Publisher's Note — August 11, 2017, 5:34 pm

Le Chagrin

“Could I not avoid Trump and his bullshit, not even by crossing the Atlantic Ocean?”

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on August 7, 2017. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

On the eve of Bastille Day, July 14, I found myself near the Eiffel Tower, facing barricades, soldiers, and police—all placed there in preparation for Donald Trump’s visit. My presence in Paris on the same day as the U.S. president’s was purely coincidental, but I still felt as though I was being pursued by this raving lunatic, who dominates the attention of the media and a significant portion of the global public. Could I not avoid Trump and his bullshit, not even by crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Thoroughly annoyed, I began to wonder about the character of the new French president, Emmanuel Macron. Why had he invited this lout in head-of-state’s clothing to traumatize the precise Paris neighborhood where my mother’s side of the family had lived for so many years? What was his purpose? What had gotten into him?           

As a French-American with dual citizenship, I was suffering a dual humiliation. To begin with, the idea of Trump at a restaurant table not far from my family home, scarfing down Alain Ducasse’s haute cuisine (or rather sitting at a trough filled with overcooked steaks, which is how I imagined him), repulsed me, even though the meal occurred in a diplomatic context well outside my milieu. And while the Jules Verne restaurant atop the Eiffel Tower isn’t what you’d call my corner bistro, I could sense the man’s corruption even from a great distance.

Worse, however, were the preposterous statements made by Macron—ostensibly the symbol of a France engaged in a period of full renewal—to justify the American president’s visit. I confess that I’m no admirer of my American president, but in critical times I count on a French head of state, theoretically aided by the counsel of an excellent diplomatic corps, to take a stand in the name of civilization. That’s part of my French pride.

And so I read newspapers and watched television to get better informed about this manifestation of contemporary realpolitik. Starting with Le Figaro and Le Monde, I learned from the headlines that “Macron wants to take Trump out of his isolation” (Le Figaro), and indeed that “the French president wants to take his guest out of his international isolation” (Le Monde). Now, there’s some material for serious concern. Would we really want Trump to “come out of his isolation”? Isolation seems to me exactly the measure that needs to be taken in regard to Trump. In the scariest case, he’s a dangerous sociopath (though extraordinarily talented at exciting crowds) who ought to be locked up, a little like the Marquis de Sade. Psychologists may disagree about the proper treatment for Trump, but in my opinion the best course would be to respond to his ludicrous behavior either forcefully or indifferently. Sometimes a difficult teenager needs bawling out: “Clean up your room before you come to the table!” And other times it’s more effective to say calmly, “Stay in your room. You’re too rude to eat with adults.”

Throughout his life, Trump has had an unhealthy need to be noticed, to be the star of the show. Despite the insults he hurls at The New York Times and CNN, he couldn’t do without them. If the media and the political class would ignore this disagreeable man, he’d turn into a big kid, more docile, more manageable, and enormously eager to please important people. Macron chose to do exactly the opposite, a decision bound to embolden Trump in his nastiness.

Macron, it seems, is weak not only in elementary psychology but also in his country’s history. “Our two nations have always been allies,” he declared at the joint press conference. Come again? Macron is young, but all the same he should remember the rupture between Paris and Washington in 2003, when the American invasion of Iraq was imminent. Furthermore, Brigitte Macron, whom Trump praised for being “in such good physical shape,” is old enough to remind her husband about President Charles de Gaulle’s famous speech in Phnom Penh in 1966, when he denounced American intervention in Indochina, as well as his decision, the same year, to withdraw France from NATO’s integrated military structure.

Nevertheless, as Macron confided to the Journal du Dimanche, the couples’ dinner in a fine restaurant overlooking Paris was arranged “to present an open and attractive image of Paris, of our country, and of our economy.” I’m certain that the view was very edifying for a man as ignorant of the world as Trump. Maybe not so edifying for Macron, finding himself as he did in a large restaurant devoid of people except for the two presidential couples and the waitstaff, and sitting across from a creep who had made vulgar remarks to his wife. Actually, the most horrible possibility to contemplate would be that Macron, when he announced that the event was a “dinner among friends,” was speaking the truth!

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

Publisher's Note October 5, 2017, 11:31 am

A Sad Heritage

Publisher's Note July 11, 2017, 4:15 pm

Living with Trump

“Loathing for Trump makes people forget that, among other horrors, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats has already wasted around $3.7 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, sacrificed the lives of nearly 7,000 American soldiers, and wounded more than 52,000.”

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Factor by which single Americans who use emoji are more likely than other single Americans to be sexually active:

1.85

Brontosaurus was restored as a genus, and cannibalism was reported in tyrannosaurine dinosaurs.

Moore said he did not “generally” date teenage girls, and it was reported that in the 1970s Moore had been banned from his local mall and YMCA for bothering teenage girls.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today