21 January 2025

With the Americans, we should expect the unexpected

By

The unthinkable has come to pass. The new President has burst through the frontiers of credulity. Donald Trump says that he wants a revolution based on common sense. That has always been a much more elusive quality than its advocates may realise, and no one ever had the Donald down as one of its exemplars. So what in God’s name, what in Satan’s name, is he going to do – and does the man himself have any idea?

The uncertainty might well give pause to America’s potential adversaries. It is important to remember how the Ukraine war came about. From President Obama’s red lines in Syrian to President Biden’s scuttle from Kabul, the US failed to behave like a superpower. However you war-game the Trump Presidency, it is most unlikely that he will expose himself or his country to weakness and humiliation. Does that make the world safer or more dangerous? We shall see.

Trump’s lukewarm apologists must concede one point. He is not a good man. But how much does that matter? 

We know all about Trump’s faults. But previous presidents had the benefit of better PR advisors: JFK above all. ‘Camelot’ was the most glamorous of all presidencies, but there was a fair amount of sleaze behind the arras. Camelot: shamelot. If the youngest brother, Teddy, had not driven Mary Jo Kopechne to her death at Chappaquiddick, he might well have come close to the presidency.

What should we Britons make of this? We can be certain of one thing: the Anglo-American relationship will not be an easy one. But it never has been. From the Revolution to the War of 1812 when we burned the White House, to the period when some British Conservatives were tempted to support the Confederacy, to sundry other disputes in the late 19th century, our willingness to take American friendship for granted whenever we needed it is remarkable. It betokens a serene self-confidence, or a serene naivete or both.

Take the special relationship. It is easy to think of the Churchill/Roosevelt relationship as a crucial part of our finest hour, and in a way it was. Yet there were complexities. Roosevelt did not approve of the British Empire and he did not really like Britain. There is at least one moot point. What would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor? Roosevelt would have wanted to fight Germany but many American admirals and politicians would have preferred to deal with the Japanese first. As it was, the Americans extorted a high price for the support they gave us.

Churchill had always known that American support was indispensable, as he privately acknowledged when the US came in to the war: ‘So we have won after all.’ But as the war went on, cooperation grew harder. The Americans knew that they were the senior partner, as they were happy to remind us. Another moot point: why did Churchill not go to Roosevelt’s funeral?

In easy times, it seemed as if we could the special relationship for granted. Then came Suez. Eisenhower may have been a comrade in arms, but when the crisis broke, he brutally reminded the UK that we were no longer a superpower. Even at the beginning of the Falklands – even under the apparent Reagan/Thatcher love fest – the President dithered. Everything came right, partly because of Caspar Weinberger’s support and also because Reagan was ultimately in thrall to his beloved Margaret. But it was not a straightforward business.

The same was true of Reykjavik, when Reagan seemed ready to undermine Britain’s nuclear deterrent in order to do a deal with the Russians. Again, normal service was restored, but even under Ron and Maggie, the special relationship could not be taken for granted.

So what happens now, as Trump wants to lead America into a golden age?

There is one favourable development. At least the new President does not believe that he is Irish. Donald Trump has formed an exceedingly low opinion of Keir Starmer and David Lammy. Who can blame him? There are rumours that the Donald wants to deliver a snub to the two of them, by refusing to accept Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the US. That would be most unfortunate. The appointment of Lord Mandelson has a unique aspect. It is not only the best move that Sir Stumbler has made. It is virtually the only measure that the Government has taken which rises above the level of incompetence and ineptitude.

Subtle, cunning, Mandelson is a first-rate politician. He will set out to win over the new Administration and if anyone can succeed in that task, it is him. He has one disadvantage. He would be replacing Karen Pierce, who has been a first-rate Ambassador and has endeared himself to Trump and his team. But her husband is now the head of Lloyd’s of London, so they would like to stop commuting.

In between packing, she should have one vital task: to convince President Trump that Peter Mandelson is a good thing. Equally, if the Trumpians wish to exhibit their contempt for the Starmerites, there is an obvious answer: veto the Chagos dégringolade. It would be difficult for an Ambassador to suggest to a foreign power that a much-heralded area of British foreign policy should be abandoned – but doing so would be in everyone’s interests. 

Assuming Mandelson makes it to Washington, he will find that all his skills in crisis-management will be fully deployed. This is going to be one of the most fascinating presidencies in all history: possibly the most fascinating. How will it unfold? No one knows – not even Trump.

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.

Bruce Anderson is a political commentator and freelance journalist.

Columns are the author's own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of CapX.