Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Osborne's in the crosshairs, and the trigger finger is twitching (Daily Telegraph)

His enemies know that if the Chancellor can’t find growth, the Tories are in real trouble, writes Benedict Brogan. 

2. As Osborne reels, why is Balls feeling the heat? (Independent)

There are calls for the shadow chancellor to be replaced - but Balls is one of the few politicians who has the economic experience to rise to the challenge of a crisis, says Steve Richards.

3. With threats and bribes, Gove forces schools to accept his phoney 'freedom' (Guardian)

Through its academies programme, the government is creating a novelty: the first capitalist command economy, writes George Monbiot. 

4. Euro crisis is breeding comics not fascists (Financial Times)

Times may be tough but this is not the 1930s, writes Gideon Rachman. Modern Europe is a richer, less traumatised continent. 

5. 'Benefit tourism' – real or hyped – must be tackled (Independent)

The longer ministers decline to tackle concern about welfare benefits for new migrants, the more likely it is that xenophobes will end up with the field to themselves, says an Independent editorial. 

6. Tories must see the conservative in Cameron (Times

The PM’s modernising instincts are rooted in traditional values, says Rachel Sylvester. His party must realise this is the only way to win.

7. After Eastleigh, the Lib Dems have finally found the fire in their belly (Guardian)

The Lib Dems must now seize the chance to prove they aren't just a fig leaf for the Tories' cruellest cuts, says Polly Toynbee.

8. Cameron condemned to rightward lurches (Financial Times)

The moment to push root-and-branch modernisation has gone, writes Janan Ganesh.

9. Theresa May's human rights stunt (Guardian)

The home secretary's talk of defying Europe's courts is all show, says Conor Gearty. Human rights are now part of our legal system – rightly so.

10. Why 'hi-viz’ will make the police less visible (Daily Telegraph)

Putting bobbies in the yellow jackets that everyone from dustment to builders wears will only reduce police officers' authority, says Philip Johnston. 

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war