Great British Breakfast and Euro-punditry

This is an experiment. Since June last year, I’ve been doing a weekly dive into the European press on DKos, originally to cover the US election, but since then to try and cover European views of America, plus keeping an eye on elections taking place in Europe – my view being that following elections is the simplest way of getting some kind of insight into how a country’s politics work.

I’m only fluent in German, but I have a moderate knowledge of French and can just about parse the other Western European languages. So the excerpts which follow have had at least some human attention, though the links to non-English language sources take you to GoogleTranslate’s version, which is sometimes gobbledegook, but is usually good enough for you to get the gist of it.

This being my first diary here, I have little idea if I’m doing it right, but I’ve simply copied my DK post as is. So I’ll be interested both in how it looks and what you think of it.

Another week has gone by and POTUS* is still insane.

So let’s start with something less depressing: the French Presidential election, which has suddenly become much more interesting. I ran out of energy to preview the run-off in the “Left” primary (it was really a Partie Socialiste primary with a couple of extra joke candidates), but it was won by Benoît Hamon, the radical whose signature policy proposal is the Universal Basic Income. While I suspect UBI is still only viable in Unicornia, it’s going to get argued about a great deal, and how that goes should prove interesting. France isn’t the only country where it’s been floated (and some early experiments came 40 years ago in the USA of all places), so seeing it given a serious electoral test will give some pointers about whether people sort of like the idea even if they don’t think it’s a runner. Yet, anyway.

As I’ve said before, Hamon has very little chance of making it to the run-off, which is expected to feature the odious Marine Le Pen and one other. Until a couple of weeks ago, the polls said that the other finalist was going to be the Thatcherite right-winger Francois Fillon, but then he got embroiled in a financial scandal over him paying his wife hundreds of thousands of euros to be his “assistant” although there was little evidence that she did anything at all which would fall under the umbrella of political adviser or organizer. That has caused his polling to nosedive.

And that leaves Emmanuel Macron as the front-runner to oppose Le Pen. Macron used to be in the PS, and served as Finance Minister for President Hollande, but he quit the party to found his own, called En Marche! (or Forward!). So far, he’s been big on ideology — centrism, roughly — but short on detailed proposals, which is understandably causing a certain amount of harrumphing. But that has been enough for him to gain considerable traction, and the polls suggest that he would easily beat Le Pen if he makes it that far.

In Libération, Alain Duhamel says that Hamon and Macron have introduced a welcome optimism to the campaign:

The left-right cleavage remains but the boundary becomes porous. Emmanuel Macron straddles it, François Bayrou dreams of doing the same, Alain Juppé did not close it categorically. However, other divisions weigh more and more heavily: Europhiles against Europhobes, Liberals against Protestants (who find themselves at the two ends of the political spectrum), free-trade against protectionists, Catholic morality against secular morality, Supporters of the integration of immigrants against assimilation. There is no longer a block against a block, but an entanglement, an interlacing of cleavages that overlap. At the borders of these borders, a new distinction gradually emerges, that which distinguishes optimists and pessimists.

…

The novelty is that with Emmanuel Macron and Benoît Hamon arise two forms of optimism. In the new Socialist champion, it is colored by a considered utopianism, a claimed courage. At least it is the return of idealism, this spring that seemed broken by the pedagogy of the government of the left. Benoît Hamon believes in a society of free time, residual labor, universal income. He is perhaps daydreaming but he believes, and he hopes: optimism. As for Emmanuel Macron, whose ideology is better understood than his program is known, he also creates a perceptible hope for millions of Frenchmen, he embodies a desire for renewal, the invention of another track. In both cases it is far too early to know whether this temptation of optimism and this renewed hope will crystallize and take root or not. At least, these new figures personify a refusal of pessimism, a rejection of declinism. Mirage, dream, hope or regain, in any case, another climate.

