2 February 2017
Donald and Theresa’s Love In
The way to implement
by J.R.Thomas
One of the most irritating features of modern news management (that is, attempted management of the media by politician’s inner offices) is that one is told the day before the set piece speech what the revered one will say. “Mrs May will say that she and Mr Trump will rule the known world…”, “Mr Corbyn will say that he is firmly in favour of…”. But suppose that, when they rise behind the lectern, they don’t say that all? Suppose Mrs May had actually found on meeting Mr Trump a person she could not possibly contemplate doing business with, and decided to say so? Suppose that Mr Corbyn, on eating breakfast, considered other perspectives and found himself torn between them (unlikely, we know) and decided to turn his address into an opportunity to muse on what might be the best course.
No danger of this with Mr Trump of course. A thought comes into his head that he needs to share. Some event blows up that he should express an opinion on. Out comes the gold (we’re surmising it might be gold) cell phone and the world is informed in 140 characters – or less. Nobody knows what the Donald will say until he says it. Even, one suspects, the Donald. He has plans, ideas, stratagems, of course. But (as we have said in this column before) he is a businessman, he seeks angles and opportunities, he seizes moments, he reacts to changing circumstances.
Also, as a businessman, he delivers product fast; so, he thinks, will his Administration. Never before has a politician delivered so clearly and quickly on his election promises. He said he would engage with his programme on taking office, and the Presidential pen has been busy engaging. Oddly, given that outrage is usually directed at politicians who ignore their manifesto commitments, this President is been vilified for delivering. What he is delivering is certainly controversial, but hardly unexpected. But perhaps his opponents never believed that he meant it – which may give as much insight into their approach to politics as Mr Trump’s.
What might be more cogently criticised though is the detail and implementation of the executive orders flooding out of the Oval Office. There is a reason in the USA, as in the UK, for having cabinet officers and massive departments of state behind them, lawyers and civil servants and PR persons, lobbyists who can be used to disseminate suggestions as well as seeking favours, political contacts who can be consulted and briefed, friendly executives who can be informally consulted and pre-armed. This is the formal and informal machinery of government, and it means that executive action can be polished and shaped to avoid the obvious weaknesses and potholes in changing procedures and laws.
Previous presidential pens were normally deployed after some sounding and consulting, often a considerable amount, had been carried out, the ink only being placed on documents after the implications and consequences had been thought through more than a little. Sometimes, the security of the state or the urgency of the situation means that this process cannot be gone though, and the legislation is rough and ill considered but achieves an urgent objective, knowing that slamming the door may, as it were, break a few fingers but will keep out the bad guys. Mr Trump would doubtless say that this is exactly the position concerning his order to extend the wall on the Mexican border (there is nearly 600 miles of high security fence already, remember) but given that he needs Congress to vote the funds for the construction of the wall, the executive order is really just an order to get ready. He has cited security threats as being behind the temporary ban on Moslem entry to the country whilst stricter vetting processes are put in place. This may be based on some threat identified by the intelligence services of which we have not been made aware; but if not, then it does look like a clumsy and ill drafted order which at the very least is a gift to the Presidents political opponents – elderly and infirm entrants refused entry, celebrities fearing they will not be allowed entry, crying children denied entry. This is a short term humanitarian disaster, and if the President does not care about that, a PR one as well. He might not worry about such perceptions a few days into his Presidency but it is very early to be creating waves that may lead in time to impeachment moves, and risks alienating an already doubting party in Congress.
The rest of the orders and memoranda flooding from the White House are largely symbolic because they either relate to things which will need formal legislation or which require funding. They are statements of intent, a reassurance that the President is indeed beginning the draining of the swamp, that he wishes government to be crisper, cheaper, more effective. And he is parking his tanks not on the Congressional lawns but on the very steps, giving them notice that he intends to deliver as promised.
What he delivers though needs to be better thought through than the border security measures enacted last weekend or he may find that in the streets and in the courts and in Congress there is so much opposition that nothing gets done. This is certainly not unknown in Washington even with politically skilled presidents, but would be a remarkable achievement indeed for a President whose party has control of both Houses and, according to the polls, majority support (albeit narrow) for what he has done so far – though (early warning Mr President) his personal ratings are declining. Which brings us to where we began – even if you are out to drain swamps and change the world, some of those old techniques are still useful – such as thinking before you speak, and leaking what you are thinking of saying before you say it so that you can gauge reactions and tailor your words and actions accordingly.
Mrs May might also need to take a refresher in these matters. That the most cautious of politicians, a woman who presented with fresh ground will dig and double dig, and then dig the other way just to be sure, should fall into such a minor but embarrassing pit as to publicly invite her new friend for a state visit, without consulting the one who will have to host it, or precedent, or public opinion, is very odd indeed. She has much on her plate, and has had little to do with foreign affairs. Did she consult? Was her Foreign Secretary asked what he thought? Or was this a calculated decision taken in full knowledge of normal process and procedure in the Whitehall swamp, calculating that The Donald and Theresa Brexit Show would help towards an early trade deal with the USA, more important than the downside of a bit of hoo-haa over an unprecedentedly early State Visit.
If it was this, Theresa may have got it right. Polls suggest that the public think on balance that being polite to the most powerful man in the world is a Good Thing, and are not as bothered as civil servants and royal advisors about the precedents and rules as to when a visit is a State visit, or just a visit. But Mrs M, maybe next time you get the urge to entertain, perhaps leak the day before that you are thinking of inviting a mate round, just to gauge the reaction first.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
