The Guardian’s editorial about Donald Trump’s latest illiberal act refers to the poem by Martin Niemöller about the way in which Germans in the 1930s turned a blind eye to Nazi outrages.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
In other words, pragmatism played into Hitler’s hands. As the Guardian notes, the reality of what Americans have done in electing Trump as their president “is only beginning to hit home.”
Day after day he is signing away human rights with executive orders. The latest is the ban on Syrian refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States: “a cruel, stupid and bigoted act, designed to hurt and divide.”
The Guardian, with Theresa May’s embarrassing endorsement of Trump’s election in mind, argues that nations proclaiming themselves to be Trump’s ally risk being implicated as supporters of his policies.
It asks: “Will anti-Trump Republicans stand up for law, justice and order, or will they bow the knee? Will Democrats mount an effective opposition?”
But its main question is aimed at May and her government, scorning her pragmatism: “She has been played for a sucker... She is deceiving herself if she thinks she can control Mr Trump... A line has been crossed in Washington.
“The public gets it. Sir Mo [Farah] gets it. The prime minister needs to get it too... Britain must not be, or be seen as, a lackey of possibly the worst leader the US has ever elected.”
I may be only one day away from this blog’s demise, but I’m mighty proud of working for the Guardian when I read those words. But what of the rest of the UK national press reaction to Trump’s immigration ban?
Here’s the pragmatic Daily Telegraph:
“First, Mr Trump is doing something that he promised voters he would do. Before his election, he was entirely open about restricting the entry of Muslims...
Second, and __more fundamentally, all nations have a right to control their borders.”
While conceding that the ban is unlikely to make America safer and the human cost of the ban “is unacceptably high”, the Telegraph applauds May’s response as “the right one.”
It concludes: “Mr Trump’s solution to the problems of immigration and extremism is controversial, but that does not mean those problems do not exist.”
And here’s the pragmatic Daily Mail:
The ban “was a crude stroke by Mr Trump... But brutal as it may be, it should not have come as a surprise.”
So how should May, and Britain, react? To bar Trump from Britain “would be an absurd over-reaction and hugely damaging to British interests.
“Yes, Mrs May must defend the interests of British citizens and she’s right to disagree with the severity of these measures. But isn’t it better to express these criticisms as a friend rather than an enemy?”
And here’s the pragmatic Sun:
“Angry keyboard warriors demand the prime minister lectures foreign countries over their democratically elected leaders...
Noisy virtue-signallers might prefer that Theresa May had condemned Trump’s ban at the first opportunity, but would it have helped our interests in the long run?...
Britain can best serve people of all faiths and nationalities by exerting its influence on the White House to promote greater understanding and acceptance.
It won’t win Mrs May many friends on social media, but it would be the actions of a true world power.”
And here’s the pragmatic Daily Express:
It opposes any suggestion that Trump’s state visit might be cancelled: “There may be issues on which our government will disagree with the new American administration.
“But to cut ourselves off from Washington would be absurd and completely unproductive. The effectiveness of continuing dialogue was shown by Mrs May herself at the weekend.
“Even those who dislike both the new president and the Tory government had to acknowledge that she handled the occasion with aplomb.”
With aplomb? Her cautious neutral statement in Turkey when questioned about Trump’s ban view was shameful.
Note also the adjacent article in the Express arguing that Trump has acted sensibly in imposing the ban.
The Times, I am sad to report, was also lured into a pragmatist response. It believed the ban would harm genuine refugees and exclude “well-meaning students and employees of American corporations.”
There was also an implied criticism of the prime minister for not being “quick to castigate the president in public.” But it excused her being “rightly solicitous of the good impression she made with the Mr Trump on her recent visit” because “she is keen to establish good trading relations.”
The Times said May “may also have concluded she can have more impact in private rather than by broadcasting her views through CNN and the BBC. She has... observed that there are more effective means of influencing him [Trump] than jumping on bandwagons.” Really? Where is the proof of that?
As for the call for Trump’s proposed state visit to be cancelled, the paper does not wish Britain “to antagonise Mr Trump with mass protests and snubs from politicians.”
Clearly, “British interests”, most obviously over trade because of Brexit, are the overriding concern for the pragmatists.
The Daily Mirror, at least, was having none of it: “The prime minister should inform the maverick US president that he is not welcome on a state visit, so no banquet with the Queen until he drops the grotesque bigotry.
“This crisis is a severe test of May’s pledge to be a ‘candid friend’ after the PM shamefully dodged, three times, criticising a policy that is light on evidence but heavy on prejudice.” Precisely. Principle counts more than pragmatism.