The basis of a world, now vanished like a puff of smoke

 From Richard Murphy's blog on 9th April 2026, entry 'Clinging on to sanity':

'https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/04/09/clinging-on-to-sanity/

'For most of my life, I, and I suspect many others, have operated with a set of implicit assumptions about politics.

First, that whilst I accepted that politicians could be reckless, self-serving, or even corrupt, there were still limits to what they would do.'

Since these limits presumably did not fall from the sky like hail, this raises some obvious questions:

1.  Who set these limits?
2.  How?
3.  Why did they do so?

Limits to politicians' action in an electoral democracy are (1) set by voters (2) voting against politicians who break these limits.  Without this, the so-called limits are no limits at all and will soon vanish into thin air, as we now see.

This raises 2 questions:

1.  Was the implicit assumption about politicians facing limits to corruption ever valid?  

2.  If so, why has the electorate changed its behaviour?

Pot plants shiver once moved outdoors

 As pointed out countless times, most of Trump's actions have solid American ancestry:

The threat of official violence is constant. Only now, the menace is extending beyond black and brown residents, to anyone who dares to decry or document the administration’s overreach. In short, the protective factor of white privilege is collapsing in the face of Trump’s fascism.

(https://contrarian.substack.com/p/trumps-comply-or-die-policing-isnt?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true)

What is new is not the 'what', but the 'to whom':   The recent deaths (Jan. 2026) in Minnesota have made clear to many who think of themselves as insiders, to whom the protection of American law applies more or less as written, that their president considers them outsiders and so without this protection.  Officially tolerated - if not more more than tolerated - killing of various especially ethnic minorities is a traditional part of American public life, but the Trump government has the same tolerance for the killing of white Americans who do no more than politically oppose them.  Now it seems that the penny has dropped for many ordinary white Americans.

By contrast, very rich Americans seem as yet unconcerned. But how long before a corrupt and grasping administration, once it has established the right to treat previously insider groups as outsiders if it wishes, decides to shake some of the wealthy or even ultra-wealthy down seriously?

Caesar and Thucydides explain the new U.S. foreign policy

 Apparently Trump is concerned that Canada will not be able to defend itself from invasion by China or Russia, and wants to protect it from these misfortunes by invading it himself, much as Caesar invaded Gaul to protect the Gauls from invasion by the Helvetii.

With Greenland,  American language is more straightforwardly 'we want it'; as the Athenians tell the Melians:

'For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences...  in return we hope that you..., will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 5.89)

Ancient Rome broke all its allies, and the modern one wants to do the same.

  Trump's proposed tariffs on European countries that dare to oppose his intended annexation of Greenland are shocking from the perspective of two years ago, yet not even surprising looked at in the light of Roman history.  I mean he has not demanded hostages, nor even threatened to sack major European cities, both of which were par for the course in the late Roman republic.

  Despite this restraint, the tariffs mark the collapse of British  policy since the Second World War, this policy being to cling to the U.S.'s coat tails at all costs, and then try to paper over the abject dependence with the phrase 'special relationship'.  But the open marketing of the tariff as coercive, the casual manner in which it was announced and the UK included shows the relationship is not very special to the US, whatever the UK may think.

  This is acutely embarrassing for various British politicians, particularly all those who have toadied to Trump.  So far none seems to be defending him.  For the Prime Minister in an already weak position the loss of prestige, and even more the economic difficulties this could cause, may be disastrous.

  Will it then lead to a widespread reassessment of the country's position and course?  I doubt it.  For too many wealthy and well connected people in the UK (as in the US and elsewhere) the break up of the old American order is too catastrophic to face. The old world suited them well, better than any likely new one and therefore they will try to prop up this order, and prevent any other from being born.