Lona Goudswaard

As Seen From Afar 11/10/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 1:56 pm Politics

Nov 102016

hedgehog-looks-binoculars HOW THE WORLD REACTED TO TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL WIN

The outcome of the American Presidential election has sent a shock wave through the not-so United States, and it won’t come as a surprise that Donald Trump’s victory has left many others in the world quite stunned too. As many here are still coming to grips with it and perhaps fear an overload of information, I won’t try to refine on the excellent overview Lynn gave of reactions of world leaders in her article “Winter is here” she posted on PP today. Instead I’ll give you the general idea of how the world is reacting to the new President of the United States of America through easy-digestible images, peppered with a tiny bit of text where needed.

Before I start with some front-pages of mainstream newspapers and magazines, let me tell you that I’ve tried to find some positive headlines on Trump’s victory, I really have. But I couldn’t find any; some neutral ones, yes, but not any really jubilant or laudatory ones. I think I’d have to widen my search an look beyond Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to find them. To get the general atmosphere across in the countries just mentioned I’ve picked out the not-so neutral ones.

For the following front-pages I am in debt to Britain’s Telegraph which also features a very nice (and short) video compilation of news headlines in their article ‘Dear God, America what have you done?': How the world and its media reacted as Donald Trump became US President-elect'.

France:

Canada:

Chile:

UK:

Most newspapers could muster some respect for the choice of the American people, but others just couldn’t.

Australia:

And some have little or no respect for anyone, so they couldn’t bring themselves to do that for the 45^th President of America, or for the First Lady, either.

UK:

With one or two exceptions, the front pages were not very enthusiastic about the election results, but they weren’t very offensive either. However, there’s no better way to get a point across than with humor and so I’ll switch to political cartoons to show how many in the rest of the world felt about Mr. Trump’s election.

Credit David Fitzsimmons/Cage Cartoons

Credit Matt/The Telegraph

Credit: Paul Voth

Credit: Alan Moir/The Sydney Morning Herald

Credit: Ruben L. Oppenheimer/NRC Handelsblad

As Seen From Afar 10/20/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 9:01 am Politics

Oct 202016

hedgehog-looks-binoculars DONALD TRUMP MAY BE ON HIS WAY OUT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TRUMP VOTER?

You might say that Donald Trump has put his foot in it in last night’s final Presidential Debate when the Jeff Flake, senator from Arizona, one of the swing-states twitters:
.@realDonaldTrump saying that he might not accept election results is beyond the pale
and when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer from Fox News thinks that Trump blew his chances with this answer on accepting the results. “Political suicide.” Krauthammer called it because in his view Trump should have stopped the slide in this debate. The slide of people grudgingly going over to Clinton after holding out for a year. He thinks that people are not going to change their views on Clinton, but if they can change their views on Trump. Trump should have shown them that he is acceptable as president, not a radical. They don't want a radical who will challenge the foundations of the republic.

Right-wing New York Post-columnist John Podhoretz also comes to the conclusion that Donald Trump just handed Hillary Clinton the election with his refusal to be clear on what will happen if he loses the election.

Not accepting the results is the main theme of comments in many Western countries. Anna Caldwell in from News Corp Australia Network blogs: “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump doubled down on controversial claims that the US election is rigged during a presidential debate, refusing to say he will respect the result.”

Other news sites media commented on the debate, and on Trump in particular, in a more general fashion. Australian The New Daily quotes Bryan Cranston, a Swinburne University politics expert: “Trump’s biggest strength is himself, but it is also his weakness. Facts play little role in his campaign and his rhetoric and spin works well when he is only with supporters. [emphasis mine] But in a debate with an opponent you need facts, and the holes in his argument became dramatically transparent.”

Anthony Zurcher, North America reporter for the BBC describes how “after roughly half an hour of something resembling an actual policy debate about the Supreme Court, gun rights, abortion and even immigration, the old Donald Trump – the one who constantly interrupted his opponent, sparred with the moderator and lashed out at enemies real and perceived – emerged.” And concludes with “Mr Trump has called American democracy into question – and when he shakes that particular tree, it's impossible to determine who might get crushed by falling branches.”

On the Dutch national news site Sander Warmerdam warns: “The big question remains what happens when Trump doesn't win this time. Clinton is doing very well in the polls. This debate will go down well with the angry Trump supporters but will move few undecided voters.” [my translation]

There is a certain feeling of unease emanating from the European and Australian comments since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee and that becomes most apparent in statements about the Trump’s voters pointing out that his supporters stay loyal to him no matter how many of his statement are debunked by fact checkers or how many times his statements are called bigoted, racist, misogynist or islamophobic. Much attention is payed to Trump voters not believing the facts that are revealed about his personal life and behavior nor of his disdain for them as group. The fact that about 40% of Americans still favor Trump is both baffling and worrying to the media, but also a grateful subject to keep ratings high.

