Vichy Republicans
Nick Cohen calls the Trump-supporting Republicans – which is most of them – collaborators.
Anglo-Saxon democracies, which were never invaded in the 20th century, have produced a rich series of alternative histories of resistance. When the Nazis win the Second World War, audiences can flatter themselves that they would never have collaborated with Robert Harris’s Fatherland or Amazon’s Man in the High Castle.
No one is more prone to imagining how well they would have behaved in conflicts that they never experienced than American conservatives. The cult of Churchill in the US would embarrass even his most devoted British admirers.
Do they? That’s bizarre. I do the opposite – I always suspect I would be cowardly and selfish. I don’t dare imagine myself behaving well, because I’m not the least bit confident I would have. It’s the same with the Milgram experiment – I always imagine myself being cowed by the insistence of the guy in the lab coat and my shame at messing up his nice experiment.
Anyway – Trump is a fascist, or as close to one as we need in order to know he must not be elected president of the US.
I don’t throw the word “fascism” around, but can we at least accept that Trump follows theFührerprinzip? He has no colleagues, only followers. He is a racist. Not a closet racist, or a dog-whistle racist, but a racist so unabashed that the Klan endorses him. Above all, he has the swaggering dictator’s determination to bawl opponents into silence with screams of “loser”, “dummy”, “fraud”, “puppet,” “biased”, “disgusting”, “liar” and “kook”. As with the web trolls Trump so resembles, it is never the point and always the person. Female news presenters have to explain that they are not asking him difficult questions because they have “blood coming out of whatever” or surrender to him, as Megan Kelly of Fox News did to her shame. Latinos have to explain why they are not rapists and murderers or shut up and give up. Muslims have to explain that they are not terrorists or they lose the right to a hearing. At every stage, the argument is shifted on to the troll’s terrain of ethnic and religious loyalty tests. Except here the troll could become the world’s most powerful man.
It’s still hard to believe we’re even arguing about this. The man is a brawler, a street-fighter, that loud drunk at the bar, that out of control asshole on the bus. He’s sexist racist xenophobic and foul-tempered. There is not one good thing you can say about him.
Conservatives boasted too that they knew that the old-fashioned virtues of good character mattered as much as a man or woman’s ideology. By this reckoning, Trump’s bragging, vainglory, dark fury and towering vanity should disqualify him from the presidency regardless of his politics.
What I’m saying. He’s terrible. If he were an ardent lefty but had all those qualities I would say he’s terrible. (There certainly are ardent lefties like that, and they are terrible.)
Yet McCain and Ryan, those enemies of appeasement, have folded and endorsed Trump. Rubio, that piercing judge of his character, has decided that, after all, Trump’s finger should be on the button. Presidents Bush père et fils are bravely abstaining. Bobby Jindal, who described Trump as a “narcissist and egomaniacal madman”, wants him in the White House. Nearly all the Republican names you remember follow suit. The Dick Cheneys, Rand Pauls and Condoleezza Rices are backing Trump or refusing to commit. Confronted with a dictatorial menace in their own time and their own country they lack the courage to risk the unpopularity that Churchillian dissent would bring.
Even when Trump followed his years of promoting the interests of a dictator of a hostile foreign power by urging Vladimir Putin to hack Clinton’s emails, they held steady in their cowardice. The Republicans, the party of red-baiters and Cold Warriors, is now in the pocket of a Kremlin “useful idiot” and the best its national security conservatives can manage are embarrassed mutters.
…
My friend and comrade, the American journalist Jamie Kirchick, coined the phrase “Vichy Republicans” to describe its leaders.
They might as well be singing “Maréchal, nous voilà !”
That is a massive image… and an apt one…
Is it my imagination or has the Donald’s hair lightened and now greyed as the campaign has gone on? Is this just because he’s been too busy to see his colourist, or because the campaign are using grey hair as a signal for wisdom?
That’s a rather naive view of the virtues of the electoral process. Hitler gained power democratically and there’s Erdogan as a contemporary example.
Ophelia,
I’d agree with your scepticism in regard to the possibility of heroic resistance in occupied countries. Most people who endured the horrors of Nazi or Japanese occupation simply tried to survive, if they could. The percentage of the population who actively resisted was very small.
I’ve never understood the adulation of Churchill, he was a treacherous prick, I suppose it’s a matter of perspective.
