America Needs H.R. McMaster as Trump’s National Security Advisor
Prime Minister May’s ratings have plunged, while support for Labour has steadily climbed. Bold reforms to funding seniors’ care–shifting the financial onus onto the individual–have prompted a backlash from over-65s, hitherto the most reliable Tory electoral bloc. Mrs. May’s campaign slogan, ‘Strong and stable’, has not survived the Manchester terrorist attack, which has left the country insecure and introspective. The effect has been akin to that of the Madrid train bombings on the 2004 Spanish election; 53 percent of voters agree with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn that UK military actions overseas are responsible for terror attacks.
In short, Britain is having a jolly old wobble. What makes it all the more remarkable is the nature of Mrs. May’s opposition: Jeremy Corbyn is by common consent the most left-wing leader in the history of the Labour Party, elected by new grassroots members over the objections of his parliamentary caucus. He positioned himself as the repudiation of New Labour, Tony Blair’s moderate makeover that delivered Labour three election victories after two decades in opposition.
Corbyn is a sentimental Marxist, more mawkish than materialist, but his nostalgia for pre-Thatcher Britain is not why he was supposed to be electoral poison. Corbyn has a lengthy, well-documented record of extreme positions and associations; in particular, his active sympathy for the Irish Republican Army and his predilection for making common cause with anti-Semites.
The Islington North MP voted against the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement as an impediment to a United Ireland. Corbyn was more than just a fashionable leftist, though. He was a fellow-traveler of the IRA at the height of its terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland and on mainland Britain. In 1994, an investigation by the Daily Telegraph found that Corbyn shared a platform at an Irish republican rally with Angelo Fusco, then on the run after killing a British SAS officer. He lobbied for more prison privileges for Hugh Doherty, an IRA terrorist serving 11 life sentences for murder; a petition on the matter championed by Corbyn described republican terrorists as “political prisoners.”
After the IRA’s attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher in 1984, Corbyn invited republican figurehead Gerry Adams and two convicted terrorists to the House of Commons. Adams was identified as a member of the IRA’s army council by the Irish government. London Labour Briefing, a far-left journal where Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board, editorialized after the Brighton bombing: “Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.” Two years later, Corbyn was arrested at a “solidarity” protest outside the trial of Patrick Magee, the man convicted of the Brighton attack.
His solidarity extends beyond the men in balaclavas to other strains of extremism. He invited ‘friends’ from Hamas and Hezbollah to Parliament and even welcomed Raed Salah, promoter of the blood libel, to tea on the terrace of the House of Commons. As recently as 2013, Corbyn was still attending anti-Israel events organized by Paul Eisen, a self-confessed Holocaust denier. And in 2014, the Sunday Times reported that he laid a wreath in honor of one of the architects of the Munich massacre. Corbyn continues to defend the $26,000 he took from Press TV for five guest host stints on the Iranian propaganda outlet.
His leadership of Labour has witnessed an anti-Semitism crisis in the party, with a series of members under investigation and an MP temporarily suspended. Labour has refused to expel its former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone despite repeated outbursts linking Zionism and Nazism. Labour, once seen as an ally and a friend of Israel, is now polling at 13 percent amongst British Jews.
Those observing Britain’s election from afar might gaze in disbelief at a new poll predicting Labour will actually gain seats next week, and even deprive the Tories of their parliamentary majority. They should rest assured much of the UK’s political class and commentariat is equally mesmerized. YouGov’s methodology is controversial, drawing on demographic commonalities across the electorate, but it correctly predicted the outcome of the Brexit referendum. It also reflects a series of polls in the last 14 days that have seen Tory support tumble and Labour, against all expectations, pick up voters.
Whatever the merits of these projections, the fact that a man of Jeremy Corbyn’s record and character is now a serious contender for Prime Minister should deeply trouble Great Britain and her friends around the world. Not because he is a high-taxer or profligate spender; public policy objectives change with governments and moods. Rather, Corbyn confronts Britons with a test: What kind of country is the UK?
Just a few years ago, consorting with the IRA would have immediately ended the career of any prominent politician. Even on the Left, there was widespread revulsion at the barbarism of an organization which tortured and murdered civilians, Catholic and Protestant, as well as British soldiers. Even The Guardian, hardly an unbending foe of Irish republicanism, has previously charged Corbyn with a “lack of wider political and moral judgement” and characterized him as a “fool” and a “childish sideshow.”
None of this seems to be cutting through with the electorate. In part, this is because the IRA is slowly fading from the national consciousness and millennials have scarcely even heard of it. Also in part, Corbyn’s flacks have been effective at dismissing every fresh revelation with a Trumpian cry of “fake news” and relying on social media to push their message. There is, however, a third, arguably more disturbing phenomenon at work. After seven years of a Conservative government pursuing austerity to rebalance public finances–and with warnings of economic anguish after Brexit–voters have developed Grown-up Fatigue. They no longer yearn for the unvarnished truth about spending and public debt; they’d like to be cut some slack, have the government pick up the tab for their children’s tuition, and live a little. This political immaturity, a reversion to juvenile dependency on the state, robs the 2017 election of the moral dimension that shaped the 2010 and 2015 polls.
The Tories contend that Jeremy Corbyn is a security risk, but he is a moral hazard, too. His cheerleading for Britain’s enemies is one thing; the British state is a big boy and can take care of itself. His connections with and tolerance for anti-Semites is an outrage of another order. The threat of Corbyn and who and what he would bring with him to Downing Street is concentrating the minds of many Jews in the UK. There is sincere and acute anxiety and given his catalog of prejudices, concealed behind the gentle countenance of a bearded grandfather, that is understandable.
“[T]he way a culture treats its Jews is the best indicator of its humanity or lack of it,” Jonathan Sacks maintains, and Britain would be disregarding its Jews in a most callous fashion if it ignored their fears and put this man in power. That is the Corbyn test voters will sit on June 8: Do they want a prime minister who counts terrorists as friends and Jews as enemies?
Join us—you’ll be in good company. Everyone worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world’s best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It’s still the magazine America’s liberals dread most, and the one America’s enemies can’t afford to ignore. It’s the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it’s in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America’s interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
“ It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast—the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.
Join the intellectual club, today.