Wilson/AP PHOTO

This has also been noted by TV reviewers like Hans Beerekamp who noted: “I’m starting to find the outrage in the media about the American circus quite hypocritical, because many of the same media have always eagerly reported on the polarization and to a large extent have created it. It's TV that has given birth to Trump (Verdonk, Wilders), not the other way around. By the excessive media attention for their views, these have become more acceptable. [translation mine]" Beerenkamp refers here to Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders, two Dutch populists, and by doing so uncovers the source of the unease felt by many in the West: large groups of voters, unhappy with the way their country is run, looking for leaders who appear to listen to them.

Europe and Australia are no strangers to a growing population of grudging, anti-establishment or protest voters who are willing to throw in their lot with populist politicians and parties. The Dutch have their Geert Wilders and his PVV, claiming to be Prime Minister after next year’s elections, France has her Marine Le Pen and her Front National who did very well in the local elections this year, Australia has seen the return of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation in the senate. And of course Nigel Farage and UKIP have made their indelible mark on the British Brexit referendum.

Dutch protester welcoming fugitives told off by Wilders supporter
AD/Jean-Pierre Jans

Britons, edged on by UKIP and some conservatives in the Tory party (Boris Johnson), have voted to leave the European Union and have left Europeans and its economies, especially that of the UK itself) in a state of shock and have made leaders more aware of the attraction populist have to dissatisfied and angry people, both in Europe and in America. Even “establishment” institute like the IMF have seen the writing on the wall and are willing to (partly) put blame where blame is due. In a report released at the beginning of the month the IMF said “Globally, concerns are growing about political discontent, income inequality and populist policies, threatening to derail globalization.” IMF chief economist Obstfeld said "that persistently weak growth that leaves lower-income people behind has fueled a political movement "that blames globalization for all woes" adding that the vote for "Brexit" was one example of this. He warned governments that "Without a determined policy action to support economic activity over the short and longer terms subpar growth at recent levels risks feeding on itself through the negative economic and political forces it is unleashing." In other words: governments should invest more in those that have not benefitted from growth in the past and decrease income inequality instead of widening the gap if they want to see economic growth in their country.

Words Hillary Clinton would do well to heed, because when she wins the election, Donald Trump may soon fade from the political scene, but his voters, and those of all the other populists in the world, will still be there.

As Seen From Afar 7/17/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 11:51 am Politics

Jul 172016

Most Americans will be aware that the Republican Convention will start tomorrow, but for those living elsewhere that news may have been eclipsed by the shocking news of other events such as the horrific attack in Nice or the attempted coup in Turkey. For those who want to do a quick catching up, get some background information, familiarize themselves with this particular convention for the first time or are just interested in a Dutch view on a very American happening, the translated article below may be of interest.

A NEW IMPULSE FOR THE TRUMP BRAND

Monday the Republican Convention starts in Cleveland: a lot of air time for Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate ever. In the next few days in Cleveland Trump can thoroughly reorganize the party.

By our correspondent Guus Valk in Washington.

“Schedule of the Convention will be announced tomorrow," Donald Trump tweeted last Wednesday. "Let’s talk today about Crooked Hillary and the corrupt system under which we are suffering."

After this tweet eight days of silence set in around Donald Trump. He did produce names of speakers for the Republican Convention in Cleveland, which commences on Monday, let alone come up with a schedule. Only at the end of this a provisional list week was published. That list was more than remarkable, especially because of the many names that are not on it.

There are hardly any party public figures on the list. Former presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole will not attend. The whole Bush family is absent. There are just as many Trumps who speak as senators do (both six). Only four of the 31 Governors are willing to give a talk. The list is supplemented by speakers from the network TV world, where Trump feel at home. TV stars will be speaking, such as former model Antonio Sabàto, Jr. and Kimberlin Brown of The Bold and The Beautiful.

This is not a Republican Convention.

Donald Trump will have himself crowned this week in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland as presidential candidate for the Republican party. But of that party there’s hardly a trace. Republicans who can afford to stay away, won’t show. Instead outside the motorcycle club Bikers for Trump will drive around, complete with weapons and flag-waving. They’re going to "guarantee the safety" of the visitors, said a spokesman. "Paid rioters on Trump-meetings throw eggs and become violent. We won’t permit that here."

Four days of Trumpism

American political parties organized Conventions until well into the twentieth century to decide who could lead the party. This task has slowly faded into the background. Conventions became applause machines, tailored to primetime TV.

That is why Conventions last four days these days: those are four nights of free advertising on all networks. The week after the Republicans the Democrats will show how that’s done: applause, balloons, confetti and no hassle around the candidate, Hillary Clinton.

This Republican Convention is different. This is no celebration of conservatism, this is four days of Trumpism. Trumps ideas are miles off from the Republican consensus, they are often even contradictory to it.. The party leadership is deeply embarrassed by the candidate who has won the primaries, and rather sees the coming Convention as an advertisement against the Republicans. In November not only a new president is elected, but also a large part of Congress. The party leadership fears losing the majority in the Senate and see Trump as a great risk.