I think Duhamel is on to something here which can certainly be transplanted. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan is negative coming from him, but turning the electorate round probably requires finding a way of convincingly giving hope.

Which is going to be difficult, because our traditional weapons are being blunted, as Georg Seeßlen explains in Der Spiegel. It’s a long piece and well worth reading in its entirety (and the Googlish version is pretty readable):

Democracy is a matter of language. They stand and above all fall one with the other. Of course, even in a democracy there are a lot of lies, quite a lot. But the show of right-wing populism says something quite different , namely that “WE” is the meaning, and not an external reality. The external reality is simply disavowed by the fact that it is “equal for all”. How can there be something good for “THE OTHER”?

Reality is an invention of the left-wing establishment. This is the political-pragmatic content of the construction of “alternative facts” (which represent a pleasant alternative to facts); The second content of this wonderful concept points to the deep rootedness of Trumpism in popular culture, in  talent shows, soap operas, comics, films and TV series. This is not about how the world is designed, but about what the customers want (the customers in front of the screen, the customers from the advertising business).

Trumpism is, in its first phase, the art of dissolving political discourse according to the rules of the entertainment industry. There must be images where texts were, there must be myth where history was, there must be emotions where logic was. It is difficult to say whether there is something behind the poisoning of language and discourse, whether it corresponds to the “nature” of the representatives of the populist right, or whether it was simply recognized by trial and error as a success recipe. Speaking to make the other speechless, at least, has its traditions and has finally become media practice in the talkshows.

The roots of Trumpism in general and of the Trumpistic language in particular are deeply rooted in American mythology, and they reach into the shoals of popular culture. Trumpist language can be described briefly as an interplay of extreme shortening, the accumulation of content-free euphemistic exaggerations such as amazing , beautiful , great , tremendous (they are the phrases we know from TV celebrities who express their enthusiasm in the code of “reality” expressions), ruthless reductions such as weak or failing and threatening gestures. This language fits perfectly into Twitter format, and this format as a new form of communication of the ruler with his people has its own semantics and with it a whole political program.

Also in Der Spiegel, Stefan Kuzmany shows how Trump’s approach carries the seeds of its own destruction:

Just imagine, for a moment, Donald Trump were two people. The reality TV star living not only as US President at the White House in Washington, but at the same time, as his own twin, as an active real estate shark in the executive suite of the Trump Tower in New York.

Just imagine, Donald Trump in New York would be watching the performance and the successes of his doppelganger in Washington – the scattershot tweets would be fun to read.

The failed military operation in Yemen? “POTUS kills children. DISGRACEFUL!”

Trump’s allegedly ignorant signing of the inclusion of his right-wing adviser Stephen Bannon in the National Security Council? “POTUS signed exec order he did not understand. Can this man even read? SO SAD!!!”

Trump’s harsh attack on the judiciary after a temporary entry ban for people from seven Muslim states which has beenwas stopped by US courts? “POTUS unable to produce legally sound travel ban, then whines about losing in court. SUCH A CRY-BABY!”

The ever-prolonged construction period of his anti-Mexican protective wall? “Now it takes THREE YEARS to build the wall? POTUS should hire immigrants to get it done fast!”

And finally, the latest turn-around in the One-China policy , which he had termed as “negotiable” until recently: “POTUS bows to China. BIG LOSER! PEKING DUCK!”

…

The great nation of the United States of America will correct its evil misapprehension and shake off the worn-out operetta president with his dark entourage. It’s only a matter of time. Let’s persist.

Talking of tweets, Ross Macafferty in The Scotsman points out that yesterday’s tweets will probably have been worse than today’s (whatever they are):

When Donald Trump tweeted that his daughter Ivanka “always pushes me to do the right thing” – he may have been giving away more than he intended to.

…

At 35, Ivanka has been touted as taking on an unofficial First Lady role while Melania stays in New York. She may not be his eldest child, but she is undoubtedly the favourite, given top roles in the Trump organisation, and encouraged and helped to start her own fashion line.

