Incapax imperii nisi imperasset

It is a wonder and a horror that people all across the world have intense opinions on the American presidential election while not living there; and it is a wonder and a horror to see the process in action. I am content to be an outside spectator to the arena.

In Donald Trump is a horrified fascination. By every Hobbesian measure he fails as a ruler, but one – which is a overrides all.

We are presented with a mere showman, which may be appropriate for a land hooked on entertainment. (When Boris Johnson, another showman, was nicknamed ‘the British Trump’ it was not intended as a compliment.)

The starting point must be whether a man is worthy of the trust reposed in him.

WORTHINESSE, is a thing different from the worth, or value of a man; and also from his merit, or desert; and consisteth in a particular power, or ability for that, whereof he is said to be worthy: which particular ability, is usually named FITNESSE, or Aptitude.

For he is Worthiest to be a Commander, to be a Judge, or to have any other charge, that is best fitted, with the qualities required to the well discharging of it; and Worthiest of Riches, that has the qualities most requisite for the well using of them: any of which qualities being absent, one may neverthelesse be a Worthy man, and valuable for some thing else. Again, a man may be Worthy of Riches, Office, and Employment, that neverthelesse, can plead no right to have it before another; and therefore cannot be said to merit or deserve it. For Merit, praesupposeth a right, and that the thing deserved is due by promise: Of which I shall say more hereafter, when I shall speak of Contracts.

In a Hollywood world though, politicians know “Give it the old razzle-dazzle, and theiy’ll never catch wise.” The Donald is steeped in Hollywood.

He is no American Boris. Though both rose to public acclaim through fame on television, their characters and abilities are poles apart. Trump made a fortune through hard-edged business, and cannot give a speech without wandering off into strange backwaters of nonsense, while Boris rose through his golden way with words; each strange, eccentric diversion being a calculated embellishment.

Such ‘insignificant speech’ is a mark of irrationality. That unsteadiness and unreason display personality which, the thinking man or woman may conclude, cannot be entrusted with the responsibilities of the state. There are differences in manner which are no more than personal taste (“which ariseth partly from the diversity of passions, in divers men; and partly from the difference of the knowledge, or opinion each one has of the causes, which produce the effect desired”) but objective irrationality is more than a matter of taste.

All that said, all that could be said of Mr Trump can be said of his opponent. The frequent resort to insignificant speech is a constant characteristic of the opposing political party and their candidate. It may tell us more than we wish to know about the state of political discourse in the colonies, and what is coming our way, as we come to imitate them in time.

The judgment must come from how the man acted in office. In that, he did not fail. He would seem, to the outside, to be incapable and unworthy of exercising the functions that would be handed to him. However when he did exercise the office, he proved more than worthy.

In his four years, Donald Trump began no wars; he withdrew misplaced soldiers from the Syrian chaos; the American economy stabilised; he brought implacable enemies to talk peace; he brought several Arab states to recognise Israel in peace; he brought sanity to the Supreme Court; he resisted the seditious lunacy of race-baiters or race-haters. Much of these gains has been thrown away by his successor in office.

Looking at that, perhaps then Donald Trump can claim, more than can Mr Biden, to be worthy of the office, by pure definition:

The publique worth of a man, which is the Value set on him by the Common-wealth, is that which men commonly call DIGNITY. And this Value of him by the Common-wealth, is understood, by offices of Command, Judicature, publike Employment; or by Names and Titles, introduced for distinction of such Value.

I would not excuse his many flaws of character and morals, nor his abstraction of confidential documents (as I would not excuse the same by his predecessor’s vice-president), nor overlook his encouragement of the riot as he left office. All I can say, and it is no defence, is that the alternative seems worse. (Indeed, in character and fitness, the last worthy head of state that America had had was George III.)

I have never met the man and never will. I have the same reactions seeing him from a difference, but then I have also see what he did in office. That conduct proved him entirely worthy.

I am glad I am not American, and it is all a show to me, and so should have little to say, until he comes to face abroad.

Where I will condemn Mr Trump in office is his determination to hurt Americans in in the matter of trade. One of the intolerable conditions which caused the American Revolution was that Americans were forbidden to trade freely; but Mr Trump has barred that freedom, as have many predecessors. He has followed the beggaring tradition of American protectionism – electorally popular, but which can only impoverish Americans. If he wishes to Make America Rich Again, he should tear down trade barriers and tariffs, and defy the monopolists and luddites. That is perhaps too much to hope for in the Hollywood nature of American politics.