However, the party is not a mechanism to dump Trump. The Democrats have built in the mechanism of 'super delegates', unpledged public figures with voting rights, through which the elite can smother the chances of any unwanted candidate. Republicans don’t have this escape. They have to make do with the candidate whom the voters, often not even tied to the party, decide on. The horrified party leadership saw how Trump managed to defeat sixteen competitors.

Donald Trump is having himself crowned as presidential candidate for the Republican Party at the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

Gap between top and voter

This is not unique to the Republicans. Whenever political parties in Western democracies allow their constituencies to choose a leader, this may well go wrong for party leadership. Just think about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: unpopular with his fellow party members in the House of Commons, and not seen as a leader who brings in votes for the party. Yet someone who retains his position because he does well with active constituents.

Trumps situation is similar. He benefits from the huge gap between party leadership and Republican voters. Speaker Paul Ryan of the House of Representatives, de facto party leader, wants the party to modernize. Republicans need to stick to the core conservative ideas, such as a small government, low taxes and traditional family values. In addition the party must open itself up to a changing America. Latino-voters, African-Americans, young women should also feel at home, he says, because the base (older white men) is shrinking.

Donald Trump has cut across this strategy completely. He became popular because he took aim against 'political correctness'. He took on his own party as well as Democrats. Trump is not in favor of free trade, calls for preservation of the Welfare State and is not at all against government intervention. That is, as long he leads that government. He’s insulted virtually all groups in American society, making it impossible for Paul Ryan’s broad coalition ever to succeed. Trump's support among black voters is around 1%.

Trumps natural base consists of lower educated white voters who believe that they are the losers of Barack Obama's America. That has been a mighty group during the Republican primaries, but not for November, when Trump will have to convince floating voters.

Although the dissatisfaction with Trump is large, there may be in Cleveland virtually nothing more can happen to dethrone Trump. Of course, the #NeverTrump movement is still alive. This initiative is led by influential conservatives who think Trump is without principles. They were active this week in subcommittees on party rules, those nobody normally pays attention to. They tried to change the rules for the Convention.

This was the plan: at the moment delegates must vote for the candidate who won in their district, their own opinion does not count. The anti-Trump-camp wanted to turn it into a 'conscience vote': delegates should be able to vote whichever way they want. That way Trump’s position might crumble. But Trump’s stalwarts saw through the intrigue and swiftly put an end to it.

What now? Riots? Chaos? Everything is possible, like as a ' 1976 ' scenario. That also was a year of great internal unrest. The party leadership wanted to nominate president Gerald Ford again, but conservative populism haunted the party. Ronald Reagan tried to depose Ford at the Convention in Kansas City and just failed by a narrow margin.

As was the case in 1976, behind the current division an ideological conflict is hiding. Today’s Reagan, Ted Cruz, will speak at the Convention, while still not openly supporting Trump. Many conservative Republicans see him as their last hope. Perhaps Cruz can become the present day Reagan. Because admittedly Reagan lost at the Convention, yet won the nomination four years later.

Chaos lies in wait

Many Republicans still think of Trump as passer-by, and that his followers will disappear of their own accord. Maybe congressional elections will turn out better than expected in November. And if Trump loses the White House, that's no disaster either. Everything will return to normal even faster after November. Even a chaos at the Convention – riots, anarchy, shouting – suits the elite just fine.

But the next few days in Cleveland Trump has the opportunity to thoroughly reorganize the party. There is a new party platform to vote on, in which Trumps ideas will play a large role.

Opponents barely get the stage. For a whole week Trump will have ample opportunity to give a new impulse to the Trump brand.

Which is desperately needed, because he is by far the unpopular presidential candidate in modern history (Clinton is in second place). But, as ally Newt Gingrich worriedly noted this week, chaos is lurking. "This is all new to him. He is someone who thinks he can cobble together a Convention in a few days."

This article was published in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad on Saturday, 16 July 2016, page 16-17

As Seen From Afar 6/22/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 12:57 pm Politics

Jun 222016

Joris Luyendijk: It's time to say goodbye to the British

At a time when it seems to be nearly impossible to get away from America’s upcoming presidential elections and the presumptive candidates on either side of the isle, nearly all British and many Europeans have another important thing on their mind: the Brexit referendum.

Two days before the British people are headed to the polls to vote on the Brexit referendum on Thursday June 23, Dutch correspondent Joris Luyendijk has published an op-ed in NRC Handelsblad (6/21/2016) that quickly made it to the Reddit site in a (sorry, rather bad) English translation and really got the negative comments of Brits on both sides of the Brexit chasm flowing.

Photo: AP Photo / Matt Dunham

Luyendijk, who has been living in London for the past five years and has worked as an editor for the British newspaper The Guardian for two years, has seen enough of the Brexit debate – which toned down a bit for only two days after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox and now has resumed in all its harshness – to propose that perhaps it’s not such a bad idea if Europe took her leave of the UK.

