12 July 2018
Tramping Against Trump
A matter of perspective.
By John Watson
“When in Rome do as the Romans”; so if you are in Britain at the moment you should be blathering on about whether you are going to march against Trump. Will you shout abuse in the street or will you wave a little stars and stripes, calling out a deferential “God Bless Your Presidentship” as the motorcade rolls past? Perhaps though you are of a neutral persuasion and will merely place a gigantic McDonalds in your mouth as you watch the news from your sofa, showing cultural solidarity with the US without endorsing the present incumbent. It is a difficult decision to make and the controversy will rip families apart. Old friends will trade insults in the streets. Spouse will be torn from spouse. Sons and daughters will turn on their parents. There is even disagreement between those who contribute to the Shaw Sheet. It will be worse than the Brexit referendum and only the success of Harry Kane and his merry men in reaching the semifinals of the World Cup has maintained any sort of national cohesion.
Actually the two great questions facing Britain, the March and Brexit, have something in common – geography. No, no, I didn’t mean it that way. I am well aware that Brexit does not involve breaking away from the USA. The importance of geography lies in where support for the various options can be found, and just as some areas of Britain were more Brexit than others, so some will be more anti or more pro Trump.
Take Highgate as an example. Pro Brexiteers are about as popular there as rats in the kitchen and the area is full of luvvies. Be ready to hear “He’s such an awful man, darling. I would march myself if only it didn’t clash with pilates” beautifully enunciated over the prosecco and the humus.
Where then should we look for the Trump supporters? Well, Essex I suppose, that home of the British wheeler dealers. “Yer, well he sorted that Kim chap in Japan didn’t he. Nothing like a tough bit of negotiation. Trust a businessman, that’s what I say. Which reminds me I’ve got some watches; very good price; do you a special deal”. And the McDonalds eaters? There is quite a lot of the north of England to choose from.
And how will people make their decision? By reference to their principles perhaps, looking at Trump’s actions since he came to office and assessing them carefully, scoring them for their wisdom and humanity and deciding which should be approved of and which should not. Will they hell? When people talk about acting according to their principles they usually mean acting according to simplistic preconceptions “Awful man. He needs to put up taxes and use the money to fund Obamacare. Obvious really. Why can’t the Americans just grow up and be more like us?” Others will act in their own narrow interests. Those whose prosperity is founded on doing business with the States will not march. Those trying to build a career as left wing activists will do so.
Properly analysed though, the question is more one of price than of principle. That is a common situation in the field of international affairs, a truth which I learnt at the age of 14 when debating against a boy who was much brighter than I was. The subject of the debate was whether Britain should go to war and, although I cannot remember the context, it must have been a specific rather than a general question because we all felt very strongly about it. I forget which side I was on but I had been given the job of winding up and spoke, in the rather pompous way that boys of 14 do, about the principles of the matter and whether sufficient red lines had been crossed to justify military interference. The boy winding it up for the other side handled it differently. The question of going to war was a matter of price, he said, and a balance needed to be struck between the risk, the cost in men and materials and what could realistically be achieved. As he said it, the scales fell from my eyes and I realised what nonsense I had been talking. I lost the debate and deservedly.
That particular debate was about going to war but you do not have to be Machiavelli to see that the question of price is just as relevant to the question whether to march. Of course our concerns for human rights and international decency are part of the balancing act which establishes whether the price is worth paying but it remains a balancing act nonetheless. What will be achieved? What is the cost? If you believe that the censure of the UK public is something which will sway Trump or the domestic forces to which he is subject, then the jeopardy to the relationship with our most powerful ally may be a price worth paying. If it isn’t going to make a fig of difference to him, it is clearly not. The more you believe in the importance of Britain on the world stage, the stronger the argument for marching; but if we are only a bit player whose opinion weighs little there is no sensible argument for doing so.
It is not for the Shaw Sheet to pontificate on Britain’s place in the world. That is something readers should decide for themselves. Alas the word is probably “should” because in reality most of us will just look to preconceptions and advantage and strike our pose accordingly.
