Giorgia Meloni's selective memory
Twice, in Donald Trump Jr's foreword to the new English translation of Giorgia Meloni's memoir, the businessman and Apprentice judge dwells on her 'working-class' background. Long before Meloni became the Italian prime minister, he tells us, she was a 'young working-class woman with a deep love and vision for her nation'; this autobiography tells of her rise from a 'working-class Roman neighbourhood' to government. Trump Jr – son of a billionaire US president – clearly feels well placed to credit Meloni's closeness to the underdog, squeezing two mentions of her working-class credentials into his slender 268-word preface. I Am Giorgia asserts Meloni's ordinariness as a Christian, a mother, and an Italian.
It is not rare for politicians to boast about the challenges they have overcome and even their parents' blue-collar jobs. But what makes Meloni working class? She tells of how she began life in Rome's 'well-heeled' Camilluccia district, albeit in a family immediately ripped apart by the exit of her father who ran away to the Canary Islands. Further disaster hit, Meloni reports, when she and her sister accidentally destroyed the family home in a fire, forcing them 'out on the street' – or at least, prompting her mother to buy a different apartment, in the capital's Garbatella district. Conceived in the 1920s as a 'garden city' for Rome's working-class population, during Meloni's childhood much of Garbatella's social housing stock was being sold off to new owner-occupiers.
Her father's absence left its mark on the young Meloni; she also tells of being bullied as a child. The mix of abandonment and victimisation sets up a story of perseverance against the odds, also dramatising her defiance against schoolteachers who scolded her early right-wing views. The fact that Meloni never went to university (she attended a hospitality training college) also surely sets her apart from many politicians. Yet clichés about growing up in 'gritty' streets are misplaced. Several Italian responses to this book highlighted that Meloni's parents owned stakes in multiple businesses, while an investigation by the Domani newspaper alleged that her claims about the scale of the housefire were strongly exaggerated.
What of Trump Jr's claim that she has become 'one of the most significant political figures in the world', heralding a 'worldwide conservative revolution' against 'globalist elites'? I Am Giorgia appeared in Italian in May 2021, and soon became a top-selling pamphlet for the politician who led the opposition to Mario Draghi's cross-party government. Since then, she has continued to rise, both mobilising protest votes in the 2022 Italian election and maintaining right-wing dominance ever since. Her success in uniting traditional conservatives and her own more radical political tradition has become something of a model internationally.
This English translation, issued by Skyhorse – a US publisher whose website landing page is dominated by the face of Robert F Kennedy – adds no new material on her time in office. The editors of I Am Giorgia have made few obvious interventions, and allusions to her party's neofascist heritage – notably her repeated praise for Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI) co-founder Giorgio Almirante – appear without further clarification. It would have been easy enough to muster a footnote to detail the nature of the MSI: though given that Almirante called his party the home of 'fascists in a democracy' up until his death in 1988, perhaps this would not have cast his political heir Meloni in a positive light.
In I Am Giorgia, Meloni adopts the tone of an outsider, painting conservative values as the victim of an all-consuming elite disdain. Even Silvio Berlusconi's political dominance in the 1990s and 2000s – during which she herself became a minister aged just 31 – does not trouble this account. Instead, we get stories of MSI members who were killed in the political violence of the 1970s and early 1980s, when, according to Meloni, right-wingers were 'criminalised'. Liberal hegemony is painted as an 'intangible dictatorship' working to destroy national culture: 'the mass deportations of the Soviet era have been replaced by policies supporting immigration'. Conservatives are underdogs because they are resisting a ubiquitous progressive orthodoxy. Indeed, to define oneself as right-wing means exclusion 'from the circles of the elites, from the radical-chic salons that Italy is filled with'.