“Enough is enough. In normal times the British sabotage was tolerable. But these are not normal times, Joris Luyendijk ascertains. So let's go our different ways – as friends”

In the years he’s lived in England, Luyendijk has come across much ‘Euroscepsis’ in “A mix of unsuspecting indifference and self-imposed ignorance. Featuring the views of a large part of the mainstream British towards the EU and Europe.” He thinks that’s innocent enough but found it increasingly worrying to listen to a colleague at The Guardian “who recently compared the EU with the Soviet Union, ‘but without the gulag,’ a journalist dead-seriously saying: "Well, ultimately the EU is nothing more than an attempt by Germany to still win the Second World War," or hear politicians like Boris Johnson who “claimed no essential difference between Hitler's plans for Europe and of the EU.”

Luyendijk thinks that the referendum is very useful in this respect: it shows how deep the Europhobia is rooted. Many in the ‘out’ camp media use this absurd and false caricature of Europe to feel superior and dream about making Great Britain great again, blaming the EU for it no longer being a world power. The ‘in’ camp treats staying in the European Union as a favor for which the EU has to make concessions.

For a large part of the English media and politics ‘Europe’ is a dirty word. Yet Luyendijk has misgivings about the Brits choosing to leave the EU in the end. Leaving could mean that the Scots, who are likely to vote to stay, will want to leave the UK to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland is of two minds about this too, as it could rekindle the ‘troubles’. So chances are that a slight majority will vote to stay in and according to Jean Quatremer that could mean: "If the UK decides to stay then they will make the lives of the populations in the other 27 countries worse than ever before."

Is Luytendijk such a EU enthusiast then that he doesn’t want the UK to stay? Far from it; he’s a ‘Eurosceptic’ in his own right: “The EU is not in a crisis. The EU is about to collapse. Schengen is not working. The euro does not work. And the EU is simply not democratic in its current form.” But he also firmly believes that the EU is in desperate need of reforms and all member states should do their level best to bring that about successfully. Luytendijk just doesn’t believe the UK is going to do that. He’s convinced it will keep pushing for concession after concession, for having it 'their' way, not open, or rational and on the basis of a realistic self-image. What is needed are countries where public opinions are not held hostage by Europhobic billionaires, notably by mediate magnate Rupert Murdoch who has been quoted saying: "If I go to Downing Street, they do what I say. If I go to Brussels, everyone ignores me." So much for ‘sovereignty’.

Joris Luyendijk believes Europe should be the wisest of the two and stop its wishful thinking that the British are going to want to fit in some day. What is needed is an amicable divorce, it would be beneficial to all.

Before finishing this article, I watched our national news which of course had an item on tomorrow’s Brexit referendum. ‘Outer’ Boris Johnson was trying to convince undecided voters with something along the lines of: “We need to take back control…otherwise we’ll end up in the trunk of the car…not knowing where we are going to, but probably ending up somewhere we don’t want to go.” To that he gleefully added: “ and the car will be driven by a chauffeur who doesn’t speak the best of English.” Hmmm, perhaps Luytendijk has a point.

As Seen From Afar 6/18/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 12:37 pm Politics

Jun 182016

From the New York Times I learned this week that Garrison Keillor hosted his last “A Prairie Home Companion” on May 21 and retired from the homespun Americana musical variety program he created in 1975; this time for real. If you’re not from the US, like me, you may well ask: “Garrison who?”, unless you’re familiar with his book “Lake Wobegon Days” he published in 1985. The book, and the ones that followed, is a collection of stories about the everyday life in a fictitious little town somewhere in Minnesota, resembling many small farm towns in the upper Midwest, and loosely based on his relatives, friends and neighbors of Scandinavian and German descent in the area he grew up in. To this foreigner these endearing and often humorous stories were a diorama of American country life.

It wasn’t until I traveled the Blue Ridge Parkway some 15 years ago and heard the radio broadcast of A Prairie Home Companion, in which he rendered another story of “News from Lake Wobegon” with his unique and very recognizable voice, that I first realized Garrison Keillor was not only an author of books, but also a humorist, columnist, musician, satirist, and radio personality. Only much later I learned that the program was very popular, was broadcasted by nearly 600 radio stations across America and that Lake Wobegon had become a concept familiar to many Americans. It had even led “Professor David G Myers to coin ‘the Lake Wobegon effect’, a natural human tendency to overestimate one's capabilities. The characterization of the fictional location, where ‘all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average,’ has been used to describe a real and pervasive human tendency to overestimate one's achievements and capabilities in relation to others. The Lake Wobegon effect, where all or nearly all of a group claim to be above average, has been observed in high school students' appraisal of their leadership, drivers' assessments of their driving skill, and cancer patients' expectations of survival.” (Wikipedia)

From: http://www.garrisonkeillor.com/pressclips/

“But why are you posting an article about Garrison Keillor on Politics Plus?” I hear you ask. Because in his mild satire on anything American he’s also written some columns and items for his program on the current political landscape and the candidates in the primary election. Let’s start with Bernie Sanders. In No fogies in the Oval Office, please (Pittsburg Post-Gazette, April 17, 2016) Keillor notes that all remaining candidates (Sanders, Clinton and Trump) are of his own age: “Young people are flocking to Bernie Sanders who, given two terms in office, would be Leader of the Free World until age 83, setting a new record — Ronald Reagan was just shy of 78. Where is that new generation of leadership we keep hearing about at college commencements?” Keillor is very tongue-in-cheek about the age of the candidates and more so of Sanders who just as old as he is himself. But he does hint at Ronald Reagan’s dementia, which may have set in before he left the Oval Office, and which is worrying to Keillor. Although it’s clear he’s not a Sanders supporter, he builds up to tearing into his true and greatest dislike: Donald Trump and Republicans. In his last line it becomes apparent whom he supports: “Good luck to the candidates and may the best woman win. She’s 68, but women age more gracefully. Just ask your mother.”

