Have you seen that old clip of David Frost interviewing Oswald Mosley?
Frost plays a clip of one of Mosley's speeches. There are really only two possibilities, he says. Either you were deliberately trying to emulate Hitler. Or you were impersonating Charlie Chaplain in the Great Dictator.
The Conservative Party is in the process of choosing a new leader. That leader will automatically become the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and will presumably be Kier Starmer's opponent at the next General Election.
A decade ago, faced with a similar situation, the Labour Party gave its members the choice between a half-way plausible leader (I honestly can't remember his or her name) and an obviously unelectable one. The party members, including my good self, selected the second option. Overwhelmingly. Twice.
The Tories are obviously not going to repeat this mistake. Instead, they have offered their members a straight choice between two obviously unelectable candidates. There's the one who wants to fight culture war battles against trans people and equal opportunity acts and the one who would only have people in his cabinet who want to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. I do concede that framing "culture wars" as a "left wing dog-whistle" implies a kind of Joycean genius for word play.
It will be aesthetically displeasing to have to listen to one or other of these people talking this kind of rubbish at Prime Minister's question time every week. But it makes no difference. It doesn't matter who becomes Leader of the Opposition. Not even a little bit.
And it doesn't matter if Kier Starmer has been a little bit naughty about who pays his tailor's bills; although, since the whole point of Starmer was that he was bright and sensible, it is a little disappointing that he has done something quite so dumb and quite so stupid quite so quickly. We used to slag off Rev'd Tony for his obsession with spin, but you would think that these people paid people to tell them when they were about to do something that is going to look terrible in the papers.
Of course, it's up to you Prime Minister. I'm sure you know what you're doing. A very courageous move.
British electoral cycles and American electoral cycles are out of sync. Ms Badenoch and/or Mr Jerrick are going to get one shot at becoming PM, and that won't come much before June 2029. By which time either Kamala Harris or JD Vance will be beginning their second terms in the White House.
Or else something weirder and scarier will have happened in the Land of the Free. The repeal of the Twenty Second Amendment. A third Trump term. A Democrat victory overturned by a bigger and more decisive January 6th coup d'etat.
And this blog believes in balance. There is another possibility. If Mr Trump and Mr Vance do not win the election, and do not succeed in overturning the result by legal jiggery pokery or mob violence, then by June 2026, Kamala Harris will have established a Marxist dictatorship and ended free elections in America.
That's certainly the opinion of the official Republican nominee; and it's also the opinion of the richest and cleverest man in the world. And they wouldn't say so if they didn't truthfully believe it.
When Jeremy Corbyn suggested that internet access might become free his own party literally accused him of being a Trotskyite.
When Kier Starmer recently moved a painting to a different wall in Downing Street, newspaper columnists literally accused him of being a Stalinist.
But try drawing any kind of parallel between anything that Mr Trump and Mr Musk say and things that that funny little German with the moustache used to say, and see what happens....
"Oh, you liberals, any one who disagrees with you even a little bit is automatically a Fascist!"
"Oh, well, the word Fascist can mean anything you want it to mean and doesn't mean anything at all."
"I shall tell you who the real fascists are -- the ones saying that white people are just the same as black people and that some people are trans and that it's OK to be gay. And the ones who put a black elf into Lord of the Rings!"
"Why oh why oh why can't liberals carry out an argument without resorting to insults?"
I always thought that the Nemesis the Warlock comic-strip in 2000AD took a wrong step when it turned out that nasty inquisitor Torquemada didn't really hate aliens at all: he just thought that giving his human subjects someone to hate was good for business. The legendary Clan of the Fiery Cross Superman story ended on a similar revelation. The chief wizard of the clan didn't believe in any of his white supremacist bullshit. He'd invented the cult because he had a warehouse full of bedsheets he needed to sell.
And how comforting it would be if that were true. There are no Nazis. There are no Fascists. And, in the interests of balance, there are no Liberals and no Communists. There are only gullible people who have been hoodwinked into believing an obvious lie; and cynical liars hoodwinking the gullible for their own ends.