…

Her husband, Jared Kushner, also does a sterling job, as a key adviser to the President, he is often rated to have more of Trump’s trust than even controversial Steve Bannon. But it is a job that Kushner and Ivanka Trump can only do six days a week due to their religion. And that presents a huge issue for Trump.

…

Ivanka, a convert to the religion, has spoken before of how she feels Shabbat helps her become a better parent, due to the uninterrupted family time it allows for. But she can’t spend time helping her most famous family member moderate his tweets, and to many, it is just a matter of time before Trump says something on a Saturday that could be a fatal error.

While Jorge Castaneda and Armando Rios Piter advocate a policy of firmness – “there is no reason to cooperate with a hostile regime,” they write – President Enrique Pena Nieto is trying to soft-soap the President. He has just appointed Luis Videgaray , a man without diplomatic experience, to the Foreign Ministry, largely because he has an excellent relationship with Jared Kushner , Donald Trump’s son-in-law and advisor. Pragmatism? No doubt, but Pena Nieto had to set red tags and lines. How far can the government woo a gringo so caricatural, massively rejected by its population? How far can he forget the resentment left by a long history of spoliation, dependence and humiliation, including the loss of a huge territory in the 19th century from Texas to California?

…

Close to the American liberals, Mexican progressive circles took the triumph of Trump as a political rout and a personal injury ,” wrote the essayist Nicolas Medina Mora . Set on the back foot, they worry about a drift towards more inequality and violence. They fear that their country will follow a national-populist path. They even evoke an authoritarian scenario with a strengthening of the power of the army.
But what is the alternative? “Implement deep reforms that break with an illiberal political model and a socially unbalanced economy. Correct a Free Trade Treaty that penalizes workers on both sides of the border. Diversify the links” they respond in chorus. Justicia y libertad ! Without a doubt. But time is short.
Then, conscious that they can not escape the inevitability of geography, they cling to the hope of forging close relations with all those in the United States who will try to cushion the shock. With the State of California, which has hired Eric Holder, the former Obama justice minister, to counter Donald Trump. With an increasingly Hispanic Catholic Church. With the 35 million American citizens of Mexican origin. With moderate members of Congress and “enlightened” circles in the media and universities.
With all those who on both sides of the “glass frontier” dear to the writer Carlos Fuentes reject this “Amerika,” as Nicolas Medina Mora calls it, “which sails blindly on the sea of ​​History, without knowing where it’s going.”

In Svenska Dagbladet, Tove Lifvendahl looks at the self-defeating nature of “America First” as a slogan:

A good acquaintance made me aware of a political cartoon in Germany’s TagesspiegeI (23/1). It bears the text “We completely agree” and represents Gert Wilders (PVV), Marine Le Pen (National Front) and Frauke Petry (AFD), who met last week in Koblenz, Germany. Wilders message: Holland first! Le Pen: France First! Petry: Germany first!

Besides the obvious irony that extreme nationalists rejoice in the cross-border international cooperation, it goes beyond dark satire. The practice of this kind of rhetoric is a world where everyone gets poorer. To join this crowd, even the US President joined with his inaugural address . America First. Only America. As an act of solidarity called for a literal act of national concern: Buy American. Hire American.

Sounds familiar? It should. Because there are few political leaders who are not grateful to avail themselves of rhetorical tropes that appeal to a national us, and to appeal to its strengths, values and protect from vulnerabilities.

…

Buy American has in terms of reform mainly focused on public purchasing rules. Primarily to promote their own production. Although the imported is cheaper, domestic has to be selected. In practice this means a subsidy paid by taxpayers as well as Trump’s idea to impose high import duties on Mexican products.

The question is whether American taxpayers are prepared to pay the difference, and where appropriate, higher prices.