Garrison Keillor isn’t one to question the political ideas of the Democratic candidates to be divisive. Instead he satirizes those thing that have little or nothing to do with political content but nevertheless play such a large role in the debates, such as age or gender. In “What will Bill Clinton be wearing?” (Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2016) he gently mocks Hillary Clinton turning the tables on her husband and Bill’s ability to accept his new position as first gentleman: “It's good to hear that Bill Clinton will be put in charge of revitalizing the economy in a Hillary administration and be sent to troubled areas such as Appalachian coal country and inner-city Detroit, and not just promote literacy or physical fitness, the usual first lady things. But I hope that at state dinners and other major White House events, we'll be able to read about what he's wearing.” But he can’t keep himself from pointing out what it would be like if her Republican opponent were to become president: “(If the Big Snapper is elected in November, [getting no credit for how he looks from the press] will change: He’ll be wearing his own labels and product placement will be very important in his administration, even huge.)”

Which brings me to the candidate which brings out real sarcasm in the normally cool and subdued Keillor: Donald Trump. In “Think moving abroad will save you from Trump? Think again.” (The Washington Post, March 16, 2016) all niceties are dropped: “If you want to escape from the Great White Turtle, you could move to New York. New Yorkers saw through this guy 20 years ago, a living, breathing cartoon of a tycoon, vulgarity on wheels, a man who was very lucky that his father was born before he was, and they have closed the book. So he takes his show on the road [ ], and so the intelligentsia is working ever harder, trying to figure him out. It’s like psychoanalyzing a toasted bagel. The guy paid $29 million for a 282-foot yacht, sailed on it once, got seasick, and never sailed again. He likes tall models with foreign accents. He dyes his hair. He likes to read about himself. What else do you want to know?”

But perhaps Keillor says it best when in his role as host of “A Prairie Home Companion” he skewers Trump in Poe’s classic poem “The Raven”:

https://youtu.be/oI46BSg444Y

Garrison Keillor retires from hosting his program, but I think he’s not done commenting on politics yet and will have more to say about the election, and especially about Donald Trump, in the coming months. At least I hope he does.

As Seen From Afar 06/02/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 3:28 pm Politics

Jun 022016

What do the campaigns of America’s Trump and Britain’s Brexit “outers” have in common?

First of all, on this side of the Atlantic, we are inundated with news about both. Not a day goes by without media mentioning yet another shocking Trump statement and more, mostly worried, commentaries and analyses of the effects Trump’s possible presidency could have on us. The same can be said about the upcoming Brexit referendum that will be held this coming 23rd of June, when the British have their say on whether their country should leave the European Union or not. Should the majority opt for “outing”, something their government has promised to do if that is the case, this will have major consequences for both Britain and the other countries in the EU, and to some extent for countries in the Commonwealth like Australia.

Second, the leadership style of both Trump and the strong man behind the out campaigners, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, now joined by the Tories’ former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is that of the populist “whose often incoherent and contradictory remarks are provocative and play on the feelings of resentment and contempt, mixed with a touch of fear, hatred and anger.” (Robert Kagan in NRCHandelsblad, May 25, 2016). Both Trump and Farage present themselves as men of the people, and surround themselves with their very personal mix of inflated ego and machismo. This mix also applies to Boris Johnson, who has created a schism in his own party by campaigning for an EU exit against his party’s leader David Cameron’s pro EU stance has been referred to as being “a much nicer version of Donald Trump but the campaign is remarkably similar and about as relevant to the real problems that the public face,” by Ken Clarke, former Conservative Cabinet minister.

That last remark brings me to the final common denominator: very strong nationalism and isolationism. Trump wants to make America great again, Farage wants to have his country be given back to him, and both play into the rising anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments among their followers. Trump promises to build a wall to keep all illegal and “criminal” Mexicans from entering the country, Farage wants to stop the influx of workers and immigrants from EU countries like Poland and Rumania by leaving the EU, making immigration the focus of the Brexit campaign for the out-campaigners, while the (negative) effects on the economy have become the focus of those who want to remain. Both Trump and the “outers” promise that America and Britain will become economically stronger when left to their own devices.

Britain’s departure from the EU will have economic and social consequences for countries in the EU too, and will undermine the fragile unity within the EU itself, so generally speaking the other EU members do not want Britain to leave. But how about the members of the Commonwealth? Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already urged the British to remain in the EU and now voices in Australia are joining him.

