My dear late friend Peregrine Worsthorne had a delightful Franco-Belgian wife, Claudie, whose English was fine, except for a tendency to mangle metaphors and catchphrases. Once, her husband was upset by something or other. Claudie’s comment: ‘My poor Perry: he spent the whole night crying cats and dogs’.
Perhaps that is what they are now doing in Ohio, if Donald Trump is to be believed and Haitian immigrants are indeed shoving pets into the cooking-pot. Or perhaps not. These allegations about Haitian cuisine seem to originate from Laura Loomer, who ought to be re-named ‘Looney’, and who is as barking as any canine in Ohio. Whatever the fate of the family animals, it almost seems as if Trump wants to lose this election. Consider this: Kamala Harris was originally regarded as a weak Presidential candidate – an adequate token figure on the Biden ticket, but no more. If she wins, she would be much the most left-wing President in American history. In view of all this, she should be beatable, and would be, by any half-way competent Republican. Indeed, there is only one way in which she can win: by Donald Trump defeating himself.
Some Conservatives might take comfort from the fact that even now the race remains competitive. Should Trump win – which, despite himself, he still just might – surely this would prove that the US is a deeply conservative country? Yes and no. What a Trump victory may also prove is that America is disinclined to provide the leadership which the West desperately needs. Make America Great Again: fine and dandy, but not by retreating into isolationism. The Pope has advocated voting for the lesser of the two evils. The pontiff is not always wrong, but how do we tell which is the less bad alternative?
There is an argument in favour of Trump. Admittedly, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was his policy, which Joe Biden took over. But it is hard to believe that the Donald would have let America’s prestige collapse in such an undignified scuttle. Following on from Barack Obama’s changing attitude to red lines on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, it is easy to see why Vladimir Putin decided that he could do what he wanted.
As the final crisis of Richard Nixon’s Presidency approached, Nixon himself wryly observed that his reputation for instability might deter America’s enemies from exploiting the Presidency’s apparent weakness. Trump is much more deserving of the charge of instability, and that could be an asset. At some stage in the future, after peace has broken out in Ukraine, someone in the Kremlin thinks that he sees an enticing piece of low-hanging fruit in Eastern Latvia. ‘So how would Trump react?’ Putin asks. His gung-ho aide ponders. ‘Well, he might say “Latvia, where the f**k’s Latvia and why should I care?” Alternatively: “Hey, Miss Latvia! Remember her from the last Miss World? Get them to send her here as Ambassador.” Or it could be: “How dare they? Bring me the nuclear codes.” The problem is that Donald Trump himself does not know what he would do… Perhaps we should leave Latvia alone, after all’.
Let us put distant scenarios on one side. If Trump were to win, what would he do about Ukraine? He is keen to bring the war to an end. Yet if the West were to be seen to lose, there would be a terminal haemorrhage of our authority. So what would a credible victory consist of?
Ukraine is just the tip of the geopolitical iceberg. There is no solution in sight over Palestine/Gaza while the Iranians are scheming and plotting. The Chinese will be wondering what all this means for Taiwan. If Xi ordered a blockade, would a US led by Trump come to the rescue in a sea-borne equivalent of the Berlin airlift in the late-1940s: convoys in place of planes? Here, Trump’s unpredictability becomes a distinct disadvantage. If the West is looking for leadership, it is likely to look in vain.
These are grave times. They require solemn rhetoric, if only to conceal the fact that the West does not know what to do. Closer to home, David Lammy is an unimpressive replacement for David Cameron. Lammy seems to enjoy hurling abuse at Putin, just as the ineffable Gavin Williamson did, when he hoped that Putin would just go away. During the Boer War, Kipling did not think much of those who believed in killing Kruger with their mouths. It is a lesson still to be learned, on both sides of the Atlantic. If in doubt, at least sound dignified.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