…

Remember that the person who appeals to the insular instincts should be prepared to encounter a world that occupies the same position. Reciprocity, mutuality, is the universal language of commerce… When everyone thinks he can go first, the effect is that no one makes progress. It just stops.

In the Irish Independent, Eoghan Harris says something surprising:

Last Wednesday, St Brigid’s Day, I concluded we in the West will have to decide between the dark vision of Donald Trump’s chief advisor, Stephen Bannon, and the bright vision of my German friend, Britta Freith.

Voicing the views of many left liberals, Mary Robinson told RTE radio: “I fear the influence of people like Steve Bannon who is well known for his right-wing and racist views.”

That’s the standard left- liberal view of both Bannon and Trump, and it’s wrong.

Like Trump, Bannon is neither right-wing nor racist. He’s more dangerous than that because he’s more democratic.

Steve Bannon is a class-conscious populist who taught Trump to play alienated blue-collar America like a piano.

…

Bannon is using Trump as a political tool to create not a domestic, but a global campaign.

Bannon has a bigger and bloodier vision. He believes in a coming Armageddon between the West and Islam.

Who can stop him? Mine is a political family, and the best answer comes in a text from my brother, Jimmy, who works in the UK.

“Trump is not the problem. The problem is the Republican Party, and the cowardice of politicians like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell who have no moral compass.”

…

What a relief to then turn from talking about refugees to the direct actions of my German friend Britta Freith. who gives me a ground-eye view of what’s going on.

Britta strikes me as having achieved what the Stoics called apatheia, a calm steadiness in the pursuit of virtue.

Hence her laidback email to me last Friday about some recent extraordinary events a few hundred yards from her home in Hamburg.

“One day, I looked out my upper-storey window and saw that refugees had built a camp of tents close to my house. It took me five minutes to walk there and check the situation. Over the next week some 40 tents went up.”

Being Britta, and being German, she then began to organise with her neighbours to help the refugees, not least because she was afraid of right-wing protesters moving in. Ironically the only criticism came from a left-wing newspaper with the Trot complaint that local people were only giving children’s beds because they wanted families and not single men to come.

In the same paper, Ian O’Doherty has another of his pieces which intensely annoy because he dislikes liberals but is also quite insightful:

Donald Trump’s pre-game interview with Bill O’Reilly on the hated Fox network threw up something people have suspected about the president but never truly believed – he doesn’t seem to believe in American exceptionalism, the concept which states that the States is a country like no other. An 11th Commandment for many Americans, and one which has caused untold troubles when applied to foreign misadventures, Mr Trump’s assertion that, just like Russia: “We have lots of killers too”, was exactly the kind of rhetoric which made so many people hate Barack Obama.

But that’s the thing with Mr Trump. He often comes across like a compass wildly spinning in different directions while looking for magnetic north. He then followed that by using Iraq as an example of disastrous intervention, something which actually places him politically closer to the people who hate him than Mr Obama or Ms Clinton ever were.

But there is a method to his apparent madness. Whether it’s talking about America having plenty of killers of its own, or threatening to send troops across the Mexican border, or manufacturing a spat with his Australian counterpart, it all feeds into one important fact – he wants people to think he’s ready to fly off the handle at any moment. He wants people to be afraid of his responses and he wants to restore America as the country that is feared by despots rather than sneered at. In fact, you could even go so far as to say that he’s crazy all right; crazy as Fox News.

In other words, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

And his opponents simply can’t keep up.

Still, it would be nice to see him take some of the heat out of things, because the next four years will be simply unsustainable at this rate.

It may be relatively harmless to have a public argument with Australia or Mexico, but the Middle East is another matter, so here’s your weekly dose of good sense from Patrick Cockburn:

One of the dangers of Trump’s demagogic rants and open mendacity is that they tend to give the impression that less theatrical members of his team, especially former generals like Mattis or National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are monuments of good sense and moderation. Yet both men are set on threat inflation when it comes to Iran, though without providing any evidence for its terrorist actions, just as their predecessors inflated the threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMD and fictional support for al-Qaeda.