I don't believe it. I think it is highly probable that Mr Hitler really did have an issue with Jewish people. I think it highly probable that Tommy (who's-real-name-is-Yaxby-Lennon) Robinson really does dislike immigrants and dark skinned people and people who say "Allah" rather than "God". But I think it is very likely indeed that many of the people currently serving time for inciting or participating last summer's attempted pogrom had no strong feelings about immigrants or Muslims one way or the other. They were just caught up in the moment.
Which is why we should have as few of those moments as possible.
I am perfectly sure that everyone who heard Yoko Ono speak at Glastonbury in 2014 believed in that moment that if we hugged our neighbours and imagined that all the grapefruits were made of clouds then war and fracking would end there and then. I am equally sure that everyone at Billy Bragg's Bristol gig earlier this year truthfully believed, in that moment, that the sense of empathy between singer and audience could spread out and defeat the forces of cynicism (which is the real enemy).
In the cold light of day, we might have decided that it was all a bit over done and not entirely realistic. But we were carried along in the moment because we really do believe that love and imagination and solidarity are good things. I have said that I always come out of one of Martyn Joseph's concerts honestly wanting to be a better person.
It is not fair to think that everyone who goes to right-wing rallies is evil any more than everyone who attends a revivalist meeting is a saint. Not everyone in the audience necessarily believes that everything in a Trump speech is the gospel truth, any more than everyone in the mega-church necessarily believes that everything in the Gospel is the gospel truth. But it is fair to assume that they are going for some reason. It is fair to assume that they are getting something out of it. It is fair to assume that repeated exposure to that kind of thing has some kind of affect.
It would be very hard to argue that Mr Trump is not an authoritarian -- let's avoid the F-word. It seems very hard to argue that Mr Trump is not an extreme nativist, even a white supremacist. Let's avoid the R-word.
I would personally find it very hard to argue that Kamala Harris was a Marxist. She seems to me to be rather to the right of most British politicians. But I'm not the richest and cleverest man in the world. I'm not even in the top three.
What would British politics look like after four and a bit years of Authoritarian Nativist rule in America? Or, to remain completely unbiassed, in the equally believable and plausible circumstance that US democracy had come to an end and the Hammer and Sickle was flying in the Oval Office?
Some British politicians would undoubtedly say that a jolly good shot of Nativist Authoritarianism up the backside is precisely what Britain needs to put a stop to all those National Trust scones and unisex lavatories.
Some British politicians would certainly say that if the leader of our strongest and traditionalist ally has decided to deploy the armed forces against his political opponents, or to intern or expel religious and racial minorities, then it is our job as a friend to back them up.
Some British politicians would even say that opposing coup d'etats is the self-indulgence of the metropolitan hipster.
And I am very much afraid that some British politicians might say that opposing Authoritarian Nativism is on a level with demanding a unicorn on every street corner. Very nice and fluffy of course, but not the sort of thing that serious grown-ups talk about. Serious grown-ups understand that if you are really against Authoritarian Nativism, then the serious grown-up thing to do is to stop going on and on about it, sit down to dinner with Authoritarian Nativists and maybe be just a little bit more Authoritarian and Nativist yourself.
Life isn't like Love Actually. Tough choices. I for one welcome our new insect overlords.
But it's a safe bet that after four years of American fascism (or, to be completely unbiassed, American communism) winter fuel payments and sewage in Lake Windermere will be the least of our worries.
Whatever happens, on November 6th we will be in uncharted territory. I propose to continue eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, reading comic books and singing sea shanties, until the day that Trump enters into the White House.
At this stage there doesn't seem a great deal that anyone can do about it.