I think it’s fair to say Churchill was the leader required for WW2. It’s pretty clear people didn’t want him for the peace that followed. His reputation in NZ and, I suspect, Australia, was heavily coloured by his responsibility for the Gallipoli campaign. It might be simplistic, but I think of him as a man who shone most brightly in the darkness he had a hand in creating.
Rob,
As I wrote, ‘it’s a matter of perspective’.
The Australian one is totally different. After Japan entered WW2 and Australia appeared in danger of invasion, the Australian government withdrew the our divisions (the AIF) that had been fighting the Germans in North Africa. Of course Churchill objected, as far as he was concerned Australia could be written off temporarily and recovered later. Churchill, with astonishing treachery and monumental arrogance, tried to divert the Australians to the Burma campaign, another one of his incompetent strategic ideas. So until the AIF soldiers arrived all the troops we had to engage the Japanese in New Guinea was a poorly trained teen-aged militia. Remarkably they delayed the invaders until help arrived. Remember, unlike NZ, Australia’s war was in the Asia-Pacific, not faraway Europe. So much for ‘Anzac solidarity.’
Churchill was lucky that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred and that Hitler ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union, otherwise Britain would have been in diabolical trouble. Some British understood that very well.
One of Hitler’s biggest mistakes was deciding not to invade Britain after Dunkirk.
Ophelia @7
Agreed. Another of Hitler’s mistakes was not destroying the British army when he had the chance during the Dunkirk debacle, invasion might not have been necessary. Despite what the British thought of their role in the war, the U.K. wasn’t a first priority for the Nazis, the Soviet Union and other Slav lands were the main game. Since Britain wasn’t capable of threatening German power it could be left to stew until Barbarossa was successfully completed.
RJW, I was not defending the totality of Churchill’s life and decisions. In my view his brightest days only barely make up for the poor decisions he made. I also don’t intend to get into a pissing match with an Aussie about which country did most during WW2. Both countries more than pulled their weight. What I will say is that the NZ navy (such as it was) served with distinction in the Pacific against Japanese forces from 1941, as did the RNZAF and, later, RAF squadrons comprised of Kiwis. 2nd NZEF (IP) (laterly largely NZ 3rd Div) served in the Pacific against Japan (fighting in the Vella Lavella, Treasury Islands and Green Island battles) until relieved by US forces, at which point many were sent to Italy to reinforce 2nd NZEF (Europe). In 1945 they were drafted into J-Force as they were on their way home from Europe.
I actually knew two fine men from that era who detested war heartedly. One served in the Solomons as a medical officer (he had the presence of mind to take a photograph during an amphibious landing – looks like a lovely early morning scene that completely fails to catch the fact that bullets were zipping past); the other was a pilot who was shot down and assumed dead, until he popped out of the jungle a couple of days later having made his way from behind enemy lines.
There are enough dead NZ soldiers, airmen, sailors and coast watchers in the Pacific that I think we can take ANZAC solidarity for granted, even if it’s apparently been forgotten now.
Rob,
I didn’t intend to start a pissing match. I’m just sceptical in regard to the significance of the Anzac relationship.
Sorry Ophelia we’re OT. However I’m sure Americans and Canadians have similar niggling issues.
I’m sure I’d resist Milgram, because I don’t have much respect for authority and I have gotten in trouble stopping a manager from bullying a colleague, etc. But all he would do is yell. The Gestapo would shoot you and your family.
We are indeed OT, although not by as much as may appear at first glance. The ANZAC relationship became significantly more strained at the point the ANZUS treaty brouhaha blew up. That all occurred against a background of US foreign policy that demanded simplistic solutions backed by slogans that forced a with or against mentality (thanks Reagan). The relationship has continued to weaken in the political and public mind, even as the two economies have become ever more intertwined weirdly.
NZ is a minnow militarily, albeit a very well trained minnow. Much as the military-Industrial complex currently know as the USA and it’s second closest ally ever, Australia, would like NZ to become both fiscally and morally bankrupt, that isn’t going to happen. Well, it might one day – who knows. I shudder to think how the orange one would have behaved if he had been President in 1985. As it is, it’s taken the US over 30 years to (tacitly) admit that they could just have sent a naval ship here that was quite obviously not nuclear armed or powered as they intend to do for the RNZ Navy 75th Jubilee.
