citizens, to crush dissent. When the Black Lives Matter protests erupted in Washington DC in 2020, Trump sent in the national guard, but now he talks, explicitly, about going much further, promising to use the army against those he calls “the enemy from within”. When pressed to say who he had in mind, he did not cite terrorists or criminals but Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman from California.The same instinct animates his serial threats to the free press. “CBS should lose its license,” Trump posted on social media last week, after the network displeased him with an interview with Harris: “60 Minutes should be immediately taken off the air.” Earlier he had called for ABC’s licence to be “terminated” because he didn’t like the way his debate with Harris had gone. Presidents cannot block TV networks on a whim, but they do appoint the board that hands out broadcast licences – so it’s not an empty threat.This, remember, is a man who gushes like a teenager in his admiration for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, but rarely has a good word to say for America’s democratic allies. This is a man who has promised to be a dictator “on day one”. What more does he have to do to tell us who he is, short of dressing up in jackboots and doing a Hitler salute? And before you dismiss that as a joke, recall Kelly’s confirmation that, more than once, Trump spoke positively of the Nazi dictator: “You know, Hitler did some good things, too,” he would say.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGiven all this, it should be shocking that Trump is even a contender for the White House, let alone one who, polls suggest, is locked in a tie with his opponent. But too many Americans are fed up with high prices and fearful about immigration; too many blame the incumbent Democratic administration and see Harris as part of that status quo. In that context it didn’t help that, when asked if she would have done anything differently from Joe Biden these last four years, Harris replied, “Not a thing that comes to mind.”In her closing argument, Harris is rightly focusing on the threat Trump poses to democracy and freedom. But she has to make that threat ever more concrete. Polls show she is losing ground among Black and Hispanic voters, especially men. Why not, as the Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein has argued, remind those voters that Trump threatens to cut federal funding to police departments that don’t implement “stop-and-frisk”, a practice that disproportionately targets Black men? Or that Trump plans a door-to-door operation against undocumented immigrants, a programme of mass deportation that could see the rounding up of 11 million people? This is not a niche issue: there are 4 million young US citizens with at least one undocumented parent. And if you’re wondering where they would all go, recall that Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s closest advisers, has said that “illegals” awaiting deportation will be sent to massive internment camps.On Monday, Donald Trump will address a rally at Madison Square Garden. Others have already noted the uncomfortable echo of the vast America First rally held in that same venue in 1939, when an earlier variant of American fascism was at its height. The US, and the world, got lucky then, as that movement was steadily eclipsed by events. On 5 November, America and the world desperately need to get lucky again – and time is running out.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More