When the Italian edition of the book was published, Meloni's party was in opposition; today, if she is fighting 'elites' at all, she is doing so at G7 summits and Nato meet-ups. Those she calls 'elites' are defined less by wealth or political authority than by their attitudes, especially on immigration, national identity, and the nuclear family. Tellingly, this book is also endorsed not just by the US president's son but also by the world's richest man. Elon Musk has been a great admirer of Meloni's focus on falling birthrates in Western countries, and this book leans heavily into this theme. She likewise casts her stance against 'unregulated' immigration as a defence of the weakest in society, from immigrants encouraged to risk their lives at sea, to the working-class Italians she deems 'most vulnerable' to competition for jobs and public services. Globalists use immigration as a 'tool to erode national identity' but the state can accept 'compatible immigration', especially by Christians or those with even distant Italian heritage.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Some of Meloni's admirers in the press tell a reassuring story about how a once-populist politician has been tempered by the demands of office. Yet this book, originally published 16 months before her election win, complicates such a narrative. Well before she became premier, Meloni's party had combined heated rhetoric about identity with pro-business economics and a commitment to the major Western institutions. Accounts of Meloni's pragmatic moderation since 2022 routinely cite her support for Ukraine, or her abjuring of any Ital-exit from the EU. Yet these positions were baked in years before she took office, and the harsher rhetoric about the EU in this book is time and again tempered by an insistence on the need for a united Europe, 'rooted in civilisation and identity'.
If Meloni has not abandoned 'populist' notes, this is perhaps because her harsh condemnation of progressive 'totalitarianism' is not matched with truly radical alternatives of her own. Hence even in last June's EU election, her party's manifesto warned against a 'superstate reminiscent of the… Soviet model' and instead vaguely proposed a 'Europe of peoples and nations'. In truth her approach to EU politics has sought cooperation, not least as Italy has been the main recipient of post-pandemic EU funds. Meloni's prominence in the EU since 2022 has been remarkable: in part the product of weak leaders in Paris and Berlin, but also of other countries' politics becoming rather more like Italy's own.
The likes of Marine Le Pen's National Rally or Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom increasingly follow a 'Melonian' path of seeking to reorder Europe from within rather than just rebel against it. On immigration, on fossil fuels, and even on military spending, the EU is ever less of an enemy for Meloni's party. Her government can today even boast of its role as a 'bridge' between Brussels and the Maga camp in Washington. Still, even if Trump Jr or his father are ideological admirers of Meloni, the US president's erratic foreign policy and line on tariffs are also potential points of friction. Meloni has brought her part of the Italian right into the heart of the Euro-Atlantic institutions. Trump's moves to shake up these same institutions from above could still cause problems for her. But otherwise, if this is a 'worldwide conservative revolution', it continues apace.
I Am Giorgia: My Roots, My Principles
Giorgia Meloni
Skyhorse, 288pp, £25
Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from Bookshop.org, who support independent bookshops
[See also: Keir Starmer faces war on all fronts]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Former Apprentice star Tom Skinner says JD Vance meet was ‘once in a lifetime'
Former The Apprentice contestant Tom Skinner has said his barbecue and drinks with US vice president JD Vance was a 'once-in-a-lifetime' event. The 34-year-old businessman from Romford, who has become a social media star on X following his time on the BBC business show, met up with US president Donald Trump's number two Mr Vance and his friends and family, after the duo had previously chatted on the social media platform. In a post on X, Skinner said: 'When the vice president of the USA invites you for a BBQ an beers, you say yes. 'Unreal night with JD and his friends and family. He was a proper gent. Lots of laughs and some fantastic food. A brilliant night, one to tell the grand kids about.' In a later post he added: 'Here is a pic of me and vice president @JDVance towards the end of the night after a few beers. 'I'm overdressed in my suit, but when the VP invites you to a BBQ, you don't risk turning up in shorts an flip-flops. 'Cracking night in the beautiful English countryside with JD, his friends and family. Once in a lifetime. Bosh.' Mr Vance has previously shown support for Skinner on X, after the star claimed he had received 'death threats' and 'vile comments about my children', following a series of posts claiming 'something's gone wrong' in the UK, and saying 'there is nothing wrong with being proud of where you're from'. Following the post complaining about alleged abuse, Mr Vance replied with a picture of a cartoon character and a message that read: 'Hang in there, my friend. Remember that 90 percent of people attacking your family look like this.' In other posts, Skinner had said that it was 'not far-right' to be 'flying your flag and loving your country', and complained that 'it ain't safe out there anymore' in London, claiming the city was 'hostile' and 'tense'. Mr Vance's meeting with Skinner came after he joined foreign secretary David Lammy at his Chevening country estate last week. On The Apprentice, Skinner was fired by Lord Alan Sugar in week nine during the show's 15th series in 2019.
