Channel- hopping: up there with the worst of the life-draining scourges. Except that occasionally, just occasionally, you might find yourself lingering. I give you two contrasting episodes.

A documentary about the Reagan years. For the avoidance of doubt, and to establish the obvious political neutrality  of this piece, Reagan was a bastard. His economic policies ruined the lives of millions of working people in the US. Because of his apparently special relationship with Margaret Thatcher (please, don’t) those policies – deregulation, privatisation, the glorification of individualism and greed – traversed the ocean. He invaded Grenada for reasons only he might understand and, much more seriously, sanctioned military and espionage actions in Central America that cost thousands of lives. I repeat, he was a bastard.

And yet, as I pause on the channel, here he is on a public platform, in front of a microphone, speaking with an eloquence and a dignity that cloaks this viciousness. Watching him from a distance of 40 years and comparing this performance with his current counterpart is to render him statesmanlike, exuding a degree of gravitas, even. Steady now. Time to hop on…..

….where, a few days ago, I am unfortunate enough to witness a briefing from Pete Hegseth. As I continue to hop about, I note that it is being beamed to practically every news channel across the globe. Broad shouldered, snappily dressed and groomed to perfection, he does not sugar-coat his message. It is delivered with clarity and precision, avoiding all the loose and lurid extemporisation that characterises the performances of his commander in chief. We will bomb, we will exterminate, we will be merciless. We will put our foot on the necks of our enemies – and we will do so because it is God’s will. Later that day, Hegseth’s gung-ho vision is reinforced by a White House video mixing real war footage with clips and sounds from the Call of Duty video game.

Reagan slick and dignified: Hegseth just as slick but unashamedly brash, vulgar and over-certain. The style may be different 40 years on, but the arrogance – and joy – of wielding military power remains the same.

Time to stop hopping. Another part of my life leads me, by chance, to discover a letter written by US President, Dwight Eisenhower, to UK Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, during the Suez crisis of 1956. Eden was relying on the support of US troops to support a joint British, French and Israeli attack on Egypt: Eisenhower was not prepared to supply such assistance.

Eisenhower begins his letter by urging Eden to continue to search for diplomatic solutions. He goes on to caution him against any ‘measures …. undertaken merely to protect national or individual investors’ and to ensure that no ‘legal rights of a sovereign nation were (to be) ruthlessly flouted.’ Although ‘military success might be easy,’ he warns, ‘the eventual price might become far too heavy.’

Just in case the message hasn’t fully been received, Eisenhower reminds him that any decision to use troops needs to be ratified by Congress, currently not in session. ‘Employment of United States forces is possible only through positive action on the part of the Congress,’ which can only be ‘reconvened on my call for special reasons.’ The President leaves Eden in no doubt as to the fact that he is not convinced that any such reasons have been explained.

Good old Uncle Dwight. Playing by the rules, temperate in his language, privileging diplomacy over aggression. Except, perhaps, when, in 1953, he intervened in Iran to help overthrow Iran’s elected leader, Mossadegh, to install a puppet government under the Shah. Or when he enacted the blockade of Cuba following its revolution. Or assisted the French imperialists in their fated occupation of Vietnam. Or when he threw the weight of American support behind Franco’s dictatorship in Spain.

Strong, athletic and always outwardly cheerful, Eisenhower engendered trust and respect. British Field Marshall Montgomery said of him that ‘he has the power of drawing the hearts of men toward him as a magnet attracts metal…..he merely has to smile at you and you trust him.’ And yet, like Hegseth and Reagan he was, as the record shows, a bastard.

‘One may smile, and smile, and be a villain,’ says Hamlet. American imperialism and aggression has come in many shades and forms over the decades, but its intent – the protection of markets and the enrichment of the class interests it protects – remain unchanged. And the price for such vanity and entitlement is paid, as always, in the blood and sorrow of ordinary men and women, ordinary boys and girls.

Time to change the channel.

*******

This blog has been quiet for a while for two reasons. First, all my time has been spent promoting Who Killed Oswald Grey? and the podcast that goes with it. Second…..where to start? It’s now a cliché to talk about pitying the poor satirist, but when such madness stalks the world, it’s impossible to know where to take aim.