Leaders and potential leaders like Trump who are more interested in the exercise of power as a means of either self-aggrandisement or enforcement of ideology are never interested in the areas of common ground and finding ways to work together. They belittle, berate and bully. The effect is just as corrosive on international relationships as it is with the personal. It’s a not insignificant reason for Australia caring a damn sight less about the value of the ANZAC relationship now than New Zealand does and neither caring as much as they used to.
A Clinton (or Sanders) presidency would be workable for New Zealand, maybe even productively so. A Trump presidency would be a minefield, not least because based on past history our closest neighbour and ally would most likely follow the US line in any dispute as it consistently has done since the mid-1980’s.
Rob,
“…not least because based on past history our closest neighbour and ally would most likely follow the US line in any dispute as it consistently has done since the mid-1980’s.”
It’s easy for NZ in its splendid isolation (its closet neighbour is 1500 km away) to assume the moral high ground. Australia is on the edge of Asia with what all that implies, We’re currently being monstered by China for being impudent, we’re flattered that the Dragon has noticed us, however there are difficult times ahead.
As to Trump, what concerns me most are his protectionist rants, the US has a bad record of retreating to economic autarky throughout its history. Such policies would be disastrous for our two nations. We could also hope that Trump is just a windbag and when and if he’s elected, the transnationals that really run the world economy will ensure that he sees sense.
The problem with the plebs, as the UK’s political elites discovered, is that they don’t always vote ‘correctly’.
Re Milgram–re-evaluation seems to suggest that (as with Kitty Genovese’s story, and the study about the kids told not to take cookies) we may have drawn the wrong lessons from the data.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study
Apparently women were much more likely to refuse to harm experimental subjects.
RJW, I’m not arguing as such. I agree as far as distance goes NZ is isolated. That is in fact our greatest defence. What do you want from us? A useless frigate we felt obliged to buy from you in the first place and which is already obsolete? Don’t forget, that isolation is a two edged sword. It makes our imports expensive and our exports less competitive, meaning we have to work bloody hard for everything we sell. As a nation we campaign for free trade, simply because if we don’t we can’t sell anything. Sure, we won’t starve, we produce more food than we need, but other than food we import most of what we need.
Australia is in many respects a lucky country. Traditionally you haven’t needed to be that efficient to do well and your natural resources mean you have been sought after by friends and foe alike.
There’s not much point being pissed at us for having different priorities and solutions based on different circumstances. We’ll never be able to afford or apply Australia’s solutions in any case and they wouldn’t much benefit either us or Australia in any case.
If you feel Australia is being monstored by China, just remember that they are sending clear signals to us that our trade will be badly harmed if we even investigate them for dumping steel on the NZ market.
Trump and his ilk are dangerous because they harm us all in many ways. For those who are anti-free trade, remember that there are two sides to every trade equation and that all benefit from fair free trade. We need leaders that understand the world is a complicated place and that we all do better when we cooperate. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Only unreasonable people demand their way all the time.
Yes, Australia’s faith in British leadersip also took a heavy blow there, though that seems to have blown over to a great extent and has been little more than a rumour for some time. Perhaps the biggest reason Australia has been on good terms with the UK lately though, and I suspect also a contributor to the waning of the ANZAC relations, has been the craven brown-nosing our leaders have been doing lately. John Howard began it, and in doing so contributed to the impression of international support for the Iraq invasion by joining the ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ but all Australian leaders have been busily sucking up to the UK and America to some degree since then.
Oh and incidentally, my great gandfather lost an eye at Gallipoli.
Samantha @ 11 – yes but nearly everybody says “I’m sure I’d resist Milgram” when in reality most people did not resist.
I too think of myself as skeptical of authority etc etc, but we also need to be skeptical of our own superiority.
Authority per se wasn’t actually the issue. When they tweaked the experiment such that the Lab Coat simply ordered subjects to obey, compliance dropped to zero. Literally zero. As I said, I can easily see myself feeling guilty about spoiling the experiment. That’s not a matter of unadorned “authority.”
@Ophelia
Not in the simplistic terms most people assume. I recommend Milgram’s book, Obediance to Authority, to everyone. There were many experiments, with variables tweaked, and the findings were illuminating.
IIRC, when people felt they were acting as agents of authority–responsible for helping the “experiment,” but not directly responsible for how it was run–compliance was highest.
Overall, for most of the experiments, there were outliers at either end, people who would not proceed past the point where the actor/learner protested, and some who would keep going past the point the actor expressed extreme pain and suggested they might be in actual danger of death (because of a heart condition, etc.) Most subjects fell somewhere in between, and the devil was in the details.