[dofm]

I love the Atlantic but here we go again: Americans defining Britain in American terms as if they are the ineffable, indisputable default.

The USA, right now, is heading into its own Suez crisis, with a de facto king attacking its democracy, and literally cannot even organise a proper birthday party at the most prestigious address in the world.

The UK has many problems we must grapple with, but I think, maybe, right now is not the time to argue from a US default position. Not least while your three vice president ghouls (Musk, Vance and Rubio) are so loudly cheering for us and all of Europe to fail.

To quote your first king, clean up your own backyard.

[havblue]

I doubt there are many people at the Atlantic who voted for Trump and the author has worked for the Economist before. So I'm not sure what you're asking for, unless you're saying he should move back to London if he's to write about the UK.

[dofm]

Ahh well if he worked for the Economist that explains it. Sorry, I didn't realise.

I didn't suggest that Trump voting was the problem. Americans of literally all political persuasions have simply no idea how this country actually works. There is a level of ignorance that is often comical.

The reverse is not true in quite the same way. If you were to ask an American to name UK political figures, most cannot. Whereas our coverage of your political system is such that anyone with a passing interest in politics can _really_ get into it on US politics; it's a very asymmmetric experience that is hard to explain.

[BobbyTables2]

Always wondered whether that was driven by desire for enlightenment or one of caution.

If I were in a fine China shop, I would be mindful of the location of the bull running amok.

[dofm]

I mean to some extent we want to understand America because it is where — at least until recently — we all assumed we were culturally headed. When I was a kid there was a strong feeling (incorrect, in retrospect) that the USA was sort of five, ten years ahead on everything good and bad — shopping malls, carphones, hip hop, fashion, cinema, sci-fi. That everything was less expensive and more vibrant and fun. And I think Gen X in particular has grown up feeling that understanding the USA is valuable and enjoyable in that way (because it was). Gen X here in the UK and Europe loved the USA as kids, as the boomers had.

There was a blip during the Bush Jr era where I think our view of the USA fell into a sort of mixture of pity and anger, and we began to understand that there were, from our perspective, two Americas that fall either side of us; one more brash and progressive than us and one that loathed us that we saw as regressive and cruel (overly religious etc.).

Now it has gone from adoration/fascination to horror/fascination, frankly. And the urgency to understand what is happening to the USA is only accelerating, because of the cultural merger of UK/EU and US far right extremism.

During Trump 1 we would say, not all Americans are like that; we'd still be partitioning the USA into the ones we have some recognition for and those who make us feel queasy. We coped with Trump 1 the way we coped with GWB.

Nowadays, I believe you will find that people understand that it doesn't really matter if there are these two Americas; functionally we can no longer treat you as anything other than homogenous.

We cannot trust the USA to share our values or come to our aid even as we host military bases; a USA that can do nothing to stop Elon Musk agitating for violence on our streets is one we do not have positive feelings for, and a USA whose vice president actively denigrates our culture is just so out of the ordinary.

(And as a narrative quirk I think a lot of this has roots in the most simple of stories that illuminated it — that of Harry Dunn, Anne Sacoolas and diplomatic immunity. Trump and Mnuchin handled that so insultingly that it left a lasting impact; Biden had his work cut out to fix it.)

The last time the USA appeared to not be on our side in consequential issues to this extent is when Joseph Kennedy was ambassador. We are back there, now. Back in the late 1930s relationship with the USA that was profoundly distrustful.

It doesn't help that this is actually blended, fully, with growing distrust for the tech industry, which is the biggest cultural challenge of the next decade. We (only partially incorrectly) perceive tech culture's impositions on and disregard for British culture as being American impositions.

I think we accept now that this has happened and it will not be reset; we won't suddenly forget it all in 2029. But we still have to understand you.

[BobbyTables2]

I think a lot of us Yanks are having similar realizations too!

The (US) Civil War seemed like distant history in school. But I’ve come to realize there are a lot of people that still seem to live with the prejudice from those times.

The war ended but the problems never went away. Can’t help but wonder if Reconciliation was such a good idea. One half the country might be quite happy not dealing with the other.

I also used to not understand how Protestants and Catholics could fight (Ireland). Almost seems odd both being Christian. Of course, I was extremely blind to the religious divides long existing here too.

[dofm]

Sectarian divides are always complex if you’re the outsider, I think. Like the Troubles in Ireland, or Hutus vs Tutsis in Rwanda, or Pol Pot’s purges: from the outside it is like, how can they be so immediately sure who is who? Whereas on the inside, your membership of one or other group is always obvious: it’s a socially indelible distinction used to doom people to one or the other, and the smallness of the distinction is often the point. (MAGA vs America First could end up like this)

I used to think that people on the mainland like me could never fully and instinctively understand who was who (and why) in the Troubles. But this week, the problems in Belfast, it is somehow instinctively obvious which side of the old sectarian divide the energy behind that violence is coming from, even though arguably the so-called “justification” (immigration) affects both sides of the Troubles divide more or less equally and the supposed provocation (actually more or less a pretext) happened in an area associated with the other one.

I think most people here in the UK just knew, immediately, from the tone of it.

[pb7]

>Whereas our coverage of your political system is such that anyone with a passing interest in politics can _really_ get into it on US politics; it's a very asymmmetric experience that is hard to explain.

I don't share your enthusiasm in this being a good thing. In fact, this is a common problem I've noticed over the last decade in that Europeans feel like they know the US and are qualified to comment on issues by virtue of consuming movies and political media of a certain spin (like all media). You are simply consuming someone's opinion with little to no opportunity to validate it against day to day life.

[dofm]

Oh I don't think it is a good thing, at all.