“Perhaps the greatest threat a Brexit poses to Australia is the potential disruption to a relationship with the EU that at last appears to be on a decent footing. Australia’s recently announced free trade negotiations with the EU have been a long time coming.

Were Britain to exit the EU, there might be some sense of schadenfreude on the Right of Australian politics. But the dismay among diplomats and businesspeople would be heard from Canberra to Kakadu.”

Most analysts in Australia are equally unhappy with Trump’s foreign policy. Some, like the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and former chief strategist for the defence department, Peter Jennings, see Trump as a high risk to Australia’s security and say that Trump is part of a bigger phenomenon that Australia should be thinking about:

"There's an emerging isolationism in the Republican party that is a concern. It's worth thinking about it – what do we do if we are in fact facing an inward-looking US that doesn't want to take an interest in Asia-Pacific security?"

Or as Peter Hartcher, the author of the article muses: “These are the questions that Australia has to confront, however discomfiting. In Trump's view of geopolitics as a real estate deal, is Australia prepared to stake its security on his valuation?”

Others Australian commentators see him as initiator of a trade war with China and Mexico, undermining the TTP. Anna Caldwell mentions the “[ ] Economist Intelligent Unit Report – a global forecasting service linked to the The Economist magazine – [has] this week ranked a Trump presidency as one of the top risks facing the world.”

‘In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war – and at the least scupper the TPP’ the report read.”

At first glance, it seems strange that two campaigns about unrelated issues have so much in common, most obviously that they are against everything, especially the powers that be. But I’m sure that as the Trump election campaign and the Brexit campaigns continue, we’re bound to hear more voices join in the nationalist chorus across Western countries because, unfortunately, it isn’t only American and British nationalism that is on the rise, but a growing phenomenon fostered by populist by tapping into the growing dissatisfaction with inequality and government in general. Those of us who see it all from afar will now have to keep our fingers crossed until the end of this month for the Brexit referendum and November for the American elections and hope that our British and American friends use their democratic rights well and make sure that the campaigns of the “outers” and Trump were to no avail.

On a brighter note I want to leave you with this ditty which sums up Trump’s foreign policy so very well:

My name is Donald with an unchecked mouth,
I’ll build a great wall – on our borders south.
I’ll ship back home – the rapists and crooks,
And all those who protest – just liberal sooks.
Oh..
To confuse the world – that’s my devious plan,
And notions of dichotomy and isolation – to fan.
So, the rest can starve – and the USA can feast,
To top it off, let’s carpet-bomb – the Middle East.

Commenter

Howe Synnott, Sydney, May 17, 2016, 7:31AM

As seen from afar 05/05/2016

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 6:12 pm Politics

May 052016

If you’re a regular reader of TomCat’s blog and articles, I’m sure you’re quite aware of the fact that both Ted Cruz and John Kasich have suspended their campaign in the Republican primaries and Donald Trump seems to have secured the GOP’s nomination. Or as the BBC analyst said last night on the 10 o’clock news: ”Donald Trump has now completed his hostile takeover of the Republican party.”

This rather negative take on Trump’s victory in Indiana and the subsequent departure of his last two opponents is one that has been in the make not only in America, as TomCat’s blog has been witness to for quite some time now, but also across many countries across the globe. Chief foreign correspondent of The Sydney Morning Herald, Paul MCGeough, headed his article with: Donald Trump’s victory over Ted Cruz is more about Republican failure than candidate’s success. ABC news also quickly focused on Trump’s most likely Democratic opponent for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, and on the fact that presumptive nominee Trump will have a hard time trying to unite a fractured party around his bid for the White House. Others think Trump’s going to have a difficult time ahead of him in getting the GOP to support him (His biggest challenge yet: Anti-Trump Republicans consider the ultimate betrayal)

My own the Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, sketched the situation yesterday (May 4, 2016) with just a hint of amusement: “What started as a comedy number less than a year ago, became a revolt in the party and ended Wednesday night with a Republican seizure of power by Trump. He demanded instantly victory on. ‘We’re going after Hillary Clinton now,’” but the paper doesn’t fail to note that while “The Republican party goes to do battle with (probably) the Democrat Hillary Clinton with an uncontrollable, polarizing presidential candidate,” this probable Democratic candidate is equally unpopular. Both the BBC news and the Dutch media came up with numbers quoted on fivethirtyeight.com: American’s distaste for both Trump and Clinton is record breaking, where Trump is disliked by 10% more Americans than Hillary is, or as the headline in my newspaper read: "The Contest Is Between Who Has The Least Hated Candidate."

You might wonder why people abroad are so negative about the possibility of Donald Trump sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office in November. We’re only looking at it from afar and as Ben Carson said “we’re only looking at four years” if Trump’s a bust, right? That negativity may have something to do with his foreign policy which he read from teleprompter only last week. I’ll give you the translation of almost the full article my newspaper carried on its front page (NRC Handelsblad, Thursday, April 28, 2016) to show how it was received here in The Netherlands.

