US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Care To Meet for a Cheap Drink? (Slate)

Jacob Weisber on what he learned from Christopher Hitchens.

2. Iraq war divided America but freed millions from Saddam (New York Daily News)

"Welcome home. Welcome home. Welcome home."

3. Gingrich's invented history (Politico)

Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich's recent remarks that the Palestinians are an "invented" people, all of whom are "terrorists," are far from historical truth- but more damaging than Gingrich's rewriting of history is the negative effect of his political posturing, writes Wendy Chamberlin.

4. Iowa Republican debate: Newt's still on top, Romney steadies himself (Washington Post)

E.J. Dionne Jr. on Thursday's debate in Sioux City, Iowa.

5. Obama's hubris is obvious in conflicting statements (Omaha World Herald)

President Barack Obama doesn't suffer from amnesia, but he apparently hopes the public does, writes Cal Thomas.

6. New clinic rules will harm women's health (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Gov. Corbett should carefully consider the consequences and refuse to sign legislation that would roll back women's ability to obtain safe abortions.

7. Huntsman? Stranger things have happened (Denver Post)

All things seem possible in the Republican presidential contest- so, E.J. Dionne asks, is there another turn coming that could benefit Jon Huntsman?

8. No way to conduct people's business (Miami Herald)

In the usual frenzy before the holidays, lawmakers in Washington have once again packed a variety of questionable proposals - including one affecting travel to Cuba - into a huge bundle of legislation.

9. Medicare con: The problem is producing more medical grads, not increasing medicare fees for doctors (Oregonian)

The latest scare tactic by right-wing opponents of the Affordable Care Act aims at convincing Americans that reasonable trims in Medicare spending will make it very difficult for seniors to find a good doctor in coming years, according to Wayne Madsen.

10. Obama foreign policy: When 'reset' means setbacks (Oregonian)

Obama demonstrated decisiveness in killing Osama bin Laden, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one's foreign policy, writes Charles Krauthammer.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.