Category Archives: bureaucratic dictatorship

Trump’s finest hour

Donald Trump: patriotism, generosity and good sense

Reading in his morning newspaper that the General Assembly of the United Nations had greeted a short section of Donald Trump’s speech with laughter, Dalrymple’s esteem for the US president grows. The laughter, Dalrymple writes,

gave rise to Mr Trump’s finest moment. He took it in good part, admitted that he had not expected it, and said it was perfectly all right.

The moment

revealed something about world opposition to Mr Trump: that it is bogus or not deeply felt, and is pro forma.

Dalrymple asks:

  • Would the General Assembly have laughed disrespectfully at Mr Putin or Mr Xi, and would either of them have reacted in the same good-natured way if it had?
  • Did anyone laugh at Mr Obama’s fatuously grandiose claim that his election marked the beginning of healthcare in the United States and the healing of the planet, at least the equal in absurdity of anything said by Mr Trump?
  • Is Mr Trump’s slogan Make America great again any shallower than Mr Obama’s Yes we can?

Barack Obama: absurdity, grandiosity and fatuity

Dalrymple points out that Trump is held to a different standard; and anyone really believing the president was an incipient totalitarian dictator wouldn’t have laughed.

Trump’s speech offered

a more generous view of the world than that of most of his opponents. He called on the people of all countries to be patriotic, acknowledging that people of all countries had something to be patriotic about.

Trump’s was a vision of the world that was

far more genuinely multicultural and multipolar than those who believe in, or call for, a kind of European Union on a global scale, in which all cultures are ground into a food mixer from which a health-giving culture juice of universal rights (to healthcare, social security, etc.) will emerge.

The European Union monstrosity: an emergent bureaucratic tyranny

Trump’s view of patriotism certainly did not entail

the hatred of or disdain for, let alone enmity towards, other countries. What he said in essence was that he wanted a world of live and let live. He appeared to understand that a world government without borders would necessarily be a monstrous bureaucratic tyranny with no possible legitimacy.

To be sure, he simplified problems, but

to look to political speeches for subtle elucidation of knotty problems is like looking to tabloid newspapers for metaphysical insight.

Sorry Britain, wrong answer

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 21.26.13Dalrymple writes that as soon as it became clear that, like bad pupils in a multiple-choice exam, the British population

had got the answer wrong in the referendum, it was only too predictable that efforts would be made to nullify the results.

A petition to have a second referendum

took five days to obtain three million signatories, including from 39,000 alleged residents of the Vatican City (popul­ation 800).

Those who argue for another referendum

claim that those who voted for the Brexit did not really know what they voted for, regret the financial turmoil they have caused, and would vote differently tomorrow. (There will be no day-after-tomorrow if they get the ­answer right.)

But, Dalrymple notes, no one could have missed the warnings of financial turmoil in the event of a vote for exit. Indeed,

they voted for an exit despite the warnings, possibly because they apprehended that the ­so-called European project is a recipe for unreformable bureaucratic dictatorship.

Tony Blair

has said that now that the consequences of the vote are clear, there should be another referendum immediately. For this flea-brained man, four days is an historical epoch.

The élite,

persuaded of its ineffable wisdom and transcendent right to rule the country,

is strongly tempted

to annul the result because it doesn’t like it.

Dalrymple points out that if the results are annulled,

as they very well may be, many of those who voted for exit will feel even more despised and sidelined than they do already. Many no doubt will decline into apathy, but some may resort to direct action, meaning violence: for it is true that some of those who voted for the Brexit were motivated by the crudest resentments.