The parent trap
On a continuum of nepotistic tendencies, Ivanka and I are at opposite ends.
Ever since my parents made me be a tree in the school Christmas play, I have given a lot of thought to nepotism. At the time that I played the role of a tree, stage left, adorned with large leaves painted on brown paper and carefully cut out with blunt scissors of the type found only in schools, I was a pupil at a two-teacher country school on the Napier-Taupo road. One of the teachers was my mother. The other was my father.
Yet on a continuum of nepotistic tendencies, Donald Trump is at one end and my parents were at the other. They were rigorous in not allowing my brother and me to be distinguished in any way.
This was, I suspect, not a particularly onerous burden for them since, other than being voracious readers, my brother and I were perfectly ordinary. But I did like acting and had a modest affinity for it. But no, I can still hear my mother saying, “I will never be accused of promoting my own children.” I am sure she never was.
So it was that I stood mutely holding my arms out, my paper leaves hanging limply off me while lesser thespians spoke actual lines and acted. I wanted a bigger part, but I was conflicted: I had absorbed my parents’ ethos and didn’t want a star role if anyone thought I had won it only because of my parentage.
This, in a nutshell, is my problem with Ivanka Trump sitting in for her dad at the G20. She should not be excluded from seeking high office due to her father being President – no one’s ambition should be thwarted only because of their parents’ occupations. But Ivanka needs to be able to demonstrate that it is her skill, education and experience – and those qualities only, that got her there. On that score – she would have made a lovely tree.
The day that the photo appeared of the US and Russian presidents shaking hands at the G20, the White House released a joint statement from the US, the Republic of Korea and Japan affirming their alliance and commitment to strengthened security in the face of threats from North Korea.
It was the last line that caught my attention: “President Trump reaffirmed the ironclad commitment of the United States to defend the ROK and Japan using the full range of its conventional and nuclear capabilities.”
There is probably nothing new in this, but I continue to ask myself what it might mean for the US to use its
“full range of … nuclear capabilities” to defend South Korea and Japan. The only images I can come up with make me think that if I were Korean or Japanese, I would be asking the US very nicely, and shortly afterwards very un-nicely, to please not do that. Defend us, sure, but not with your full range, or even your fair-to-middling or girl’s-blouse ranges, of nuclear capabilities, thank you.
How would the US do this, anyway? Does one North Korean nuclear warhead get one US nuclear warhead in exchange, or is it a 1:2 ratio response? 1:100?
Now, imagine what might change if Trump instead “affirmed the ironclad commitment” to use the full range of its capabilities, except nuclear weapons”. Sure, a handful of warmongers would call it a sign of weakness. In fact, it would be a sign of global leadership and the world would welcome it. I’m not holding my breath.
Ivanka needs to demonstrate that her own skill, education and experience got her there.