“ Trump Promises An America That Thinks Predominantly Of Itself

'America first ', will be the foundation of his foreign policy, Donald Trump said Wednesday in a speech about his probable foreign policy, after he increased his lead in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday.

In the speech, clearly intended to provide the almost-candidate with a presidential allure, he unfolded a predominantly isolationist views on America's role in the world. The political and economic motivation came at the end: “We will no longer surrender this country to the false tune of globalization. The US are the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical about international treaties that bind our hands.”

America will no longer get the chestnuts out of the fire when other countries, as for example NATO partners, spend insufficiently on defense, said Trump.

Details on Trump’s many notorious loose statements such as building a wall along the border with Mexico were missing from the speech. Trump tried to present an overall vision by contrasting America's role at the end of the second world war and the cold war with what he called the 'complete disaster' of the foreign policy of the Presidents Clinton and Obama.

He assured the relationship with Russia and China will improve. He promised 'a deal' with Russia, China will start to respect America's power. To combat IS the US should develop both a 'coherent plan' as well as become ‘unpredictable'. Trump wants to strengthen the army with 'the best equipment in the world' but also said that the US want peace.”

Trump’s maiden policy speech wasn’t all that well received in other countries either. Pundit for The National Interest in Australia, Mark Beeson, professor of International Politics, think president Trump, following his own course on foreign policy, would be devastating to Australia: “The point to emphasize is that any country that relies too heavily on another for its security is potentially hostage to its protector’s policies—no matter how ill-conceived, dangerous or inappropriate they may be. That possibility was realized in entirely predictable and disastrous fashion when Bush was president. A Trump administration threatens to be even more catastrophic on a number of levels.”

Even Peter Foster in UK’s conservative The Telegraph comes to the same negative conclusion in his analysis for the United Kingdom and Europe: “No US president makes good on all their campaign-trail promises, but from ripping up America’s security alliances in Europe and the Asia-Pacific to threatening a trade-war with China, Donald Trump has promised to put “America first” by instituting an ultra-isolationist US foreign policy.”

Some Brits, like the Independent, didn’t beat about the bush, not even in their headlines: Donald Trump’s incoherent speech on foreign policy shows why he’s unfit to be president, while a very serious Aussie in Financial Review slowly build up his case to end with a Trump quote which really says it all: ‘Responding to recent criticisms that Mr Trump's current informal foreign policy advisers were not well known, he said "we have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don't know what they're doing".’ Trump will be 70 by the time he expects to be in the White House.

I think most other nations have a problem with Donald Trump’s vision on the world and the role America plays in it, because it is inconsistent and varies from day to day. In other words, Trump is inconsistent, untrustworthy and unpredictable, the latter to which he actually aspires in his foreign policy. America shouldn’t be so predictable, he maintains. The day after the NRC Handelsblad published the front page article cited above, it carried an article on the advisors Trump has let himself be influenced by and the inconsistencies that followed, titled Candidate without ideology with the subtitle “Trump is advised by people who want to make him ' presidential '. They give him conflicting ideas.” Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and son in law Jared Kushner should make Trump 'presidential'. But they also feed him with ideas. Those ideas are often contradictory, and that was noticeable in Trump’s speech:

“Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Mexico has to pay for it. In the speech he did not come back to these famous statements.

Trump said that 'promoting Western civilization will contribute more to positive reforms in the world than military interventions'. But he also turned against the 'dangerous idea' that Western values can be impose on non-Western countries.

Trump promised to turn 'old enemies' into fiends, even allies by making good deals. But, he also said, a country like Iran 'will always remain our enemy'. Obama should never have negotiated with Iran.

Trump received a lot of criticism on other statements he made about his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton last Wednesday: 'If Hillary Clinton were a man, she would get less than 5 percent of the votes,' said Trump, who believes that Clinton is campaigning on women issues. He then immediately contradicted himself: 'the great thing is that women don’t like her.'

Perhaps Trump should have stuck with his first advisor:

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-my-primary-consultant-is-myself-645588035836

Of course these are only a few of the inconsistencies as seen from afar. But Australian media were quick to point out that closer to home some people also had problems with Trump’s take on foreign affairs as in Madeleine Albright unleashes on Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech, who by takies to Twitter to poke holes in Trump’s first attempt at a foreign policy speech, “something I have experience with,” and tackles his doctrine’s flaws head on a la Trump himself.

If the political future of America looks a little bleak after reading this, cheer up, because I’ve saved the best for last. In an excellent analysis of the current political climate, history, polling data and demographics, independent pundit Anthony J. Gaughan, maintains in his article President Trump? Not likely that “The evidence suggests that Trump will likely suffer a crushing defeat in the general election” to conclude with “The bottom line is Republican leaders with an eye on the future don’t want anything to do with Trump. They know the name “Trump” will likely join Goldwater, McGovern and Mondale as names forever associated with crushing presidential election defeats.”

Let's hope Mr Gaughan's analysis is correct.

