Hello from London,
Here’s a handy rule, courtesy of Aesop, the fabulous storyteller: judge a person by the company they keep. And here’s my own version (I regret without donkeys, hares or tortoises): you can also learn plenty about someone from the opponents they pick. Take Vladimir Putin. You can gauge a lot about his own fears from his decision to make an enemy of Russia’s increasingly liberal, pro-Western neighbour. By invading Ukraine, he revealed his own dread of anything like a democracy taking root at home.
What of Donald Trump’s recent choices of opponents? There are many to consider. His public, needlessly aggressive berating of Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House, back in February, was telling. Before the cameras and flanked by other staff he made an opponent of an ally, the victim of a war who is heavily dependent on foreign help. It was unedifying for America and made no strategic sense, especially given Mr Trump’s evident, parallel, fear of ever standing up to Mr Putin. The episode was mostly revealing for what it showed about Mr Trump. He is fond of finding weak opponents to humiliate in public, while shying away from the strong.
The past week brought a second, if less dramatic, example of just that in the Oval Office. This time Mr Trump turned on the elected leader of South Africa as he paid a visit to discuss trade. Holding up fabricated evidence, including news images taken from a distant war in Congo, the American bizarrely claimed to Cyril Ramaphosa (who wisely kept his cool) that a “genocide” is under way against a white minority of Dutch descendants, the Afrikaners. I lived in and reported from South Africa for four years and can confirm that Mr Trump was talking nonsense.
So why manufacture this fight? Elon Musk, born in apartheid-era South Africa, presumably played a role. The country is also associated now with ideas of racial reconciliation and forgiveness, as well as “empowerment” for the majority, black population. To the ears of Mr Trump, all that might sound dangerously woke. Finally Mr Trump also judged, correctly, that South Africa is a small country that could do nothing to retaliate. I couldn’t imagine Mr Trump ever publicly berating Binyamin Netanyahu, a much tougher protagonist, over the mass deaths of Gazans.
After that encounter came Mr Trump’s latest salvo against universities. Harvard has defied his administration’s attacks on free speech, refusing to bend the knee to rules designed to limit scholars’ liberty of expression. Now, in an ugly response, the government has ordered it to stop enrolling foreign students. That’s a blow for one of the world’s greatest places of learning. Naturally, it may also put scientists and scholars off from coming to, or staying in, America as a whole. In the long run, that would carry a serious cost for the country and the world.
But Mr Trump no doubt reckons this is no riskier to him, politically, than his castigating of journalists or lawyers, or his sacking of aid workers or climate scientists. All these groups are seen as mostly pro-Democratic, liberal bastions. Trying to weaken them, one by one, is a means to adding to his dominance at home. His own base of supporters, meanwhile, can cheer the comeuppance of members of the educated elite, whatever the wider cost to America, its economy and prestige abroad. Crucially, too, these chosen opponents have mostly proved too divided and feeble to push back, leaving Harvard looking isolated. What does this suggest about Mr Trump? My guess: he will continue with this pattern, publicly bullying the weak while avoiding confrontations with those strong enough to object effectively.
In other news: season two of our Boss Class podcast series is under way. If you are a fan of the Bartleby column, then I’d urge you to listen to my colleague, Andrew Palmer, as he explores what it takes to become a good boss. Just as relevant: he has observations on what it takes to be a dreadful one. And if you haven’t signed up to his weekly Bartleby newsletter, you should do so now.
Thanks, as ever, for your messages. Many of you took issue with my argument of last week, where I suggested that America could have been better off had Joe Biden lost in 2020. Several continued an earlier debate on whether female leaders really are less warlike than males. That one will run and run, I’m sure.
I also sought your views on free speech. Several of you expressed your fears over speaking out, including correspondents from India. I’ve decided not to name you. Albert Assely suggests that America, sadly, “can’t claim to be the protector of free speech any more” after the deportation of foreigners who expressed opinions unpopular with the administration and for “laying off government employees for their views”. He wonders if there will be “further restrictions on the larger population down the line”. That’s a reasonable question to ask, Albert, as that line is at least three more years long. I also agree with Ken Derow, who argues that when freedom of speech or of dissent “are quelled” then our democracy is threatened. Happy Memorial Day to readers in America. |
No comments:
Post a Comment