But this time round in particular, it is absolutely a thing. People in Denmark, for example, have no choice but to understand at some level the internal cabinet politics of the USA. Because they need to know, when JD Vance turns up, who is he actually talking for? What does it mean if he refuses to rule something out? What real power is there in his confidence?

It's the same as needing to know, if Biden offered something, what was the likelihood of it simply being torn up by a returning Trump.

The asymmetry comes from scale: the UK and individual EU countries needed to know a lot more about the internal directions of a country six times our size, because those internal directions will very much affect us.

It is changing, because the EU is finding its collective voice this time round, whereas in Trump 1 they still had to worry that individual countries might not wish to follow a party line. Now everyone understands the stakes of not having an aligned voice, and the UK is in a position to at least sing the harmony.

[lucasRW]

Musk, Vance and Rubio are cheering for Europe to wakeup. Quite the opposite of what you say.

[dofm]

Explicit US foreign policy seeks to undermine the EU — literally meddling in favour of people who wish to see the EU federally weakened.

And Musk argues for violence, including at far-right rallies.

This is not some positive, friendly, brotherly call for us to wake up — it's an argument for white supremacy (as most recently outlined by Pete Hegseth, weekend TV anchor turned defence secretary).

[lucasRW]

Hmmm... the only people that have "federally weakened" the EU are those that made that continent much poorer and less powerful than it was 20, 30 years ago. So you are correct partially: the US, throughout the second half of the second century, have seeked to weaken Europe and successfully done so (all indicators are worst now than they've ever been in Europe).

[pb7]

You have a literal king, so maybe you shouldn't criticize them lest the coppers show up at your doorstep. Our "king" was democratically elected and has so little power he can't even organize a birthday party as you say, let alone do anything else.

[dofm]

> so maybe you shouldn't criticize them lest the coppers show up at your doorstep.

Not sure what you imagine the UK is like but we literally don't have lèse majesté laws, so there is no legal basis for that to happen. It does not happen. (And no, merely saying it online isn't a basis either).

Apart from stupid comedy overreactions at the coronation protests that exasperated us all and saw significant pushback (our police lean so firmly against use of force at protests that they sometimes do silly things in the name of stopping "disruption"), we have a rich, varied, centuries-long tradition of being able to soundly criticise our monarchy.

Indeed we did so with such efficiency recently that our king actually listened and took his own brother's title, powers and roles away.

Meanwhile there are people in the USA fighting lawsuits over being falsely imprisoned for saying true things about Charlie Kirk.

[codeduck]

You're arguing with people who don't understand the word Parliament in the term "Parliamentary Democracy". Just nod, tut, and move on, it will be better for your mental health.

[dofm]

Funnily enough I am OK about this stuff, these days.

It would be absurd to pretend that we don't have problems; we obviously have problems. And things are extremely bad right now, especially with our former transatlantic friends actively agitating the situation.

But internationally it has got a lot easier to see our problems with clarity in the last year and a half, and a lot easier to argue that every significant country has its difficulties.

[SanjayMehta]

They keep saying Trump has been impeached twice but he's still around. Does impeach mean something else in American English?

I don't understand why he's labelled as "impeached" when the final outcome was acquitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_T...

[qingcharles]

Sure, there is a guy with a title of King, but this isn't some medieval fairytale ruler. The British monarchy has effectively zero power over the country and its population and are simply there for historical reasons and to continue making the country a rather lovely tourist destination.

[dofm]

Username noted, alright your maj?

The monarchy simultaneously has zero power and all the power.

In the sense that it is the entity in whose name the government acts on behalf of the people: it's the representation of the state.

In principle, the monarch could refuse royal assent. In practice, if it did, the entire unwritten constitutional convention that preserves it would collapse.

So in practice, the monarch is the head of state in the same way that the Irish or Israeli presidencies are: it's non-executive, with relatively little indirect influence. "My government will" means "the government will". A formality.

[qingcharles]

You are absolutely correct that they still do hold the power, but don't wield it. There have been times, though, that I almost wish they would :)

[cassianoleal]

That's not _quite_ right.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

[dofm]

As the article explains, Queen’s/King’s consent is a parliamentary decision. It is part of the balance struck; consent is always granted. If it were not, it would trigger a constitutional crisis.

This is somewhat like asking your girlfriend’s parents for permission to ask her to marry you. You are going to do it anyway; they cannot stop you. They do, however, have a bit more life experience than you and that discussion might be valuable, and it is literally tradition to ask; the process allows you to consider and discuss that things have lifelong consequences and more.

In the case of the late queen, prime ministers appeared to enjoy and value the opportunity to talk completely privately with someone who had more experience of the process than anyone else.

Is it eccentric, nuanced and odd, yes. Does it sometimes give the monarch a little time to digest changes to the royal finances or rattle on about tradition, or bend their PM’s ear about how an equerry was shadily wheel-clamped in a Windsor pub car park, yes. Could it be seriously corrupted by the monarch, maybe. Has it been? I kind of doubt it. Again, there are no lèse majesté laws. We can critique the process and prime ministers have.

Power is complicated. The British monarchy as representation of the state holds it in a form directed by government, but as they are people, they have the right to understand what they are doing. This is a balance struck over almost a thousand years.

Would I prefer a republic, yeah. Do I think our next king wonders how long the monarchy has in its current form, yes. But I think we will get to a republic over the next hundred years, shrinking the monarchy progressively in the way that other european countries have.

All of this nuance tends to confuse or annoy Americans and provoke romantic chest-beating about the power being vested in “we the people” etc. But I would contend that a lack of cultural understanding about the complexity of wielding power, and how it can be used against itself, is why the USA is in the situation it is in right now. Power is complicated and amoral; using it right is a matter of conventions as much as convictions.

[SanjayMehta]

He's organising a 250th birthday party, complete with an octagonal UFC ring on the White House lawns, so there's that.