If you are 67, as I am, you grew up in the shadow of World War II, even though, of course, it was well and truly over by the time you were born.
My parents lived through the war. My father actually went to university in London during it, before doing his National Service. He was a fire watcher when the doodlebugs were falling. They, their friends, other relatives, and teachers all had memories of the war, as did my grandparents, although one of my grandfathers did die as a result of service in the Royal Navy and so was not around to tell me anything. That might, however, have fuelled my fascination.
Then, as I grew up, and the politics of that war and the issues leading up to it became as important as the events that took place on the battlefront, different questions emerged. One of those has long engaged me, not least because of my general feeling that war is never a solution to any known human conflict, and that is how I would have reacted to the rise of the very obvious threat from Hitler's Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In particular, would I have been on the side of appeasement or rearmament?
We know, with the power of retrospect, that the UK only just about reacted in time to contain, but not defeat, the threat posed to it.
What we also know is that political reputations were made and lost over this issue, again very often in hindsight. That hindsight has, then, always shaped my understanding of what I might have felt, done, and said.
However, I think I now know. As is apparent from my recent posts here, because of my abhorrence of war, I am not an appeaser, as I believe it makes conflict much more likely. You only have to see playground bullies (because I suspect we all did this, and I was always one of the small boys in my year, so I had more than my fair share of experience with them) to understand how they operate, and to see that Trump shares their attitudes and modus operandi. Ultimately, you learn you only have one answer, and that is to stand up to them, which I last did at the cost of a broken nose, but with my pride intact.
What is it about our current politicians that means they do not get this? Were they the bullies? Or were they those who never stood up and challenged the abusers, never taking the blows as a consequence? I do not know the answers to those questions, but what I do know is that what they are doing now represents a profound betrayal of the trust that they ask us to place in them.
It is not grandstanding to call out Trump for what he is.
It would not be inappropriate to boycott Mike Johnson's appearance in Parliament today, because the man and the regime he represents do not deserve the honour he is being given.
And it is straightforward cowardice at this moment to fail to call out the political philosophy to which Trump subscribes, and which he is seeking to impose upon the world, which is fascism.
There is a moral to note. It is that you should never accommodate fascists, whoever they are, and wherever they arise. They subscribe to the power of might. I believe in the politics of care. There is very little that reconciles the two.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Make an enemy of the USA? You clearly have no understanding of politics or the real world. I suppose it is easy to be ideologically pietistic sitting at a keyboard.
Have you not noticed that the USA has made an enemy of us, whilst deliverng fascism in and beynf its borders?
What do you want? That fascism succeed?
We are not making an enemy of the US – they are making an enemy of themselves
What is your ‘red line’ or do you not have one ?
I’d start by immediately cancelling today’s visit – whose bloody idea was this anyway, and what did the US do to deserve this ?
Much to agree with
Making an enemy of the US is a terrible idea and will cause great harm – I don’t think Richard is under any illusion about this.
The trouble is that one reaches a point where continuing to embrace the US causes even greater harm.
Precisely.
If anyone thinks I am enjoying this oment they are seriously mistaken.
You forgot to suggest a solution. This blog is committed to solutions.
Trolling?
Sorry – the answer is call them out
And re-dedicate ourselves to democracy
Gordon Neufeld, Canadian child psychologist, describes two kinds of ‘Alpha’ behaviour in children who are lacking adequate adult supervision. When children have to step into the ‘Alpha Role’, some become bullies, but some become caretakers. There is a good way and a bad way to be strong. And there is a good way and a bad way to be in charge. As you say, the politics of care is the only correct alternative to the politics of might.
Accommodation agree it’s a good systemic practice explanation of the social process.
The pattern- the system around the abuser including in this case his coterie of Republicans, think by supplication they can placate and manage the abuser, but it doesn’t work it just emboldens and strengthens him. .As we see a year of this accommodation and Trump is in a more dangerous and disinhibited phase.
Sometimes the system may try to join in and use might, but in the case of callousness and accumulated power of such an abuser, the level of violence needed is beyond the means of most. The system is controlled by fear and mistrust – each within the system feels isolated and in a fight for their survival.
The answer is in solidarity.
Silence is consent.
Silence is compliance.
Silence is violence.
Solidarity is the strength that overcomes oppressors, true for small and large systems. Many Americans are doing just this.
Gavin Newsom is particularly skilful at this non violent resistance and calling out facist behaviour of a now disinhibited dangerous autocrat, and building strength.
Ubuntu!
Richard, is it beyond the remit of Funding the Future to have a think about the de-americanisation of the UK (also called deyankification)?
A fascist, imperial power has got it’s tendrils in nearly every aspect of our lives. How would a courageous state (and it’s true allies) begin to untangle ourselves from our over-reliance of American Empire? Something to muse on?
I am thinking about it
For the UK to take coordinated action with other nations, we must know what they’re doing. Here’s a summary of Government and Citizen actions. Hope you don’t mind, but I used ChatGPT to generate this.
Canada
Government: Actively diversifying trade away from the US, including deeper engagement with the EU, Indo-Pacific partners, and China where feasible. Uses targeted retaliatory tariffs to signal resistance while avoiding self-harm. Reinforces multilateralism through the WTO and CPTPP.
Citizens: Visible “buy non-US” sentiment, including preference for Mexican and domestic goods, and public resistance to perceived US bullying.
Denmark / Greenland
Government: Firm, unified defence of Greenland’s sovereignty; close coordination with EU and NATO allies; increased security presence and investment in Greenland to remove any pretext for external intervention.
Citizens: Large public demonstrations in Denmark and Greenland rejecting any US claim; strong national consensus.
European Union (collectively)
Government: Preparing coordinated retaliation to US tariffs; signalling readiness to use the Anti-Coercion Instrument; accelerating trade agreements with non-US partners; strengthening strategic autonomy in energy, defence, and technology.
Citizens: Growing support for European supply chains and reduced dependence on US technology, defence, and finance.
United Kingdom
Government: Publicly avoids confrontation but aligns with EU and NATO positions on sovereignty; explores trade diversification while protecting US market access; increases defence cooperation with European partners.
Citizens: Limited mobilisation so far, but rising concern among civil society and unions about vulnerability to US trade coercion.
Mexico
Government: Combines tactical accommodation on migration with trade diversification toward the EU and Asia; uses selective and rotating tariffs to complicate US pressure.
Citizens: Economic nationalism is growing, but protest activity remains focused on domestic impacts rather than US politics.
China
Government: Frames US actions as violations of international norms; responds with calibrated retaliation; accelerates non-US trade, payments systems, and diplomatic blocs such as BRICS.
Citizens: Public opinion largely shaped through state media rather than independent mobilisation.
Latin America (Brazil and others)
Government: Broad effort to reduce reliance on US markets; renewed emphasis on South–South trade and EU relations; cautious diplomatic distancing from US pressure.
Citizens: Limited direct mobilisation; emphasis remains on economic resilience rather than sovereignty disputes.
Overall pattern
The dominant response is collective economic insulation rather than direct confrontation: diversify trade, reinforce multilateral rules, share retaliatory burdens, and reduce exposure to unilateral US leverage. Citizen action matters most where sovereignty is explicit; elsewhere, economic behaviour is the main tool.
I remember as a child walking over Purdown with my parents and my mother describing being up there as a fire watcher and watching Bristol burn.
She also talked about ‘misdirecting fire engines’ although that would not be like her and I have seen a photo of her in her AFS uniform.
Dont forget that it was the firemen and women who also died defending their country
Agreed
My father was on London roofs – in the Strand – in the blackout whilst stuydying electrical engineering in the day.
Better than being on the frontline though, I guess.
The state wanted engineers.
I’ve just listened to the appeasement broadcast from Committee Room 14 in Commons.
Speaker Hoyle, and Lords Speaker Forsyth grovelled, no other word for it.
Speaker Johnson lectured, the Headmaster gave us our orders – a comprehensive dressing down on MAGA values and a clear warning on wokeism in respect of history.
David Lammy clapped enthusiastically with a big smile on his face.
But it wasn’t Westminster Hall, and there weren’t many people there.
I feel a mixture of deep anger and profound shame.
I have spoken in Committee Room 14.
Let’s contextualise this: that is no big hnour, thankfully.
But the nodding idiots still tutned up.