Perhaps it’s just an undocumented feature of populism or one of those simple coincidences that life occasionally throws up but the similarities between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump continue to stack up.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump, the other crazy-haired blonde with more personality than principle, gave the first big policy speech of his pre-re-election campaign. He still hasn’t declared, of course, but this was as close as he’s yet come, presenting the agenda of the would-be 47th president at the American First Agenda Summit in Washington, DC.
The speech was relatively unusual for Trump, being largely scripted, but what was familiar was the rehearsal of the former president’s usual American carnage. In a 90-minute speech dominated by law and order, he spent a good portion of his time simply revisiting recent history with the broadest of brushes. He detailed recent horrific crimes – as though no politician couldn’t have done the same at any point in the past century – blaming the shootings, stabbings, and at least one gratuitous murder using a traffic cone on the Democrats. He went on to promise that a Trump administration would “be tough, be nasty, be mean if we have to”.
One can see where Johnson learns his tricks. Trump promised easy fixes that trampled over America’s system of laws. The only surprise was that he didn’t propose shipping migrant Mexicans to Rwanda. Instead, he offered quick death penalties for drug dealers, expressing admiration for China’s policy where two-hour trials are considered preferable to a drawn-out legal process. He also advocated giving the president the power of sending the National Guard into parts of the country without the permission of “some governor who thinks it’s politically incorrect to call them in”.
The latter is perhaps the most eye-opening, given that it inverts Republican dogma. This would come from a party that has celebrated each of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions that undermined federal power in favour of the states. Yet Trump continues to hold a spell over the Republican party that means that none of this had to do with intellectual consistency, nor how inherently good or bad he was as a president. It doesn’t even seem to matter how America might fare if Trumpism gains the White House.
Yet as uniquely difficult as the Republican problem seems to be in escaping the grip of Trump and his “ism”, the Conservative Party here in the UK now find themselves with a similar problem. Even out of office, Johnson is certain to retain a soft power over the party. It’s hard to envisage the party moving forward without the Prime Minister’s shadow looming larger than any previous leader, even, astonishingly that of Margaret Thatcher.
Whereas Thatcher exerted a steering force on the party (and still does, as evidenced by Liz Truss’s campaign, widely mocked as pure “cosplay”), Johnson is still young enough to be an active and aspirational force. He clearly isn’t finished with power and will surely continue to wow the grassroots at party conferences, as well as lead polls of future leaders. One wonders how lesser figures (including the next Prime Minister) will contain such a force.
If Steve Baker is right (and he is) to warn Johnson about aping Trump in his reluctance to leave office, there’s another precedent which is perhaps even more striking. If it feels like there’s something not quite right about the way the Prime Minister is exiting Downing Street and that he’s simply too upbeat, Johnson might be reflecting on the career trajectory of his great political hero. Churchill was also rejected after leading the nation through a crisis only for the party and country will welcome him back again.
Johnson might well have a point. Both he and Trump are benefactors of political systems in which their parties have yet to find candidates to eclipse them. It certainly doesn’t yet feel like Ron DeSantis can do it in the US, even with the backing of Murdoch. Trump’s name still has the stuff of stardust about it. Similarly, who in the current Conservative Party can match Johnson? It’s certainly neither of the two candidates currently tearing lumps from each other in the current leadership contest. Hard to think of any of the also-rans as having that “wow” factor. By accident but mostly by design, the Conservative Party is devoid of the big beasts that once were so dominant.
It is also a problem that might run deeper than the characters of the two men. Conservatism in both America and the UK is still searching for a vision going forward. Both parties have lost their way spiritually as well as ethically and sustain themselves as much through the mistaken belief that vision is the same as personality. The result: twin narratives dominated by men who are entirely unfit to hold high office yet seem the only candidates likely to win high office. Both risk rejection by their respective nations and could well bring down their parties, yet they might also be their respective party’s last great hopes. If populism seems to be on the decline, then the alternative has yet to prove itself anywhere near as persuasive.