Section:OBS 2N PaGe:40 Edition Date:190804 Edition:01 Zone: Sent at 3/8/2019 17:44 cYanmaGentaYellowbla
- The Observer
40 04.08.19 Comment & Analysis
Established in 1791 Issue No 11880
Johnson and Trump
To win, the
left needs
to embrace
alliances
M
uch has been made
in recent days of the
supposed similarities
between Boris Johnson
and Donald Trump.
On a personal level, it
is said, both men are
boastful braggarts,
frequently untruthful
and skilled at self-
promotion, which is pretty much all they care about. In
terms of policy, both are rightwing populists wedded
to a recklessly destructive form of regressive, pseudo-
nostalgic nationalism.
Both Johnson and Trump inspire strong feelings,
especially in their detractors. Max Hastings, who was
Johnson’s boss at the Daily Telegraph, recently described
him as a weak, cowardly character more akin to Alan
Partridge than to his hero, Winston Churchill. “Almost
the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those
who do not know him,” Hastings wrote.
Trump fares even worse. The usually unemotionalUS columnist Thomas Friedman called him a “ racist,
divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk ”.
After Trump belittled a local black congressman, Elijah
Cummings , the Baltimore Sun denounced him as “the
most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Offi ce”.
Much less has been said about the similarities
between the choices and dilemmas facing those at
the opposing, liberal-progressive end of the political
spectrum in the US and Britain. In both countries,
the left, broadly defi ned, faces an all but existential
challenge. The most pressing issue for Democrats as
next year’s election approaches is how to beat Trump. In
Britain, the pre-eminent question is how to halt Brexit.
Most liberal-progressive politicians and supporters
on either side of the Atlantic understand that unless
and until Trump is defeated, and Brexit stopped,
their respective countries cannot move forward. Last
week’s debates between candidates for the Democratic
nomination, for example, were dominated by the
spectre of a Trump second term. More than any policy
issue, what matters most is identifying the person who
can defeat him.
It’s early days, but polls suggest Joe Biden, Barack
Obama’s former vice-president, is clear favourite.
Despite unconvincing debate performances and doubts
about his age (he is 76), Biden is touted as the sort of
reassuring, experienced, moderate pragmatist who
could attract middle America’s pivotal swing voters.
Yet that way of thinking is fi ercely resisted on the
party’s left, where a younger, energised generation
of reformers , some from minority and multicultural
backgrounds, is championing a more radical agenda
on touchstone issues such as universal healthcare and
immigration. Insurgent candidates such as Kamala
Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke are jostling the
more experienced Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
All want to break the mould, not repair it.
As a possible general election nears, Britain’s
unambiguously anti-Brexit parties – and Labour –
face similar dilemmas. If stopping Johnson’s slide
into no-deal catastrophe means forming nationwide
electoral pacts, a successful tactic for the Liberal
Democrats in last Thursday’s Brecon and Radnorshirebyelection , then must such temporary compromises be
accepted for the greater good? Or is it better to maintain
ideological purity and a distinct policy platform, as some
in Labour may prefer, thereby increasing the Brexit risk?
Trump is doubtless hoping Democrats pick a left-
leaning candidate he can marginalise as a “socialist” (for
Republicans, that’s a dirty word) hostile to American
values. He has already begun, aiming his racist,
misogynistic venom at the so-called “squad” – four
reformist congresswomen of colour whom he told to “go
back” where they came from. His attack on Cummings
in Baltimore was another ugly signal to white America.
Trump’s attempt to brand as unpatriotic extremists
those progressives who seek to create a fairer, inclusive
and more equal society is a familiar one in Britain.
Johnson, trapped by his own hardline Brexit rhetoric and
hounded from the right by Nigel Farage, is not above
adopting a version of Trump’s divisive politics of identity
and grievance if he thinks it will help him survive.
How does the liberal-progressive left respond to the
menace of immoral, unscrupulous rightwing populism,
personifi ed by Trump and the Johnson cabinet? How to
neutralise this poison seeping through our societies?
The answer cannot be a panicky, Biden-like scramble
to the fabled centre-ground if that means abandoning
the reform agenda. But nor is it a resort to populism
of the left.