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Visions of an English civil war
Ulster Larne Demonstration at Drumbeg. Photo by Smith Archive/Alamy Last year, amid the riots that followed the Southport murders, the great sage Elon Musk prophesied that civil war in Britain was 'inevitable'. So far, he's been proved wrong, but then prophets can claim they're just not correct yet. A year on, such talk has surged. The Financial Times reported councils, MPs and charities comparing the mood in parts of Britain to a 'tinder box' and a 'powder keg'. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy warned that Labour's northern heartlands are so disaffected that they 'could go up in flames'. Journalists have been reporting members of the public talking about civil war; in May, Dominic Cummings told Sky News such conversations were no longer abnormal, and wrote about 'incoherent Whitehall terror of widespread white-English mobs turning political and attracting talented political entrepreneurs'. Matthew Goodwin has been demanding to know if Britain is 'about to blow'. Talk of a 'coming civil war' took off in February, when the podcaster Louise Perry recorded an interview with David Betz, a professor of war in the modern world, which duly went viral. Betz's thesis is that, driven by immigration and ethnic division, exacerbated by economic woes and reaction against elite overreach, 'civil conflict in the West' is 'practically inevitable' – and that Britain may well go first. He predicts that weak points in our energy infrastructure will come under attack; the cities will 'become ungovernable' and be seen by the indigenous rural population as 'lost to foreign occupation'. Tens of thousands may be killed each year, for years. The chances of this starting by 2029 he puts at around one in five. What is going on here? A clue lies, I think, in a striking assumption: that all this talk is unprecedented. When Perry asked why we think 'civil war won't happen here', Betz cited Brits' self-conception as 'rather peaceable, well governed, cool-headed folk'. Also taking this line, an article in UnHerd invoked the historian Robert Tombs' observation that the English harbour 'a complacent and often apathetic assumption bred by a fortunate history that nothing seriously bad can happen'. But over the last century, people in British politics have worried about civil war, repeatedly, in ways not unlike today. What did they fear, and why? And what might we learn from the fact that those fears disappeared? Even before the advent of full mass democracy, Britain was troubled by the prospect of a radical right revolt against a reckless left-liberal government. The outbreak of world war in 1914 tends to overshadow the extreme political tensions over Irish Home Rule that culminated that summer. In 1912, nearly a quarter of a million men had signed the 'Ulster Covenant', vowing to resist Home Rule by 'all means which may be found necessary'. But this happened on the 'mainland' too: in 1914, a 'British Covenant' also attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures. Its journal's motto was 'put your trust in God and keep your powder dry'. With armed volunteers openly drilling in Glasgow, Liverpool and London, and the army's willingness to enforce Home Rule in doubt, Britain was, according to the historian Dan Jackson 'arguably on the verge of civil war'. The outbreak of European conflict cut this off, but in 1916 Dublin witnessed violent rebellion against the London government. After the 1918 armistice, as full-scale war erupted in Ireland, waves of industrial strife crashed through a Britain full of angry young veterans. The government's response was sometimes startlingly militarised. In 1921, David Lloyd George solemnly announced to the Commons that he was setting up a civil defence force of volunteers to resist a joint strike by miners, railwaymen and transport workers, describing the situation as 'analogous to civil war', in the teeth of which his government were committing themselves to 'almost warlike' measures. 'For the first time in history,' he declared, according to the Times, a British government was 'confronted by an attempt to coerce the country by the destruction of its resources. The government proposed, therefore, to call for volunteers to save the mines. These men would need protection, and so a special appeal would be issued to citizens to enlist in an emergency defence force.' Union leaders lambasted the government for blithely taking on 'the grave responsibility of provoking bloodshed and civil war'. By the start of the following week, 70,000 men had joined the Defence Force. In the end, the rail and transport unions backed off, but the emerging struggle for power between the state and unionised labour continued to simmer. Days before the 1924 general election, the 'Zinoviev Letter' came to light, supposedly revealing a Soviet plot against Britain. The Daily Mail ran it on the front page, under the headline 'Civil War Plot by Socialists' Masters'. The letter was a forgery, but it hit home because in certain quarters, the scenario felt horribly real. With the Depression, and the fall of a Labour government in the face of financial crisis, this intensified. In 1933, the Labour MP Stafford Cripps delivered a lecture setting out how a newly elected socialist government would need to face down aggressive establishment resistance by suspending constitutional norms, even temporarily becoming a dictatorship. In Democracy in Crisis, Cripps' ideological ally Harold Laski suggested that in such a 'revolutionary situation… men would rapidly group themselves for civil war'. Right-wing writers like Hugh Sellon agreed: such a crisis would 'almost inevitably cause real civil war'. Reading reports from Vienna of the bloody crushing of a banned workers' militia by the right-wing authoritarian regime, some on the left found it all too easy to imagine the same thing happening here. