Donald Trump’s achilles heel is that he is truly un-American | Jonathan Freedland

His threats of violence, like his suggestion that minorities are not real citizens, are a violation of the country’s most sacred ideals

We may not notice when fascism creeps up on us: we may be too busy laughing. They say that clever people struggled to take the rise of the 1930s demagogues seriously. They found the strutting dictators in their silly uniforms just too ridiculous. And in some cases, derision was the right response. Britain’s own would-be Hitler, Oswald Mosley, was mocked into oblivion by PG Wodehouse’s fictional version, Roderick Spode.

Donald Trump similarly invites laughter. We are appalled but we are also amused. He is funny. The way he delivers a line, the way he repeats a phrase – “Not good, folks. Not good” – the way he tramples over every taboo. He has a comic’s gifts. But there’s a danger in this laughter. It can lower our guard.

Related: Donald Trump: I was being sarcastic about Obama and Isis

There was a time when a single deception could ruin a politician. But Trump doesn't play by the usual rules

Continue reading...

Chakrabarti’s ultimate problem

The first thing to say about Shami Chakrabarti's nomination for a peerage is that by any standards, and especially in comparison with many others who've received the honour, she merits it. I've long argued that Britain's second chamber should be elected, not appointed but, as the system stands, Chakrabarti is worthy of a place in the Lords. Her long service at Liberty and her expertise on human rights make her eminently qualified.

Sadly, that is not the prime way her nomination - as the sole name put forward by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, breaking his earlier promise to appoint no peers - has been judged. Inevitably, because it came only five weeks after she had delivered her report into antisemitism and other forms of racism within the Labour party, the two have been linked, with the assumption that both are compromised. The allegation is that she delivered a whitewash in return for those ermine robes. Or, as the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, tweeted, "the credibility of her report lies in tatters."

The truth is, her report's credibility was not looking too healthy even before we learned of her imminent elevation. That's not because of what's in it: as far as it goes, it's a sensitive, carefully written document. (Full disclosure: I was one of many people Chakrabarti spoke to as part of her work.) Its flaws lie in how it was framed, how it was launched and what it left out.

The framing is not wholly her fault. Perhaps she can't be blamed for those who skipped over her references to the "hateful or ignorant attitudes" and "occasionally toxic atmosphere" she'd found within Labour, preferring to seize instead on the report's first sentence - "The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism" - as if it were a total exoneration, as if "not overrun by" meant "has no problem at all with". But that opening line was curious. The accusation was never that every last person in the Labour party was an antisemite, but rather that there was a problem on part of the left that needed tackling.

More troubling was how she launched the report. Her inquiry was meant to be independent, yet she presented it with Corbyn at her side. When Sir John Chilcot delivered his conclusions on the Iraq war, he did not do a joint press conference with Tony Blair. Yet there stood Chakrabarti and Corbyn, examiner and examined, standing shoulder to shoulder.

The report's author then did a round of media interviews in which she acted not as Labour's invigilator but its defender. More troubling, she sat behind Corbyn as he faced the Home Affairs select committee, handing him helpful notes as he testified, like a lawyer advising her client.

So Chakrabarti didn't need to get a peerage for us to suspect she had crossed the line from judge to advocate. Indeed, one legal blogger makes a good case that she may well have agreed to become a Labour peer months before the issue of an antisemitism inquiry arose. That would mean she was compromised, but in a different way –- already beholden to Corbyn before she started.

Which points towards the ultimate problem. One way or another, Chakrabarti felt she had to write a report that would be embraced, rather than rejected, by the Labour leader - if only because she did not want her work to be in vain. That inhibited her from probing deeper into the strain of left thinking that the leader himself personifies and which so often collides with Jewish sensitivities.

So it was Corbyn who did nothing when, at the very launch of the Chakrabarti report, an activist abused Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth, alleging that she was part of a media conspiracy, prompting Smeeth to flee in tears. (Afterwards, Corbyn chatted warmly with the activist.) It was Corbyn whose statement at that launch included a sentence carefully worded to do just enough to liken Israel to Isis while allowing him to deny he meant any such thing. (You don't usually speak of "self-styled Islamic states" if you want to refer to Iran or Pakistan.) And Corbyn, whose record suggests a willingness to look past nakedly antisemitic statements so long as they are uttered by those he deems sound on Israel/Palestine. (Think of his defence of Rev Stephen Sizer, suspended for circulating the claim that 9/11 was an Israeli plot.)

Chakrabarti's report went nowhere near any of this stuff. She preferred to believe Labour's current leadership is part of the solution. She did not confront the grimmer possibility that it is part of the problem.

Jonathan Freedland is a columnist for the Guardian

Whether leavers like it or not, Europe has a say on how Brexit will happen | Jonathan Freedland

Leaving the EU is not just about us – it’s about renegotiating our relationship with 27 other member states. Let’s hope the breakup is kind

One thing was missing from Britain’s referendum debate over Europe: Europeans. We argued and wrestled for months over the nature of our relationship with the continent, while the continent remained silent.

That was partly out of tact on their part. Europe’s politicians understood that so much as a raised eyebrow in the wrong place would have been interpreted as unacceptable meddling in British affairs and played straight into the hands of the Brexiteers. So they confined themselves to vague statements of affection and repeated the formula that this was a matter for the British people to decide.

Back then we blithely talked about the Norway model, sometimes tweaking it as if it were solely up to Britain to decide

Related: Think the north and the poor caused Brexit? Think again | Zoe Williams

Continue reading...

Corbyn can’t dismiss the importance of MPs. On Brexit, they’re centre stage | Jonathan Freedland

Parliament is where our European future will be determined and the leave campaigners know that. For Labour to pretend it doesn’t matter is a mistake

Labour’s internal agonies have been the dramatic sub-plot of this summer of turmoil. The important political news, the events that actually matter, are Brexit and the reshaping of the Tory government that will implement it. Labour’s slow-motion fratricide has been a sideshow: compelling viewing, but at first glance unrelated to the story that counts. While Jeremy Corbyn debates Owen Smith for the title of Labour’s Next Prime Minister – as the stage set for Thursday’s encounter in Cardiff had it – the actual prime minister is getting on with determining this country’s future.

Related: Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith's first leadership hustings: our writers' verdict

Confusion over Article 50

Continue reading...

Donald Trump’s treatment of a crying baby reveals his total lack of empathy | Jonathan Freedland

The Republican nominee’s castigation of a mother and her child at a rally could cause real damage. His support among women is low – and falling fast

There’s a reason why politicians pose with babies, a reason why the oldest photo-op in the campaign manager’s handbook is of a candidate holding, embracing or kissing a tiny child. There is no faster way of humanising a politician, demonstrating that he or she is a caring, sensitive and loving human being than having them show tenderness towards an infant. Besides, everyone smiles when they see a baby – and some of that good feeling is bound to rub off on the person we see with them. We can’t help ourselves.

A prime, if subtle, example came when Michelle Obama sought to introduce her husband to the Democratic convention that nominated him for the presidency in 2008. Barack, she said, is “the same man who drove me and our new baby daughter home from the hospital 10 years ago this summer, inching along at a snail’s pace, peering anxiously at us in the rearview mirror, feeling the whole weight of her future in his hands ...”

Related: The world saw a grieving mother. Donald Trump saw a Muslim | Amana Fontanella-Khan

Continue reading...