If you can't afford to join my patreon, please consider dropping a few pence in the tip-jar
It may be fair to say that our relationship with Russia at the moment is a bit frosty, and there are probably Bristol folks disguised as cossacks pouring vodca into the harbour in solidarity with Ukraine. However, if we boycotted everything Made in China we would be bankrupt within a week, so we have to be diplomatic about Tibet and Uigers and Hong Kong and Taiwan. If we boycotted North Korea neither side would notice because North Korea has maintained its ideological purity by cutting themselves off from the rest of the world. If we get Trump II, and assuming that the Americans don't withdraw from NATO, then we will probably not stop listening to throaty hippy singers, or sop GeorgeLucad from ever using Shepperton or Pinewood again. Conversely, even Vance 2030 American may be closer to the UK culturally than say Inida or Austria. I guess we need a word for how we tray work colleagues without stropping or sulking, one that doesn't have any connotations of blue movies, and isn't sizest: matu6, maybe?
ReplyDelete"I don't believe it."
ReplyDeleteI do believe it. Racist white Americans aren't racist because they think black Americans are genetically inferior or descendants of Cain or any of that nonsense. They want to go back to the days of segregation where there's a badly paid sub-class who does the shit work while they can put their feet up. Racist Israelis are racist not because they think Islam is a death cult but because they want to expand their territory and Gaza offers sea views. They might then go on to convince themselves of their excuse just as they try to convince other people. But that's not where it stems from.
I will go on to explain that this is because our social being determines our consciousness unless everyone collectively agrees I am The Cleverest Commentator To Andrew's Blog (But Not As Clever As Space Karen, Obviously.)
If racist white Americans want a badly paid sub-class to do the shit work, why do they support a massive program of deporting illegal immigrants? We can go with 'The truth is these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand', but that brings us back around to 'I don't believe it'..
DeleteBecause that sub-class is already there, it doesn’t need to be brought in. It just managed to make gains (through civil rights and so on) which they are keen to un-do. Immigration to America is actually low compared to where it was in the Nineties and Noughties, this is a manufactured panic. And it’s designed around conflating illegal immigration, legal immigration and people whose faces don’t happen to be white. Agitate for a pay rise or decent working conditions, and we may not just sack you – we may deport you. Your existence here is only on our sufferance. Better keep your head down.
ReplyDeleteYour question was a good one. Less clean on ascribing “because they’re stupid” to our enemies as a motive. Even when they contain a lot of stupid people. Usually, there’s more going on.
Then again, you do have a point with “things got out of hand”. Trump vastly and recklessly exacerbated Republican rhetoric for personal gain, which has already had unintended consequences aplenty. His self-interest isn’t even to white people. It’s to him.
The last time Trump was elected, he caused a shutdown over getting funding for a pointless border wall, separated children from their parents, kept them in cages, and kept no records as to which children were associated with which adults. In Texas, Greg Abbott has installed circular saw blades in the Rio Grande. These sorts of actions seem more consistent with people who believe their own racism than people who are just trying to keep the existing immigrants scared to me. But if Trump wins we'll find out who's right.
ReplyDeleteOh I'm sure they believe their own racism. That's a completely separate thing. (NB Trump was never elected, though he did get to be appointed President.)
DeleteOn reflection, maybe there was a way this got ambiguous. Andrew's original Klan example was of leader consciously and cynically manipulating their her, while sniggering up their white-robed sleeves. That's not what I mean. I'm suggesting those spouting this stuff don't want to admit their actual motives even to themselves. "I was acting to preserve the white race" might not sound a more noble motive to us, but they're not us. And this cognitive dissonance can lead to unintended consequences and perverse outcomes. And w know this because it did.
DeleteA certain someone can't take a hint. Comment moderation back on. All comments from a certain person have been deleted unread.
ReplyDeleteWonders if getting into an argument about politics is worth it. Wonders if anyone's political opinions have been changed by comments on Internet articles. If I'm going to comment, shouldn't I reserve it for one of the Hugh Walters articles which are what drew me to this blog many a year ago? Takes stiff drink, and says why not.
ReplyDeleteIs Donald Trump a nativist? Well, he is married to an immigrant, so clearly any distaste for foreigners knows certain limits. Of course, given his marital track record, one could argue that fact doesn't signify much. Still, there is no denying that his signature issue was illegal immigration. Currently, about 14.3% of the American population almost exactly one in seven, was born abroad. Can one ask questions about immigration policy without being a nativist? (I personally think so, yes.) It is even possible to suggest that the mass scale of illegal immigration raises serious questions of the rule of law. Specifically, that the government has laws against it, which appears to have no intention of either enforcing or repealing.