This is all good news for Isis, though it has so many enemies committed to its defeat that a switch in US policy may be too late to do it a lot of good. But its main enemies on the ground are the Iraqi and Syrian armies, whose governments are backed by Iran, and the Syrian Kurds who fear that the US may soon give them less support in order to appease Turkey.

Given the high decibel level of the Trump administrations threats and warnings, it is impossible to distinguish bellicose rhetoric from real operational planning. A confrontation with Iran will probably not come soon; but in a year or two, when previous policies conceived under Obama have run their course, Trump may well feel that he has to show how much tougher and more effective he is than his predecessor, whom he has denounced as weak and incompetent.

This administration is so heavily loaded with crackpots, fanatics and amateurs, that it would be optimistic to imagine that they will pass safely through the political swamplands of the Middle East without detonating a crisis with which they cannot cope. The diplomatic agreements that Trump denounces as “terrible deals” for the US represent real balances of power and interests and he is not going to do any better. In four years’ time, the select club of American and British leaders who failed in the Middle East, with disastrous consequences for everybody, may have a voluble seventh member.

I’ll finish with another piece from The Independent which will invigorate those concerned about the war on science. Chantal Da Silva has been talking to the Canadian scientists who had to battle a sinister federal campaign to control and silence them:

When Canadian biologist Scott Findlay embarked upon a career in science, he never imagined he would one day find himself marching up the steps of Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, carrying a casket filled with scientific research papers.

He was one of hundreds of researchers who gathered outside the Canadian parliament in a sea of white lab coats to hold a mock funeral mourning the “death of scientific evidence” in July 2012.

“Stephen Harper hates science” was the slogan of the day, a pointed dig at the then Prime Minister. And across Canada, it seemed to ring true in the wake of major cuts to federal science programmes, legislative changes diminishing the country’s budget for research, and the unsettling muzzling of federal scientists that was taking place.

“It was ridiculous, what we encountered. Things like Canadian scientists not being able to talk about research on, say, the extent of Arctic ice. Surely the Canadian people would want to know how much ice is left in the Arctic.” Findlay says. “Research was being done on the public’s dime and they had no access to it.”

…

A Scientists Network has also been set up online to provide support to federal researchers in the US. Through the network, Gibbs says researchers will be able to share their work anonymously or find new job opportunities. She adds that scientists in US “are going to have to think long and hard about what kind of role they want to play in all of this and if they are going to follow these orders, versus being to willing to, for example, leak that information even if it means risking their jobs and that’s the kind of decision that only they can come to”.

…

“Unless scientists can convince the public in a compelling fashion that this is important to their individual wellbeing, they are not going to make much headway,” Findlay says.

“Mr Trump is a populist and he got to where he is by manipulating the message to appeal to the populace. Scientists have to get their own message out and become a bit populist about it. Not by manipulating the message, but by making sure it is clear to the public what the impacts of these kinds of restrictions are so the public can make their own decisions.”

…

“When we were out talking to everyday Canadians, they understood the value of science. They understood their ability to make informed decisions is based on open and transparent information,” Findlay says. “Scientists are a good source of credible information. And that message resonated with a lot of Canadians and I suspect it will resonate with a lot of people in the US as well.”​

One of the more interesting things about compiling these diaries is finding out that other countries have already been down some of the unfamiliar roads Trump is taking. By no means every attempt at resistance undertaken elsewhere has met with success — indeed some have been horrible failures.

But it is blindingly apparent that trying to address “economic anxiety” is about the stupidest strategy that can possibly be adopted, despite the unceasing efforts of the self-styled progressives on DKos to promote it. Throwing those punches when the opponent is fighting in a different arena altogether is a waste of time and effort, and only serves to divert what might be useful energy into self-gratification.

Enjoy your Sunday if you can.