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe With the advent of the post-war settlement after 1945, such fears faded, for a time. When Churchill's Conservatives attempted to use them against Labour in the 1945 election, they embarrassed themselves. But the arrival of Commonwealth citizens from the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent began to provoke another nightmare scenario. Today, Betz's analysis refers to theoretical warnings that 'one of the most powerful causes of civil war' arises when a dominant group perceives it is facing 'status reversal'. This recalls the fear Enoch Powell stoked in April 1968 in his 'rivers of blood' speech. Powell uncritically quoted a middle-aged worker saying 'in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man'; this imaginary threat was the reason why Powell thought it appropriate to conjure visions of racial civil war. This didn't happen, but the fear that it might rippled through the Labour cabinet. Barbara Castle thought Powell had 'helped to make a race war… inevitable'. James Callaghan worried that Powell would trigger racial tension akin to the religious strife of the 17th century – when England really had descended into civil war. In 1972, something like Powell's vision was sketched out by the young liberal novelist Christopher Priest. Some of the scenes in Fugue for a Darkening Island prefigure Betz's vision of a near-future civil war today: of people fleeing 'feral' cities, and the establishment of 'secure zones'. The novel imagines a near-future Britain in which a nationalist politician preaching 'racial purity' takes power, as boats full of African refugees arrive in the Thames. The country splits into a pro-government, pro-deportation majority, and part-white, part-refugee resistance. As society disintegrates and people make knives out of bathroom mirrors, some flee the cities with their barricaded enclaves, only to find rural roads too dangerous to travel after dark, and that farms and villages that have become stockades. And while fear of racially inflected civil strife bubbled away through the 1970s, the stand-off between state, capital and labour returned. Around the time of Powell's speech, another apocalyptically minded public figure, Daily Mirror boss Cecil King, was also panicking about social collapse – because of imminent financial crisis. Nursing visions from his Irish adolescence, King took to asking 'If civil war could break out in Dublin in 1916, why couldn't it flare up in… London in… 1968.' By the early 1970s, as strikes spread and inflation pushed towards 20 per cent, even more measured establishment figures found it difficult to see a way through that did not involve the use of force to overcome the massed ranks of the pickets. Retired military commanders like Lt-Col Sir David Stirling, founder of the SAS, planned to helicopter a private army over picket lines to seize back worker-occupied factories. The Conservatives began developing their own – more cautious, but still incendiary – plans to defeat strikes. When these were leaked to the Economist in 1978, it ran them under a headline invoking the American Confederate surrender in 1865: 'Appomattox or civil war?' All this culminated in the miners' strike of 1984-85, during which leaders like Dennis Skinner warned that the army might be deployed against the strikers. That didn't happen, but nonetheless, the strike is remembered by many as a kind of civil war. Nothing so intense has happened since, but the idea still haunts our politics, as the background to last year's riots and the belated announcement of an inquiry into the Battle of Orgreave attest. Writers have continued to detect the phenomenon even in less violent events. In September 2004, a few protesters against the Blair government's ban on fox hunting invaded the Commons chamber, triggering the startling Daily Mail front page headline: 'CIVIL WAR' – an echo, doubtless unintended, of their Zinoviev Letter splash 80 years earlier. Brexit – which Betz sees, not unreasonably, as the trigger for today's divisions – was cast in TV drama as the 'uncivil war'. At least one leading Leaver saw Brussels as a latter-day Charles I. So contemporaneous fears of civil war sit in a long tradition – in which, so far, the most consistent thread is that they have not come true. Visions of unrest in the 1920s drove draconian new laws, but also moves to find compromise. Cripps' talk of suspending the constitution was driven by the urgency of dealing with mass unemployment; once the Second World War made this a more consensual goal, those scenarios became a relic. Powell's nightmare of racial civil war was chased away by the quiet efforts of working-class Brits of all races to make multicultural life work. And those 1970s calls to use force against strikers were made redundant by another shift in the bounds of the politically