As seen from afar

Posted by Lona Goudswaard at 2:01 pm Politics

Apr 212016

Both Europeans and Australians never seize to be amazed by how attached Americans are to “their right to own a gun, or two” and how much blood and death they are willing to put up with to own all kinds of fire weapons with as little restriction and inconveniences such as background checks as possible. Strictly speaking this isn’t true for all Americans, as some polls (CNN/ORC in January this year) show that 67% of Americans are in favor a series of specific executive actions to expand background checks which Obama proposed at that time. In fact “[n]ational polls conducted in 2015 consistently show that around 90 percent of Americans support some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases.”

So why do foreigners have the idea that all Americans are cowboys and –girls at heart? The never ending reports on shootings in the US in our news may have something to do with it, as does the fact that Congress fails to pass anything that even hints at gun control after any of these incidents, but more states come up with “open carry” laws instead. And we are well aware of how strong the influence of the National Rifle Association is on both individual and political level and that this influence starts at a very young age indeed, as Maartje Somers commented on an article I found in my Dutch newspaper (translated from NRC Handelsblad, 4/6/2016):

“ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS… A GUN

Fairy Tales
What if Red Riding Hood's grandmother had had a gun? The US gun lobby believes that fairy tales can be improved.

Devoured grandmothers. Cooked children. Fairy tales are actually much too gruesome. High time to put an end to those medieval situations. Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel must be updated in a way the delicate soul of a child is no longer damaged. The National Rifle Association, the US gun lobby, comes up with the solution how to make Grimm's fairy tales safer for children.

Once upon a time there was… a gun.

In the family segment of the NRA website author Aurelia Hamilton has considerably improved the fairytales Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. Her mother no longer just sends the defenseless Little Red Riding Hood into the forest where the wolf is hiding. She has given Little Red Riding Hood shooting lessons ‘to be sure that she would always be safe.' And off she goes, Little Red Riding Hood, into the forest. Basket on the arm. Rifle over the shoulder.

Grandmother also is careful with her own security in this release. She is lying passively in her bed waiting for the wolf to come and euthanize her. No, soon enough the Great Eyes of the wolf are looking straight at Grandma's double-barreled gun and its sharp teeth begin to chatter. ‘Oh, how he hated when families learned how to protect themselves.’

And Hansel and Gretel? Because they have a gun, they do not need to go hungry. Gretel, who can shoot better than Hans, kills a buck with one shot between the eyes. Then they free two other children from the witch’s cage.

The author is obviously not very impressed with this attempt to safeguard children’s tender souls and get them interested in guns at a very young age, and neither am I. She concludes the article with some advice of her own:

Dear children, it cannot have escaped you. These fairytales have more guns and less violence. (Aurelia Hamilton does not tell what happened to the wolf) So the NRA is telling you stories. Because where there are more guns there usually is more blood, and there is no happy ending.”

Not everyone was as courteous about this adaptation of our most well-known fairy tales and weren’t convinced that the NRA didn’t have ulterior motives for these re-writes. In the New York Times Mr. Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has no doubt that “The intent here is to create future customers” [for the gun industry] “I think it is wholly a marketing thing.” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, was of the same opinion and called these stories “a disgusting, morally depraved marketing campaign.”

Europeans may think that cutting gun crime by implementing more gun control is impossible in a country where the gun-lobby is that powerful, but Australians know better. They’ve done exactly that in 1996 when a violent decade of mass shootings that killed nearly 100 was capped by Martin Bryant, who shot more than 50 people in six locations in Port Arthur, killing 35, with a semi-automatic rifle. Twelve days later, Australia’s conservative PM pushed new gun control laws through parliament, and perhaps most important of all the most the most ambitious gun buyback program in recent history. Hundreds of thousands Australians voluntarily giving up their guns was a vital aspect of the plan. According to Rebecca Peters, one of the world's leading experts on gun control: "If you're serious about preventing violence, you need to go about it in a comprehensive way."

Gun rights advocates maintain that Peters and other gun control advocates are trying to strip the right of self-protection and are infringing on Australian freedom, but she will have none of that. "In fact, people are more free in Australia. People are not afraid to express their opinion because they're not afraid someone near them might take issue and want to pull a gun on them. You can walk on the streets and know you're your chances of being shot are 1/30th the chance in the USA."

Of course not everyone was delighted with the new laws in 1996, but many have accepted them over time and some have even become their advocate like gun lover Peter, who in What it’s Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control finishes his rather long exposé (sorry about that) on his beloved guns with: “Australia is a great country. You can go hunting, you can go shooting. And as long as you hurt nobody and abide the law you can continue to do it. That to me is freedom. The idea of having people own guns with no concept of gun safety and no reason to have a gun? That is not my idea of freedom.”

Peter’s hobby holds absolutely no interest for me and there will never come a day that I will join him at his club and pick up a gun, even if it’s only to shoot clay pigeons with – as if I would hit any – but he makes a splendid case for gun control. And so do Jon Stewart and John Oliver in The Daily Show:

Newer Entries