Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Miliband has great strengths – but can he convince the voters in time? (Independent)

He may not look prime ministerial, but his background gives him more experience of power than Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne and Clegg had when they came to office, writes Steve Richards.

2. Germany: the Age of Merkel (Guardian)

Angela Merkel has not so much clung on to power in Germany, as she did in 2009, as hugely increased her grip on it, says a Guardian editorial.

3. The American dream has become a burden for most (Guardian)

As wages stagnate and costs rise, US workers recognise the guiding ideal of this nation for the delusional myth it is, writes Gary Younge.

4. What Labour must do to win power (Financial Times)

Policies must make sense for business, job creation and investment, says Peter Mandelson.

5. Into the Minotaur’s cave of diplomacy: how Russia became Syria’s deterrent (Independent)

The Syrians, who often memorise poetry, like Lavrov: they believe he writes it in his spare time, writes Robert Fisk.

6. At last, we see Ed in his true colours, waving the red flag (Daily Telegraph)

The Labour leader wants more socialism, an idea that has failed all over the world, writes Boris Johnson.

7. In my opinion politics needs columnists (Times)

It’s hard to divert the supertanker of voters’ views, but we scribblers can help to navigate the waters, writes Tim Montgomerie.

8. How Labour can win (Guardian)

Ed Miliband must bury his party's tribalism and forge links with union members and Lib Dems, says Chris Huhne.

9. Ed must clarify Labour’s muddled message (Times)

Supporters hope that this conference will provide the confidence they crave, writes Jenni Russell.

10. Congress is putting the dollar in peril (Financial Times)

Fresh evidence of US self-harm would hasten diversification to other currencies, writes Edward Luce.

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era