I was disturbed (but not surprised) to learn that President Trump had to be dissuaded from ordering a strike against Iran. He is still casting around for some telling action he can take, to demonstrate not only that his judgement and ideas on foreign policy are impeccable, but to prove that he remains the right man for the presidency. And he would clearly like to present Joe Biden, the President Elect, with a fait accompli that can't be undone.
He wants, of course, to leave an important and lasting legacy, a set of achievements that will commend him to posterity as one of the great presidents. But surely all he will do is spoil the opening game for Mr Biden. And if he does, I for one will remember him as a bad and spiteful loser.
But it's way too early to speculate on what his ultimate reputation will be, thirty or forty years from now.
He may well be forgotten, as others have been forgotten. Or something that he has already done, or attempted to do, will be remembered as typical of the man. Mostly negative things, surely. Perhaps he will be recalled for his bad views on women. Or for sooner or later firing everyone who ever stood up to him. Or for wanting to build that white-elephant fence all along the Mexican Border. Or for creating or condoning widespread civil unrest, and not condemning gun-toting extremists. Or for his lies. Or for turning the presidency into a personality cult, and pushing the country down the road to dictatorship. Who knows.
Reputations change and develop with time. When I was young, Winston Churchill was generally revered. He had been a very good war leader, inspiring the country to face up to all the sacrifices, hardships and miseries of World War II. His Finest Hour indeed. His State Funeral in 1965, which I solemnly watched on black-and-white TV at the age of thirteen, confirmed that image of the indomitable bulldog statesman who got us through the war. Twenty years after the war, he died an old man who was getting past it. But the wartime myth endured, and subsumed the frail reality.
But what of his reputation now, in 2020? In modern times we are more objective, and judge him on his entire career.
His early adult years seem now to have the whiff of adventurism about them. Later on, his judgement and ideas were questionable, and out of step with what most other people at the time thought best, and he was kept out of government. The war years brought him to the fore as the right man for a massive task. These years are his best legacy. But he was brought up with aristocratic connections and an Imperial way of thinking which made it difficult for him to contemplate the loss of the British Empire, and to grant overdue independence to the many colonies and dominions abroad. Nor at home did he have much empathy with working people hoping for a better life. People wanted new thinking, a new deal. So after the war, he was voted out of office.
Since his death in 1965 his wartime leadership has been questioned, and some flaws found. But I think he remains respected as the quintessential war leader, and, whether in or out of office, one of the most important political figures of the twentieth century - head and shoulders above most others in public life. Certainly a brilliant writer. And some would add, a very good painter.
But not a progressive. We might not have had an NHS if Churchill had won the general election immediately after the war. And there would have been a series of unedifying colonial wars of independence.
What about our current Prime Minister? What will his reputation be?
At the moment, it's impossible to say. I really want to believe that he is very intelligent, with good judgement to match. But his real capacity for the important position he has is half-hidden by his public demeanour, his appearance, and his way of speaking - the front he presents to everyone - and I really can't tell. I am impressed with his classical education, but not his actions. He seems to back many wrong policy horses, and to say many unfortunate things. I don't like the way he engages unelected backroom 'experts' to feed him with ideas and advice, people who have become way too influential. He has also let many important policy changes be explained by stand-ins, although his illness from Covid-19 earlier this year did make that unavoidable. Still, you wonder how much control is actually being exercised by Mr Johnson personally.
On the whole, it's hard to fully believe in him. I don't doubt his ambition, for both himself and the country, and feel sure he wants to be regarded as a firm and credible guiding hand in a year of crisis, but it hasn't really gone right. I reckon he is in danger of being remembered as a weak leader who (because of the pandemic) never had a chance to really prove what he could do.
Even Brexit may not go to his credit. The prime mover for Brexit was after all Nigel Farage, not Boris Johnson. Nigel Farage stirred the waters, and David Cameron rose to the bait. Boris Johnson simply saw his chance and ran with events. He kept going, mind you, and has gradually delivered. It hasn't been a disaster. But it could have been better. His self-assurance remains undiminished, and he is still unswervingly optimistic of a good outcome. Maybe that's what I chiefly like about him, even now.
