Skip to main content

The mirror images of Trump and Corbyn

A number of people have pointed out the similarities between the populist movements of Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn. Although from opposite sides of the political divide, the two leaders both command cheering crowds of adoring fans and enjoy the vociferous backing of online trolls, who take no prisoners in defence of their cause.

Tellingly, Jez and Trump share a disdain for the ‘establishment’, as embodied in the media and the mainstream political elite. Their political supporters patronise partisan alt-news websites and share a hatred of what they see as any kind of official news narrative.  Crackpot conspiracies and visceral distrust are at the heart of both political movements.

The American President and British Labour Leader also share strong misgivings about multinational institutions such as NATO, the EU and the World Trade Organization. They are instinctively protectionist, opposed to globalisation and share an illusion that jobs in traditional industries such as coal mining and steel can be revived.

Trump took over the Republican base and caused untold anxiety for mainstream GOP politicians. Initially they opposed him vehemently, until he proved that his populism could win votes. Then, they decided he was absolutely terrific. There was no better President than him.

Corbyn – with the help of his shadow party Momentum – has largely completed a takeover of Labour. The party’s lawmakers used his abysmal poll ratings to launch a campaign to unseat him in 2016, but it failed. To their horror, he managed to build an unlikely coalition in the June 2017 general election, which significantly increased Labour’s share of the popular vote, while leaving the party out of power.

Since then, the MPs have decided – publicly at least – that ‘Jeremy’ is a success, for fear of alienating the activists in the constituency parties who are keen to deselect them. (This strategy of appeasement is, of course, doomed to failure, but like rabbits caught in the headlines of a juggernaut, they are frozen in fear and can’t think of anything else to do.)

A further disturbing similarity between Trump supporters and Jezuits is their desire to rewrite history.

Corbyn fans believe that in the late 1970s, a model of social democracy was replaced by something called ‘neo-liberalism’ – a philosophy supposedly shared by such unlikely bedfellows such as Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown. Rather than the most successful Labour Leader of all time, Tony Blair is presented at best as a failure and at worst as a ‘war criminal’.

Trump fans, meanwhile, argue that America’s power and prestige has been undermined by ‘liberalism’ and that the USA needs to be reclaimed from its recent past. For them, Obama is the hate figure, as they detest the intellectualism, moderation and tolerance he represented.

It’s important to bear in mind that these factors alone – the trolling, condemnation of bona fide media and the rewriting of history – are enough for us to conclude that the Trump and Corbyn phenomena are both equally unhealthy and profoundly undermining to democracy.

But what about the Donald and Jez as individuals?

Here, there are some very marked differences.

The 45th President of the USA is, of course, no stranger to personal scandal.  Whether it’s the collapse of Trump University or the self-avowed tendency to grope women, his behaviour generally seems repulsive and reprehensible. 

Corbyn is clearly honest financially, respectful in his personal dealings and therefore free of scandal beyond the rather sensational claims of an unofficial biographer.

Trump shoots from the hip and says the first thing that comes into his head.  Corbyn’s responses, on the other hand, are pre-prepared and learnt by rote.

The most profound difference between the two men, however, is to do with their predictability. They sit at absolute extremes of a spectrum – both equally dangerous.

Trump is a man whose behaviour seems entirely erratic. One day, he threatens war against North Korea. The next day, he seems keen to foster dialogue. He’ll sit down with Kim Jong Un on a Tuesday, but blow him apart on a Thursday.

Disastrous comments about Charlottesville are countermanded by a considered statement, prepared by spin doctors. A day later, 45 reverts to type and starts mouthing off again.

He is as consistent as his last 140-character tweet. No way of knowing what he will do or say next.

Jez, on the other hand, is so predictable that no enemy would be in any doubt about his intention.

He would never commit British troops to any military action anywhere at any time, for example. We know this to be true, as he has never supported any previous military action – even when paramilitaries were conducting ethnic cleansing in the heart of Europe.

This means that whatever the situation, however grievous the threat, a despot or terrorist group would be confident that Corbyn’s solution would be to sit down for a chat.

And what about domestic politics? Corbyn, if challenged, would support pretty much any strike or industrial action. His modus operandi is to assume that workers have a genuine grievance and that employers are always exploitative and greedy.

So when ASLEF ludicrously threatens strike action over technology that would check whether tram drivers in London are in danger of falling asleep, would Corbyn condemn the rail union? Would he hell. The best you’d get would, once again, be some mealy-mouthed formulation about sitting down and talking.

He is a guy who is consistent to a fault, although he’s usually consistently wrong.

So which do we prefer? A leader whose brain fires randomly, leaving us at the mercy of his moods, tantrums and political position of the hour? Or a leader whose brain doesn’t really fire at all, responding with trite platitudes or pre-rehearsed rhetoric first delivered circa 1980?

Both Trump and Corbyn are completely ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of the modern world. Entirely different personalities, but leading politics down the same depressing and terrifying road.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

After more than 30 years, I leave Labour at 11.46am tomorrow.

Barring some kind of minor miracle - on a par perhaps with CETI announcing first contact with the Vulcans or the Great British Bake Off returning to the BBC – Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected on Saturday as Leader of the Labour Party. The announcement is due at around 11.45 am. So after three decades or so of membership, my association with the party will end at 11.46. Yes, that’s all folks.  I’m afraid I really do mean it this time.  Party card in the shredder.  Standing order cancelled.  It’s goodnight from me. And it’s goodnight Vienna from Labour.  I threatened to quit when the Jezster was first elected, but people persuaded me to stay on in the hope that the situation could be rescued.  I wanted to go when Angela Eagle was unceremoniously dumped in favour of Owen Smith, but was told I couldn’t desert at such a critical moment and should rally behind the PLP’s chosen challenger. Stay and fight, my friends say.  But over what?  The burnt-out shell o

Time for Red Ken to head into the sunset

Voice for 2012: Oona best represents modern Londoners Pin there, done that: Livingstone's campaign is a throwback to the 1980s Ken Livingstone may have lost his grip on power, but he hasn’t lost his chutzpah. The former London mayor was full of chirpy bluster a week ago in Southall, west London, when I popped over to listen to him debate with his rival for the current Labour nomination, Oona King. The contrast between two candidates couldn’t be more striking. Oona is chic, whereas Ken is pure cheek. She talks passionately about the threat posed by gang warfare which currently divides kids in her East London neighbourhood, while he waxes nostalgically about his working-class childhood in post-war council housing. It’s clear that Livingstone has been cryogenically preserved and then defrosted. The only question is when exactly the wily old geezer was put in the freezer. The mid-1980s would be a fair bet, which is when I remember him on a stage in Jubilee Gardens on the south bank

The friends, the facilitators and the failures. They now owe us all an apology.

I keep hearing Corbyn’s tenure referred to as an experiment. But how many experiments continue for four years, despite a toxic chemical haze billowing out of the mad inventor’s lab? The hard-left project should have been stopped in its tracks countless times.  As far back as 2015, Joe Haines – Harold Wilson’s Press Secretary – suggested that the Parliamentary Labour Party should make a unilateral declaration of independence. They could have appointed their own leader in Parliament and bypassed the socialist relic the members had chosen to elect. Instead, they prevaricated. They agonised. They muttered to each other in corridor recesses at Westminster. The frightened bunnies were at first bemused and disoriented, allowing Corbyn and his cabal to consolidate their position. And subsequently, they were frightened. Mainly frightened of the swollen membership of three-quid flotsam and jetsam who had invaded their constituencies pledging allegiance to the sage of the allotments