British PM is right to publicly feud with Trump
No love is so great, no union so strong, no relationship so special that it will not be tested — and what better test than for a man to deliberately antagonize a woman by promoting online propaganda originating from her virulently racist political opponents?
Like most relationships between special someones, the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom began long ago with things in common.
The Second World War pushed the two countries closer, forcing them to admire one other and share with one another. They’ve shared military bases, nuclear weapon designs, spy secrets. The U.S. Defense Department’s biggest foreign supplier is British, and that same British supplier has purchased some big U.S. defence companies. The U.K. is the biggest foreign investor in the U.S. and the U.S. is the biggest foreign investor in the U.K.
And whether or not you believe that the personal is always political, you must admit the politics between these countries is terribly personal. Winston Churchill was the seventh cousin one time removed to Franklin Roosevelt. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher finished each other’s sentences. George Bush Sr. once told John Major “I sent you a love letter yesterday.” In a love letter of his own, Tony Blair pledged to George Bush Jr.: “I will be with you, whatever.”
In language, religion and ideology; on intelligence, military and economic matters; and through the friendships between their leaders, the U.S. and the U.K. have been considered closer to each other than any democracy has been to any other.
But like any love that publicly purports to be perfect, theirs is an exaggerated adoration. Underneath the relentless displays of affection have simmered tension and difficulty. Between the U.S. and the U.K., trouble has taken the form of suspicion and envy, even during the world war that brought them together.
But pretending to be perfect requires at least an effort, which implies that one at least cares. Even before Donald Trump committed the offending retweet of Britain First this week, it was always impossible to believe Theresa May cared for him.
There are not enough ideological, psychological or moral ties to bind Trump and May together for either person to convincingly pretend that this is love, let alone to develop a genuine love through the imperfect hardships, misunderstandings and uncertainties that any bond requires and endures.
She’s not leaving yet, but it’s increasingly hard to put on a show for the sake of the kids, for the kids are not so stupid they can’t see that Daddy is a racist, lady-grabbing madman waving nukes around — and Mommy is getting angry.
Indeed they’re fighting in public — a sign that something has gone disastrously wrong, or perhaps that it was never right. Awkward to witness, yes, but the sources of conflict are cause for greatest alarm, not the fact that conflict has emerged.
After Charlottesville, May was vague in condemning Trump’s support for American white supremacists; her condemnation of his support for British ones does not suffer from the same affliction.
If the American republic endures (and this is uncertain), the relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. will endure as well. The relationship between their respective administrations, however, is strained.
When one of these administrations is led by a president who attacks the very foundation of the relationship, ridiculing the liberal and democratic traditions that both countries have for so long shared and held dear, this is exactly as it should be: Open disagreement, not feigned harmony, is what is needed now.