Is Trump racist? I might note here that in 2020, his share of the African-American vote increased from 8% to 12%, the Hispanic vote from 28% to 32%, the Asian-American vote from 27% to 34%, and the other nonwhite (presumably mostly Native American) from 36% to 41%. It does seem odd that, after four years of a racist presidency, his share of the nonwhite vote would noticeably increase. Especially considering that the election took place in a pandemic and economic difficulty for which he was (rightly or wrongly) blamed. The polling data suggests that his share of the nonwhite vote will increase again this year. Certainly, nobody denies that he has been chasing nonwhite votes, which does not exactly seem on brand for a racist.
Is Trump authoritarian? Here we get into a difficult question. He can be accused of using executive authority strongly, but the bigger problem is the steadily growing power of the executive branch. And this is something that has been done enthusiastically by both parties, including his predecessor in the White House. Barack Obama was quite happy to use executive orders, including constitutionally dubious ones, to get his agenda across. Say what you will of Donald Trump, he never used his powers to start an extended air war on Libya without seeking Congressional approval. This problem was once summed up by a French observer as “Congress passes vague laws saying that the president shall do Good Things and not Bad Things, the President does what he wants, and they look to the Supreme Court to sort it out.” (Going on memory on that; may have gotten the wording wrong.) My take, for what it is worth, is that the power of the executive has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. But that is a matter of the system, not of Trump personally.
Certainly in detail, the depiction of Trump as an authoritarian can be questioned. Consider that probably the most notable legislative accomplishment of his presidency was the First Step act, a bipartisan effort described (by Wikipedia) as “aimed at reforming federal prisons and sentencing laws to reduce recidivism, decreasing the federal inmate population, and maintaining public safety.” Reforming prisons to reduce inmate populations, who are primarily nonwhite, seems like an odd priority for an authoritarian.
Apparently there is a limit on what I can post in on comment; more shortly.
Yes, Trump is a racist, an authoritarian, and a fascist. Thank you for your interest in this matter, so now you know.
DeleteAlso, while I'm sure your joke posts are funny to you in some sense, I am on Trump's list of "the enemy within" which he wants to use the military to round up and lock up so this is no laughing matter to me.
DeleteI am not sure who that commented was directed at (myself or "Wanderingmoderate) but for the avoidance of doubt: nothing in my post was intended to be funny, or intended to be making light of the situation. Obviously, I write in a satirical tone, but I don't regard the growth of the far right as "a laughing matter" any more than, say, Jonathan Swift though the Irish famine was amusing. I raised the question of comedy (referring to an unpublished section) because certain of Trump's supporters have insinuated that some of his more extreme statements aren't intended seriously or that he doesn't really mean them.
DeleteI just reread my post and can't see anything in it that would make you think I'd didn't take Trump seriously; and to be fair I can't see anything in Wonderingmoderate's partial defence of Trump that appear to be intended as jokes. Am I missing something here?
I assume that it was clear that while I was talking about Kamela Harris being a Marxist who would ban elections, I was alluding to things that the Musk-Trump entity had, in fact said, and making it clear that I found them ludicrous.
DeleteIs Trump encouraging violence through his rhetoric? Well, I will concede that it was wrong of him to say “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. Wait a minute- it was Barack Obama who said that. Well, it was very wrong for Trumps’ supporters, after the 2020 election, to refer to themselves as “the resistance”, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, and suggesting that America was just like occupied France in 1943. Sorry- in that sentence you should substitute Hillary for Trump, and 2016 for 2020. Let us change the question. Does Donald Trump take part in an admittedly regrettable American tradition of bombastic political rhetoric? Once that is answered, for extra credit, answer this. If Trump is inciting violence, in three elections how many serious assassination attempts (as in, someone got close with a gun) have been made against Trump as opposed to all his opponents combined?
