UK politicians are virtue signalling about Trump — again

Paywalled postscript; Soft power & national naivety

This article was first published in UnHerd in early March. All articles published elsewhere are published free here; but for paywalled articles & postscripts, subscribe below.

Ahead of the proposed state visit, Sadiq Khan was asked by LBC whether he would welcome Donald Trump to London by LBC. Khan stated that his views on Trump were well known, but that he thought it was ‘important to engage’. He then invited him to a checklist of must-see modern, multicultural London’s events; Trafalgar Square on St Patricks Day, the New Lunar New Year, Eid and Diwali in the Square, or a curry on Brick Lane. Given the notorious hygiene ratings of many of the Brick Lane curry houses, it is questionable whether the Secret Service would allow the President to expose himself to that level of risk. Regardless, Khan is far from the only liberal to offer up inanities in reaction to Trump’s visit. The SNP have called for the visit to be cancelled, with Westminster leader Stephen Flynn calling for Keir Starmer to ‘get off his knees’ instead of ‘[rolling] out the red carpet.’

And this attitude is far from being exclusive to the left, either. Although later slapped down by Kemi Badenoch, Conservative shadow home affairs minister Alicia Kearns also called for Trump’s visit to be blocked ‘until the steadfastness of the US’s commitment to her allies is assured.’ The view is widely held amongst commentators, too, and 70,000 people have already signed a petition calling for the visit to be scrapped.

The commonality and mainstream status of this view says as much about Britain as it does about America, and in particular about our weakness; the preference for overreactive virtue-signals over steely-eyed diplomacy it is a function of our long-standing irrelevance on the world stage.

Those who advocate for the removal of Trump’s invitation – and, indeed, those who advocate for it to go ahead – have never had to think seriously about geostrategic issues. Since the Americans made it clear during the Suez Crisis that Britain’s interests could no longer be pursued independently – or at least, without American pre-approval – we have subsumed ours to those of the US, hitching our wagon completely to the rules-based order they built.

Our outsourcing of the responsibility of international affairs, however, also involves releasing our grasp on the realities. Without the burden of real strategic responsibility, our political and media culture has failed to foster serious thought in these fields. Instead, within the mainstream halls of power, the focus has shifted toward domestic politics – and international relations have been put in service of the performative causes of domestic positioning. What is incentivised – both by their lack of understanding and by their focus on domestic polling – is an instantaneous response, often emotional, impulsive and counter-productive. There are now few in the mainstream capable, willing or interesting in engaging in frank and dispassionate discussions on international affairs.

The reality is that - whatever we would wish the world to be - it is as it is. Our military is hollowed out, and largely dependent on America; it is questionable what level of battle-readiness our military could achieve without their help, whilst systems like the F-35 and Starlink are entirely within the give-and-take of the US. Aside from the military, there are the economic ramifications; in the background Trump is preparing a trade war with Europe which, thanks to Brexit, Britain may be able to avoid. Even if we can, there is still a trade deal to be thrashed out, and Trump is likely to be President for the entirety of negotiations.

Britain was once a phlegmatic nation, but is now prone to regular bouts of self-destructive hysteria. The Trump visit is a symptom of this, as is every law passed with a victim’s name, or our commitment to impoverishing ourselves through Net Zero. It is quite possible to be outraged over Trump’s treatment of Zelensky, but to be cold in the heart and clear in the mind when keeping the most pressing issue foremost in the mind; what is best for Britain? What is best for us? Whom does this serve? When we reduce the question to its essence, the idea of rescinding Trump’s visit has such dire consequences it cannot be contemplated. Some may consider it unpleasant, but difficult decisions are rarely pleasant. That is the nature of dealing with questions of real consequence.

Paywalled postscript; Soft power & national naivety

Another symptom of our national naivety when it comes to international affairs is the continued commitment of our elites to soft power.