Dear progressives, stop being wimpish on Trump

Does being liberally inclined mean being a bit of a wimp? Might that explain why so many people with strong convictions about what is fair, good for society and right, albeit generally veering a little towards the left, choose not to protest too loudly against what they perceive as very wrong?

Justification for them to be outraged could hardly be more plentiful and yet vigorous public condemnation seems relatively muted. The behaviour of the Trump administration is beyond anything that just a few years ago, might have been imagined coming from a government of the USA. It is dispiriting but nonetheless understandable that leaders of other administrations in the west are wary of being too outspoken in their comments: the need to retain workable relationships with the world’s most powerful nation, albeit it is led by an unpredictable, unprincipled, mad megalomaniac, have to influence their thinking. Opposition leaders who dream of taking charge of their countries whilst Trump is still in power might feel similarly constrained.

But why are other powerful voices not shrieking their disgust at the appalling language being hurled around by Trump and his unimaginably gruesome sidekick, Pete Hegseth? In the States, a few brave Democrats have dared to challenge him and some of the loudest condemnation has come from a former Trump supporter, George Conway.

Some celebrities, particularly George Clooney, have been vehemently critical: early in Trump’s first term the movie star accused him of showing that he was “incapable of being president of the US. Clooney has recently ventured to suggest that the president’s recent outbursts amounted to threatening to commit a war crime yet, while that was more than enough to generate fury from the accused, it would barely register on the Richter scale of outrage.

Meanwhile, the world seems almost resigned to the extraordinary enrichment of the Trump family during his time in office. We have had to become accustomed to many leaders enriching themselves as a perk of the job: in parts of Africa, for instance, it was a major incentive for getting involved in politics and there is still some dispute over how many palaces Vladimir Putin may have amassed as he has reigned over Russia. This was not, however, what was expected in the west.

Suggested Reading

Trump has devastated Iran – and damaged himself

Steve Anglesey

That Gerhard Schroder, as Germany’s chancellor, was prepared to agree a pipeline deal with Russia only to take on a position with the company involved 17 days after leaving office and then, shortly afterwards, become chairman of the organisation and take on major roles in two leading Russian energy companies wrought much criticism almost 20 years ago but looks puny compared with the blatant money-grabbing now going on in the US.

A long-standing convention that those in public office should not gain financial benefit from their role has been flouted with extraordinary ostentation by the president. Estimates to the extent of his leveraging the presidency vary but it seems to have added at least $1.4billion to his fortune in the year to February. While various organisations try to keep a tally – Bloomberg estimates the Trump wealth at around a billion more than Forbes’ last calculation of $6.5 billion. Yet, whatever the financial difficulties others may face as a result of the Iran war, the likelihood is that it has produced another massive upturn in the Trump fortunes.

Where is the public outcry against this egregious flouting of convention? Early attempts at having the president impeached quickly vanished, court cases were silenced and now opponents seem to have lost the will to fight. In the UK, the media can seem enthusiastic about reporting the US criticisms of the Starmer regime but Trump’s apparent corruption largely goes without comment.

There are still people prepared to take a public stand. For instance, in the UK, David (Lord) Alton is a particularly energetic campaigner against the Chinese persecution of the Uyghurs. And the Just Stop Oil campaigners have been enthusiastic about making their views very clear and risking imprisonment in the process.

Recently, supporters of Palestine’s right to thrive have been active in their campaigning and their chanting of the slogan “From the River to the Sea” could be characterised as highly aggressive by those who see things differently. Yet compared with the vigour with which the right pursue their cause, the opposition they face is muted, to say the least.

Perhaps the problem with being moderates is exactly that. There is, though, little to be gained by being reasonable when the opponent is anything but that. When Nigel Farage is preaching his Reform message through a megaphone, for the many moderates in the UK to shake their heads and refuse to watch GB News will have little impact. Critics must be braver and much louder – otherwise their opponents will triumph.

A reliance on sweet reasonableness cannot win when confronted with an opposition which will say whatever is required, no matter how untrue, to win the argument. The Brexit debacle could not be a more graphic example: the proponents had no care about facts, conjured up figures, and bombarded the public with their argument. The Remain campaign was convinced it had right on its side and relied on the good sense of the public to agree.

That is not enough, as we learned. Those who feel strongly need to shout very loudly. It may well be that the ability to do so online and anonymously has enabled people to let off steam that way but it is not going to have the impact of named individuals going public with their views. And when they see the atrocities being committed today, public figures should be brave enough to shout their condemnation until they are hoarse.