Reminding oneself of Trump’s bluster, and his apparent belief that making threats is a good way to begin a negotiation, is a valid coping mechanism, a way of self-soothing as we ride out the news cycle. Let’s not get too worried about anything just yet – after all, it might come to nothing, right?
Loading
Instead of reading about the incremental developments of, say, Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canada – America’s friendly and co-operative nearest neighbour – we can resolve to wait until the matter is settled before engaging too much about it. But while such an approach may work for news consumers like us, is it really an option for political leaders?
Domestic leaders trying to manage the fallout from Trump 2.0 face an impossible situation. They have to deal seriously with the deeply unserious, and find a way to respond sincerely to a man whose pronouncements are about as sincere as a fortune cookie message.
This week we saw Prime Minister Anthony Albanese adopt a dead-bat approach to the writhing volatility of Trump 2.0. Albanese was not going to engage in a “running commentary on the President of the United States’ statements”, he told reporters following Trump’s Gaza announcement.
The prime minister could have gone further, reiterating, as British PM Keir Starmer did, that our country supports the rights of Palestinians to be in Palestine. He didn’t. You can see the political calculation at work – if the PM comments on every crazy Trump claim, he risks being sucked into the Trump news cycle, and his own government’s doings will go un-noticed.
On Wednesday Albanese tried, unsuccessfully, to keep focus on an announcement of public hospital funding. But how could that ever compete with a presidential announcement of the Marie Kondo-style de-cluttering of one of the world’s bloodiest patches of land?
Loading
Dutton, who is constantly flattering Trump through imitation (be it on trans issues, or his assertion on a recent podcast that men were tired of being “overlooked” for promotion at work) had more freedom to respond to Trump’s Gaza plan. Dutton praised Trump for being a “big thinker” who wanted peace in the region, while reiterating his party’s support for a two-state solution.
Even though Albanese and Dutton adopted different approaches, both managed to look weak in his own way. Albanese seemed apprehensive and afraid of giving offence to the White House bully. Why couldn’t he go further in expressing support for Palestinian civilians? Dutton looked silly, not to mention obsequious, in his own response to Trump. The President’s Gaza “plan” is not blue-sky thinking from a good-faith disruptor. It’s immoral, illegal and unworkable.
The news-cycle challenge presented by Trump is particularly gnarly for the media because the president is, frankly, a great story. People are interested to read about him, and his bombastic, made-for-TV style is at odds with everything we are used to seeing from politicians. He is a one-man news machine, constantly serving up fresh material to outrage and appal. Writing about him requires a cool head and some stamina.
It’s Trump’s world now, and we are all just living in it. Australian politicians will have to sharpen up their responses to his increasingly megalomaniac antics.
It will not be good enough to avoid the subject as Albanese has done so far, particularly when (and it is a matter of when, not if) Trump’s decisions start to directly affect Australia. And Dutton may find his “hard man” image wilting if he continues to pretend the White House emperor is wearing clothes.
Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and columnist.