possible. By the early 1980s, inflation had trumped unemployment as Britain's overriding political fear; as the jobless total was allowed to rise, it undermined the unions' power years before the miners' began their last, doomed battle. So it may be that the return of talk of civil war is less a glimpse of our near future, more a signal that something has become intolerable. Clearly this is partly about immigration, but look beyond the fevered talk on YouTube, X and GB News, and something else comes into view. When Sky's Liz Bates challenged Dominic Cummings to explain what he meant by 'civil war', he didn't talk about ethnic strife, bar a passing reference to 'no-go areas'. He cited widespread anger at the decay of public services from closing police stations to inaccessible GPs, 15 years of flatlining pay, and repeated broken promises of change. This chimes with a public mood that More In Common and other pollsters have been reporting for months. Likewise, Betz mentions the pressures caused by financialisation reaching 'the end of the line'. The Starmer government knows it needs to act on illegal immigration, but if – if – it can deliver the economic change it promised, then it may be that the issue will become less intensely symbolic of wider long-term government failure. The real threat that talk of civil war expresses is that the public is so sick of being let down that trust in mainstream democratic politics may die. As in the past, such fears may help impel a government to break economic taboos and make people's lives better. There are plenty of worse scenarios, but if they can manage it, the talk of civil war will fade. And in 30 years' time, perhaps a new generation will find themselves expressing similar fears – and will complain that the British are always too complacent, and never think it can happen here. [See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels] Related
Metro
4 hours ago
- Metro
The islands where America and Russia are 2 miles and 21 hours apart
On two small islands in the middle of the Bering Strait, it's possible to walk from the United States to Russia in midwinter. Just two miles apart, Big Diomede and Little Diomede sit between two nations – a short distance away, but one day apart. Big Diomede is in Russia, and Little Diomede is in the US state of Alaska. It's easy to forget that the two countries, which have often been at each other's throats, are next-door neighbours. The Diomede Islands have come into focus again recently, ahead of President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska on Friday to chat about ending the war in Ukraine. It's not just different countries and ways of life which separate these two islands – it's an entire time zone. Between Big and Little Diomede lies the International Date Line, an imaginary line literally separates time zones and different dates on the calendar. If you were to leave Little Diomede in the US and walk to (in winter only) or boat over to Big Diomede at 9 am on a Monday, when you reach Russia, it would be Sunday. Unfortunately, it's illegal to travel between the islands, but the allure remains. Though local time adjustments mean that the time difference between the islands is 21 hours, not 24, the ability to 'time travel' between islands is a unique feature not found in many places on earth. Though Big Diomede is a Russian military outpost, Little Diomede is home to a small population of Inupiat natives who call the island home. The locals on Little Diomede have been separated from their Russian relatives since the Cold War began. Local Frances Ozenna told the BBC: 'We know we have relatives over there. The older generations are dying out, and the thing is, we know nothing about each other. 'We are losing our language. We speak English now, and they speak Russian. It's not our fault. It's not their fault. But it's just terrible.' Now, the only connection Ozenna has with Russia is the passing military helicopters and fishing boats floating by. On Friday, Putin and Trump will sit down at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage for talks about Ukraine. For Putin, the trip to Alaska has a unique history, given that the territory was bought from Russia in 1867. Before then, it was an extension of Russia's freezing cold, rural territory of Siberia. After the land was sold, almost all native Russians left for their mainland, leaving Alaska widely unpopulated, except for native Inuits. Some experts have speculated that Putin could use the region's history to his advantage in talks about Ukraine. Nigel Gould-Davies, former British ambassador to Belarus, told Sky: 'It's easy to imagine Putin making the argument during his meetings with Trump that, 'Well, look, territories can change hands,'' More Trending 'We gave you Alaska, why can't Ukraine give us part of its territory?' Trump on Monday said he will try to help Ukraine recover some of its land from Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion on the sovereign country in 2022. 'Russia's occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They occupied prime territory,' he said. 'We're going to try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Russia 'responsible for hacking highly sensitive US court records' MORE: White House reveals why Zelensky won't be at Trump's one-on-one with Putin MORE: JD Vance invites Apprentice star Thomas Skinner for beer-fuelled BBQ
