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
Post a Comment