The results of last May’s local elections and the
European parliamentary elections clearly showed that
voters are fed up with party politics as usual. They want
honest, practical leaders ready to shake things up and
address vital issues of income inequality, healthcare,
education, infrastructure and the climate crisis. Old
tribal loyalties are dissolving. Radical new non-partisan
thinking is required.
Rightwing populism in Britain and the US threatens
lives and livelihoods; elsewhere, it can threaten the very
idea of democracy. To defeat it, and resist the global
rise of authoritarianism, liberals and progressives of all
stripes must join forces around a programme of reform.
In Britain, that means considering parliamentary and
electoral coalitions of the willing, focused in the fi rst
instance on dispelling the Brexit nightmare.Kings Place,
90 York Way,
London N1 9GU
Telephone
020 3353 2000
email editor@
observer.co.ukPopulation trends
Falling birth rates
should hold no
fear if we are open
to immigration
T
he Duke and Duchess
of Sussex have become
synonymous with a
refreshing rejection of royal
convention. Last week,
Prince Harry dispensed
with the royal predilection for larger than
average families in an interview with
the primatologist Jane Goodall. “ Two,
maximum ” was his reply when asked,
in the context of a discussion about
preserving the planet, how many children
he would have.
On this at least, Harry and Meghan
appear to be in tune with the nation.
New fi gures from the Offi ce for NationalStatistics show that the birth rate in
England and Wales has fallen to a
record low, and that the overall fertility
rate for women of childbearing age has
dropped to 1.7 children. This decline has
come about as a result of people having
children later, partly due to social progress- the rapid increase in education and
employment levels of women in recent
decades, vastly improved access to reliable
contraception, and falling teen pregnancy
rates. But, more recently, fi nances have
come into play, with rising house prices
also a factor. The number of women who
remain childless has also increased, from
one in 10 of those born in 1946, to just
under one in fi ve of those born in 1970.
Britain is far from an outlier: apart from
Africa, and some parts of Asia, fertility
rates are declining across much of
the world.
Is Prince Harry right that this might
be something to celebrate? It’s certainly
true that in richer nations, having fewer
children is by far the most effective way
for individuals to reduce their carbon
footprint. One academic study calculated
that having one child fewer would save
- 6 tonnes of CO 2 a year. To put that
in context, giving up a car would save
2.4 tonnes, and switching to a vegetarian
diet 0.82 tonnes. Little wonder that some
population experts have argued that
falling birth rates are to be welcomed.
Why, then, have governments around
the world reacted with alarm rather
than delight to falling birth rates? The
answer lies in the ageing population
structures that are their inevitable
product, particularly at a time when
stretching lifespans – a scientifi c advance
to celebrate – mean not just more years
spent in retirement but more extended
spells of time spent in poor health. Older
populations require more resources for
health and social care, but they also have
fewer people of working age to pay taxes
to support those services, and to care for
their older loved ones.
The answer – particularly given the
implications of rising birth rates for the
climate crisis – is not necessarily for
governments to try to artifi cially nudge
them upwards. They should of course
ensure that low-income families with
children receive adequate fi nancial
support, that childcare is affordable,
and that the cost of housing is not so
extortionate that couples are forced
to delay having children. In the UK, adecade of cuts to tax credits and benefi ts,
and years of runaway house price
growth have conspired to ensure that
some people have no choice but to put
off starting families. But beyond that,
policies to try to encourage women to
have more children – whether Spain’s
“ sex tsar ”, Taiwan’s state-funded
matchmaking trips or Italy’s sexist poster
campaign – are neither appealing, nor
have a great track record of working.
One way for richer countries to resolve
the conundrum of a falling birth rate
that’s good for the planet but bad for the
exchequer is through immigration – a
redistribution of population from those
poorer regions of the world where the
birth rate is higher, and where there
are plenty who want to emigrate. This
is not without issues, including the
ethical questions posed by population
movements that can contribute to a
brain drain from poorer countries. A big
challenge, however, will be countering
the anti-immigration sentiment that has
taken root in the politics of the US and
much of Europe. But if politicians aren’t
brave enough to make the case for more
immigration, they should get ready to
compensate with higher taxes.
РЕЛИЗ
ПОДГОТОВИЛАГРУППА"What's News"VK.COM/WSNWSРЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS