John Hain
It would be silly to suggest that Donald Trump sets out to embarrass the United States on a global scale. At this point, it is obvious that the shaming of the country he has promised to defend “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” comes as naturally to Trump as the shaming of himself on an “Access Hollywood” bus.
The issue with this President is not intent, but instinct. Something drives Trump toward the steep cliff of atrociousness and then impels him to leap into the abyss: with his warm embrace of autocrats and totalitarians; with his ignorant rejections of international alliances that could redress violence and a climate crisis that makes everything worse; with his provocations of leaders who actually want to be allies; and with his crude physical expressions of a rather too obvious inferiority complex. This man, who elbowed aside the prime minister of Montenegro in order to get to the front of a photograph at a NATO summit, has revealed himself as the very embodiment of the ugly American.
Domestically, the President’s words and deeds are jaw-dropping. Internationally, they are terrifying.
There can be no doubt that Donald Trump harms America with each step he takes on the global stage. But why? Why is a billionaire businessman who has traveled for decades in the cosmopolitan circles of New York City and cities around the world, behaving like such a rube, and in such destructive ways?
In part, the answer lies in his own ignorance and his steady refusal to surround himself with even minimally competent advisers.
This man, who elbowed aside the prime minister of Montenegro in order to get to the front of a photograph at a NATO summit, has revealed himself as the very embodiment of the ugly American.
But sometimes, what motivates Donald Trump is so starkly evident, so blatantly obvious, that the truth cannot be denied. In such moments, to suggest that the President’s pronouncements are rooted in anything but the sheer, dumb bigotry of religious intolerance would be practically and morally wrong.
In the latter category goes the nasty obsession that Trump has developed with London Mayor Sadiq Khan. It has been obvious for some time now that Trump does not like the mayor of the city that remains so central to the planet that Greenwich Mean Time literally begins there. What has now been made abundantly clear is that this dislike is rooted not in disagreement over political ideology or governing agendas, but in the fact that Mayor Khan is one of the most prominent Muslim elected officials in the world—and that Khan has warned the world about Trump’s crudely divisive pronouncements regarding Islam and the religion’s followers.
After the horrific June 3 terrorist attack in London, Trump took the vitriol to new extremes. The President deliberately mischaracterized Khan’s response to a deadly assault that left seven dead and dozens injured in the center of the city. Then he kept on attacking Khan, going so far as to describe the mayor’s response as “pathetic.”
Trump was wrong on the facts. More importantly, he was wrong on the diplomatic standard that is required for the United States to be a credible participant in increasingly complex and demanding international deliberations.
It is by now well understood that Trump has no qualms about exploiting terrorist incidents for political gain. He has done this since before he became a presidential contender in 2015, and each day of his presidency confirms that the abuses will continue.
It is equally well understood that Trump has no qualms about inflaming religious, racial, ethnic, ideological, regional, and class divisions for political gain. He did this during the 2016 campaign, and nothing about the first months of his presidency suggests that he will ever stop.
But Trump’s recent wrangling with European leaders has brought a deeper understanding of how, and why, this presidency is dangerous to the United States and the world.
Donald Trump is so profoundly ill-informed about international relations that he imagines he will be allowed to play his domestic political games in London, Paris, Bonn, Amman, Pretoria, Beijing, and Tokyo.
He can’t. It doesn’t work that way.
Trump’s effort to impose his undeveloped and unexamined personal will on the world is causing foreign officials to lose confidence in the United States as an informed, engaged, and credible ally. That’s what happened in late May, when, after meeting with Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced, “The times when we could fully rely on others are to some extent over. I experienced that in the last few days.” As such, said Merkel, “We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.”
Trump confirmed Merke’s observation days later, when he went after London’s mayor at the worst possible moment
Sadiq Khan, a veteran political figure who is fast becoming one of the most respected urban leaders in the world, faced an overwhelming challenge on the night of June 3. And he met it, gaining high marks for leaping into action following the violent June 3 assault on his city by men who have since been linked with Islamic extremist groups.
“I'm appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners and bystanders enjoying their Saturday night,” Khan declared immediately after the attack. The mayor of the city of nine million coordinated London’s response, commended the swift and courageous work of public-safety personnel, grieved for the victims, and promised Londoners that “just like terrorists are constantly evolving and finding new ways to disrupt us, harm us, attack us, the police and experts and all of us are finding new ways to keep us safe.”
To that end, Khan explained, “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed.”
Trump took this highly responsible and easily understood message and twisted it into an excuse to condemn Khan; tweeting: “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed’!”
The blowback came quickly. Prime Minister Theresa May, the leader of the Conservative Party that is running against Khan’s Labour Party in the June 8 British general election said: “I think Sadiq Khan is doing a good job and it’s wrong to say anything else.” A tweet from the U.S. embassy Twitter account, attributed to Lewis Lukens, the acting U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, hailed Khan’s response: “I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack.”
London’s popular papers ripped into Trump. “Donald Trump uses London terror attack to twist Sadiq Khan'’s words as he trolls capital’s mayor,” declared the Daily Mirror headline, which added: “The President's tweet is just one in a string of messages making a political point out of the massacre that left seven dead just hours earlier.” American commentators joined a chorus of condemnation of the absurd tweet.
Instead of backing down, the President doubled down. The day after his initial attack on Khan, Trump tweeted, “Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his ‘no reason to be alarmed’ statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!”
Trump was clearly picking a fight. Initially, Khan was having none of it. A spokesman for the mayor said, "He has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police—including armed officers—on the streets."
Trump was clearly picking a fight. Initially, Mayor Khan was having none of it.
Others spoke on the mayor’s behalf. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared, “Mayor Sadiq Khan is doing an extraordinary job supporting Londoners in a time of pain. President Trump's attack on him is unacceptable.” CNBC’s John Harwood argued that by renewing his attack on a Muslim mayor from a staunch ally in the wake of terrorist violence, “Trump offers (an) extraordinary glimpse into his state of mind.” Todd Green, the former U.S. State Department adviser who is the author of Fear of Islam: An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, observed, “It’s hard not to conclude that Trump’s attack on Khan is based in deeply rooted anti-Muslim racism.”
An increasingly hapless White House communications team has pushed back against the charges, calling expressions of concern about anti-Muslim bias on the President’s party "utterly ridiculous."
But the record says those concerns are well founded.
Even before his election as mayor in May, 2016, Khan had emerged as a global spokesman on urban issues and human rights. While American media tends to ignore mayors, not to mention presidents, prime ministers and chancellors, from other countries, Khan’s rise was seen as an international counterbalance to the narrow nationalism, constant belligerence, scaremongering and dramatically ill-advised policies that constitute the international program of Trumpism.
A member of the British Parliament, Khan served as minister of state for communities and minister of state for transport in the last Labour Party government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In opposition, he served as the United Kingdom’s shadow secretary of state for justice, shadow lord chancellor, and shadow minister for London.
Khan entered London’s 2016 mayoral race as a highly engaged and experienced leader of his party and his country.
Khan campaign to lead one of the world’s great cities relied heavily on his personal story, with the candidate declaring, “My story is a story of London. My father was a bus driver and my mother sewed clothes.” He said he wanted “all Londoners to have the same opportunities that our city gave me: a home they can afford, a high-skilled job with decent pay, an affordable and modern transport system and a safe, clean and healthy environment.”
The Khan campaign was sufficiently issue-oriented and visionary to lead The Guardian newspaper to end its endorsement of the Labour Party candidate by writing, “London should vote, and vote enthusiastically, for Citizen Khan.”
London agreed, electing Khan with 57 percent of the vote to serve, headlines around the world announced, as “the first Muslim mayor of any major Western city.” His mandate was clear, unlike that of Trump, who won just 46 percent of the popular vote in the popular vote in the United States and ran behind his main opponent.
Khan’s election, as the Muslim child of immigrants from Pakistan, with roots in the working-class neighborhoods and traditions of a diverse city, suggested a world of possibilities. And U.S. mayors, such as New York’s de Blasio, said they looked forward to working with the new mayor on a host of issues. But there was a concern. As former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt (who has served as a European Union and United Nations special envoy) noted in a post-election tweet: “A Muslim elected as new mayor of London. Will be banned from visiting the U.S. under a Trump presidency?”
Khan’s election, as the Muslim child of immigrants from Pakistan, with roots in the working-class neighborhoods and traditions of a diverse city, suggested a world of possibilities.
It was not an unreasonable question. When Trump was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign released a statement declaring that “Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
During a campaign appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, Trump was asked whether airline representatives, customs agents, or border guards would demand to know the religion of travelers.
“They would say, ‘Are you Muslim?’” replied Trump.
“And if they said, ‘Yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?” asked interviewer Willie Geist.
“That’s correct,” answered Trump.
Trump would eventually list some exemptions to the “total and complete shutdown.” According to The Washington Post, they included “Muslim leaders of foreign countries.” The mayor of London is not precisely a Muslim leader of a foreign country, however, and journalists wondered whether he would he be subject to the restrictions Trump kept proposing.
Khan, a lawyer who had specialized in human rights and who chaired the British civil liberties group Liberty before becoming mayor, heard the questions. His response was pointed.
“It’s too easy to dismiss Donald Trump as a buffoon—to point and laugh at a man whose worldview is as ridiculous as his hairdo. But to do so is to make light of a very serious threat,” Khan wrote before he was elected mayor. “Trump is just the latest public figure to articulate a growing wave of Islamophobia across the western world. His shocking views justify the actions of those who commit hate crimes and worse, play into the hands of terrorists such as Daesh [the Islamic State]—making Britain less safe.”
Khan argued that Trump’s words “must not be ignored or laughed off. We must take Islamophobia seriously, because it’s not just Muslims that are at risk—it’s all of our safety.”
After Khan’s election, Trump suggested that he might make an exception to any travel ban in order to allow entry by the mayor of London. But the new mayor refused to play along. He said the right to travel freely, and to be treated with respect, should not be subject to the whim of crassly populist politicians. "This isn't just about me—it's about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world," he explained.
Over the ensuring year, the stories of Trump and Khan—the billionaire son of privilege and the working-class son of a public employee both elected in 2016—advanced along parallel tracks. When they intersected after the London terror attack, Trump was handed an opportunity to offer a grace note. He could have complimented a mayor who, by all accounts, was doing a brilliant job. He chose instead to provoke confusion and conflict.
Imagine if the British prime minister had attacked the mayor of Orlando after the Pulse nightclub shootings in June 2016 for alerting the people of that city to an increased police presence and counseling everyone to remain calm. That is what Trump did with his initial tweet about Khan But it was Trump’s continued assault on the mayor that confirmed the President’s anti-Muslim bigotry. It is this sort of intolerance—which so concerned the founders of the American experiment that they erected a constitutional bar to religious tests and built “a wall of separation” between church and state—that threatens American safety and our core ideals.
When Kahn was finally drawn into the debate over Trump’s tweet, he was appropriately blunt.
Objecting to the idea of welcoming a state visit by Trump, Khan said, “I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the President of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for.” And, in a television interview, he reminded the world how longtime allies are supposed to act: “You stand with them in times of adversity but you call them out when they are wrong. There are many things about which Donald Trump is wrong.”
Trump may not take those words to heart, but Americans must do so—not for the mayor’s sake, but for our own.
John Nichols is a longtime contributor to The Progressive and the Washington correspondent for The Nation.