ReplyDeleteIs Trump fascist? As Orwell noted, the definition of fascism is frequently little more than “something vaguely undesirable.” Still, I tend to go with Mussolini’s comment of “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I do tend to think of Mussolini as an authority on fascism.) Trump was commonly accused of attempting to reduce state power, which seems rather un-fascist. Certainly one of the defining aspects of fascism has been on struggle and violence and warfare as the test of a nation, as in the other famous slogan “Believe-Obey-Fight!” I have to note here that Trump started no new wears, and (depending, in fairness on your definition of wars) you have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find another president who did that. If anything, he was known to suggest that he did not like American troops abroad. Undoubtedly the greatest accomplishment of his administration was the signing of the Abraham Accords, making peace between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Morocco and Sudan would also sign treaties with Israel under this process. Not starting new wars, wanting to bring the troops home, and brokering multiple peace treaties, especially ones that aid a Jewish state, don’t really seem to be out of the Fascist, and particularly Nazi, playbook.
As a bonus question, is Kamala Harris a Marxist? It seems unlikely; open Marxism is uncommon these days, and what I have heard of her speeches, they are short on references to class struggle and reserve armies of the unemployed. Of course, it is reasonable to argue that she is excessively entranced with the power of the State to create positive social change. But that would be a boring argument. It would be like arguing that mass illegal immigration tends to drive down wages for working class Americans by massively increasing the supply of unskilled labor, which is why American labor leaders were traditionally opposed to immigration, and industrialists favored it. Who wants to have that argument?
Are there things which could rightfully be held against Trump, even to the point of saying that he should not be president? Yes, many things, from inability to take criticism to his spendthrift ways with the national treasury. One could even argue that he should have acted harder against various Obama policies, such as keeping kids in cages, a policy he did inherit. But as a popular comedian put it, when as to explain Trumps’ election, put it “Don’t accuse a man of nine murders when he only committed eight.”
Andrew, I’ve enjoyed your writing for many years. I don’t watch Doctor Who, nor do I care about Spiderman as much as you do. But I have found plenty that was both thoughtful and enjoyable here. However, this essay is not your best work. It lacks detail and context. You can do better. Now, if you will excuse me, I need another drink.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello,
Delete1: You are very much encouraged to respond to what I write (on any subject). (I've had comments from an actual Sad Puppy before now.) In a way, I'd rather have feedback on the pop culture stuff (inc Walters) simply because (as you rightly say) I put more thought into that; a lot of the political stuff is a little more off-the-cuff. And also because, though no-one believes me, when I talk about Tom Baker and Bill Mantlo I'm getting much closer to talking about Who I Am.
2: Am going to do the next in the Walters series quite soon -- "First Contact" seems to be a soft reboot, and introduces an Irish astronaut who says "to be sure to be sure" and a Welsh one who keeps bursting into song.
3: I have put a deleted passage from the above on my Patreon -- I felt that the cut section was going over a lot of the same areas I'd covered when I wrote about bad taste comedy a couple of years back. The gist was this: when I hear a politician use very extreme rhetoric, I do not have to take him literally. (When I was a schoolboy my headmaster once threatened to put me up against the wall and shoot me. I knew very well he didn't mean it literally; and in fact I was much less alarmed than I would have been had he threatened to cane me. But I also knew he was actually very cross.) But I am entitled to ask where the politician does stand; and what real belief lies behind the rhetoric.
4: While not wanting to invoke Mr Duane Gish, I would rather complete my essays on the Rings of Power, and start putting together my current Big Work In Progress than respond to detailed comments on my blog. This doesn't mean that I don't read them with interest; and I imagine that other people will have comments.
5: I wonder if you have read my other political essays over the last few years, including several in which I explain why I generally don't write about politics nowadays?
Thanks for feedback. (There is a delay before comments appear here, but I don't pre-moderate debate, only filter out spam and a couple of known trolls.)
I am sad about Donald Trump being president again. Very sad, in fact.
ReplyDelete["Sad Puppy" was a name used by a fascist pressure group who were pretending to be science fiction fans. You probably knew that.]
Delete