Politics

Remember William of Occam? He was the medieval English monk who invented the razor. Not the one that kept his tonsure bare and shiny, but the one that he applied to the confusion of evidence. Bearded philosophers still use Occam’s Razor, the principle that when all else fails, the simplest explanation is the likeliest explanation. Apply William’s logic-chopper to Donald Trump’s Helsinki performance, and you’re quickly down to two possibilities. One is that Trump, as John Brennan frothed on Twitter, is ‘treasonous’ and ‘wholly in the pocket of Putin’, presumably because of unspecified but urine-scented kompromat.

If anyone wanted an encapsulation of the screwiness of our times just consider the following straight question being asked of an interview subject. ‘How does being a communist impact your view of the US presidency, whether it’s Obama or Trump?’ And then consider that this pleasant question was being asked by Teen Vogue. It was posed to a young woman called Ash Sarkar who writes for an obscure blog named Novara Media.  Last week Sarkar had her 15 seconds of fame when she managed the impossible and appeared to out-arrogant Piers Morgan in a television shouting-match ostensibly about Donald Trump’s visit to the UK.

Did Vladimir Putin finally become Donald Trump’s new best friend in Helsinki? Trump, who has been panting to meet with Putin, lavished his Russian counterpart with praise. His extraordinary performance is meeting with some hostile reviews, many of them centering on the suspicion that Trump truly is a creature of the Kremlin. Rather than confront Putin, he publicly cosied up to him, after remaining immured with him for about two hours with only a few translators, thereby nourishing the conviction that Putin has the goods on him. The summit, which was intended to smooth relations with Moscow, is having the reverse effect by heightening suspicions about his motives and rendering it even more difficult for him to dispose, in one fashion or another, of the Mueller investigation.

That was fast. Donald Trump moved to defuse the bombshell Sun interview he gave last night, which was recorded, by calling it “fake news” in his press conference with Theresa May this morning, who wore but apparently did not see red over his remarks. But even by the vertiginous standards of Trumpworld, this reversal set a new bar for redefining reality to comport with whatever suits the president’s needs. What might seem momentous when Trump utters it is really only the expostulation of a moment.The same rules will surely apply to his upcoming summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin. A diligent press corps is trying to force Trump to say what he will do or say when he meets his Russian chum. But Trump himself may not really know.

OK, I had never heard of Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s latest nominee for the Supreme Court, before last week either. But it doesn’t take long to discover that he is possessed of a razor-sharp legal mind and a very traditionalist judicial philosophy. By “traditionalist,” I mean that he believes that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the laws of the United States as written, not to use the law to further his personal policy preferences. Until at least the mid-1950s, this was the dominant sentiment on the Supreme Court. It was cast aside in succeeding years as Justices found “emanations and penumbras” (William O. Douglas’s words) in the Constitution to justify social policies that they favoured.

Jim Jordan of Ohio may not be a household name in the United States, but rest assured that he has turned himself into a disruptive force in Washington, D.C.  The seven-term congressman is a Donald Trump kind of guy: he hates the status-quo and wants to take down the political establishment of both parties. He relishes making mincemeat of any government official who has even the slimmest connection to former President Barack Obama. He is a sanctimonious loudmouth. Just as Donald Trump sees the value of unpredictability and unconventionality, Jim Jordan sees political value in using the allure of congressional oversight and transparency to mask what are undeniable political vendettas against anyone who happens to reek of the swamp. But it is now Jordan who is under the microscope.

While tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected in central London to protest Donald Trump’s visit this week, the BBC too is laying out its own welcome mat. Its most important current affairs programme, Panorama, tonight broadcasts a film titled ‘Trump: Is the President a Sex Pest?’ The Panorama website says: “Donald Trump has been accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour by more than 20 women, but he has dismissed them all as liars. Now one of those women is suing him for defamation. An American court will have to decide what really happened and whether the President of the United States is a sexual predator.” Trump doesn’t care much about protesters.

The big question that hangs over Donald Trump’s trip through Europe is not whether America’s NATO allies should spend more on defence or whether Vladimir Putin poses an overriding strategic threat to the continent. The big question is this: why should Uncle Sam continue to provide the military assets and leadership across the pond as it has for the past 70 years? The answer lies in understanding that the concept of a united political West is a tenuous and unconvincing one. Indeed, it should have been moribund since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of Soviet Communism. It’s now collapsing. True, the West has an obvious and historically glorious validity.

Depending on who you believe, the departure of White House chief of staff John Kelly is either imminent or “fake news.” Under President Trump, today’s fake news often becomes tomorrow’s confirmed headline. What is beyond dispute is that Kelly’s attempt to impose order on Trump’s wild West Wing is a failure, at least by comparison to his predecessors. That of course may be an unfair standard by which to judge Kelly. Most previous presidents came into office with disciplined political operations that translate well to the workings of the White House and advisers whom they trust. Trump essentially inherited all that from the Republican National Committee, with his most trusted confidantes actually having little to no Washington experience.