The meeting started with a brief report on the funeral of Jill Cheatle in Sheffield attended by two members of the Committee. It was a Humanist ceremony and well attended. One of Jill’s daughters said she had received many messages from Democracy Café for which they were extremely grateful and very touched.
The Café took place two weeks after the latest round of violence in the Middle East with the bombing of Iran and latterly Lebanon, by Israeli and US forces. This prompted the first question: Was Sir Keir Starmer’s response, by not committing the UK to offensive action, correct? Sir Keir had resisted requests from the White House to become more actively involved and to give permission for British bases to be used by the Americans. He had subsequently permitted their use for defensive purposes.
The first response was to say the UK should have stayed out altogether. It was claimed that Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, had ‘blind-sided’ the US into a precipitate war for which there were no specific objectives. ‘Does he [Donald Trump] know what he wants someone asked? The idea that the Iranians would rise up seems extremely unlikely.
There was also a risk of ‘mission creep’ if indeed it isn’t already taking place. It was suggested that the ultimate reason for the current action was oil. It was behind the Venezuelan adventure which may have led Trump to do a repeat exercise. It was suggested that China was about to agree a major oil deal with Iran. Perhaps that was a reason as well?
Several agreed that the prime minister’s decision was the right one, ‘pragmatic’ it was said. We did not want another Iraq.
The death of over 100 school girls in a strike was almost certainly due to faulty intelligence. However, the Secretary for War has evaded answers and President Trump tried to argue it was Iran itself which did it due to faulty guidance systems. Iran does not possess tomahawk missiles.
Spain’s refusal to help was noted and largely approved of. This prompted the question, should there not have been a European response? This was unlikely in view of Hungary which would side with Russian interests.
The effects of unintended consequences was introduced since the effects on the world economy has been swift and dramatic. Stock markets around the world have fallen and prospects of growth are now bleak. Did the Americans factor in the strangulation of the Gulf of Hormuz? Would in fact many Americans know where it was? It was suggested the US would have done it anyway.
It was pointed out that the US was isolated and had not been invaded in any modern sense. This might lead them to behave in a detached way about wars of this nature safe in the knowledge they are never likely to be invaded.
The discussion moved onto the irrational nature of the decision making. How was it possible to control the behaviour of tyrants? A question without an answer.
The 1964 film Dr Strangelove was mentioned which did have a kind of relationship with the situation today. Filmed as a satire it still managed to throw light on the madness of the military and political mind. It did portray the idea that the solution to political problems was by bombing and the use of force in that case Russia.
An interesting debate where essentially people felt that Sir Keir Starmer was right to keep the UK out of an aggressive role in this latest war.
This led onto the second debate on Why do Americans like Trump when the rest of the world doesn’t? It was quickly mentioned that he enjoys strong support from Evangelical Christians. Those with some experience of the US noted things like the obsession with the great replacement theory of Renaud Camus. The West (not just the US) are at risk of being overrun by people with foreign cultures like Islam according to his theory. The ‘Second Coming’ was also mentioned. They were also conscious of English becoming spoken by fewer than half the population sometime in the future. These pathologies may explain some of the obsession with states like Iran.
Trump’s ability to put across simple messages was a factor. He provided straightforward answers to complex questions. America was being ‘ripped off’ by the rest of the world so put tariffs on imports. A simple solution which millions voted for. Wrong but it didn’t matter.
Such simplistic thinking wasn’t confined to the US it was noted: think Nigel Farage using the same playbook (and was a great friend of Trump).
Poor education in many parts of America was mentioned (by someone who has lived there).
Some Americans are worried by some ‘leftist’ ideas such as sex change for example. They resist such ideas, are uncomfortable with them and vote Republican because of them.
Someone asked if Americans at all concerned at his mental health? Do they know was an answer since much of the media is in his camp so to speak. There are news reports and considerable speculation but it doesn’t seem to matter.
MAGA is key it was suggested – an echo of the simplistic argument above. However, a programme on Radio 4 had suggested the MAGA base was splitting and the reason was foreign wars. ‘No foreign wars’ was a promise and Iran hardly fits into that. The extremely powerful pro-Israel lobby was mentioned.
An interesting point was suggested based on the book ‘Women’s Reality’ a commentary on white males who run so much of our society. The argument seemed to be that this system was in its death throws.
What can we believe? A question we have frequently debated with the rise of disinformation and propaganda online. It was important to hold onto some of our key institutions such as the BBC and the NHS. If we lost those, especially to American organisations, we would truly be doomed it was argued.
It was wondered if we might have a McCarthy moment. His influence suddenly and precipitately waned in 1964 having wielded huge influence and caused many to lose their jobs because of alleged communist sympathies. Could this ‘bubble bursting’ moment happen with Trump it was wondered? However, it did not follow that Americans would vote for someone sensible to follow him.
At one point, it was asked if we could have a vote to come to some kind of conclusion. This followed comments by people who felt the debates were open ended and some wanted a conclusion. Opinions were sharply divided. There were some who liked the idea but others were agin. The value of the debates was precisely because we did not come to a conclusion. We exchanged ideas and opinions and hoped to learn from others about topics of the moment.
Book mentioned:
Women’s Reality, 1981, Anne Wilson Schaef, Harper San Francisco, pub
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 