Is Trump playing the same game as Nero?
He was passionate about music, took lyre and singing lessons and kept his weight down with enemas and emetics. No one was allowed to leave while he performed. Women gave birth during his recitals, we are told, and people climbed out over the rear wall or shammed dead in order to be carried out. Whenever he performed, his claqueurs made sure the applause went on and on. The historian Tacitus tells us that people from out-of-town or the provinces, 'shocked at the outrageous spectacle, found that their unpractised hands were not up to the degrading task' and consequently disrupted the professional applauders. But the heavies moved in, and they were soon clapping away again.
He made his singing debut in Naples, where he disregarded an earthquake to complete the performance (the theatre collapsed soon afterwards). In another competition, he performed the whole of the opera Niobe. This went on until nearly dusk and left no time for anyone else to compete.
But feeling that Romans did not really appreciate his skills, he took himself off to Greece, where he was given a rapturous welcome wherever he went. He was sent in advance every prize they could lay their hands on (1,808 in all) which convinced him Greeks really understood about culture. So he relieved Greece of all taxes. All this made him wildly popular with the plebs at home and abroad, but despised by the elites, who were, of course, the ones who wrote up his life.
Which brings us back to the Donald. His game, golf, rarely whips up crowds to meteoric emotional heights, but as the world-ruler (for that is the meaning of his name, from the Gaelic Domhnall) he does not seem to be especially good at it. Plenty of scope there for future historians to describe pros desperate not to play with him, or crowds to watch.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Smithsonian removes references to Trump impeachments at history exhibit
The Smithsonian Institution has scrubbed all mention of Donald Trump's impeachments from a prominent display at the National Museum of American History, temporarily eliminating any acknowledgment of the president's unique status as the only US leader the House impeached twice. The alterations to the presidential power exhibit, first reported by the Washington Post, occurred in July, with museum officials replacing contemporary signage with an older version that excludes Trump's impeachment proceedings entirely. Visitors now see only a generic reference to three presidents facing potential removal from office. Museum representatives confirmed the changes followed an institutional review of exhibition content. 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,' a Smithsonian spokesperson told the Guardian. 'Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.' The spokesperson pledged that 'a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,' though they provided no specific timeline for implementation. The move comes as Trump has waged a systematic campaign to reshape federal cultural agencies since returning to power, and issued directives aimed at purging what he categorizes as diversity initiatives and halting new federal appointments. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order directing the elimination of 'anti-American ideology' across Smithsonian museums and promising to 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness'. The order specifically targets several Smithsonian facilities for ideological review, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Trump faced impeachment charges twice during his first presidency – initially over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate political rivals, then later for his role in the 6 January 2021 Capitol attack. The Senate cleared him on both occasions. That historic distinction has now vanished from the nation's premier history museum, while displays covering Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon's impeachment cases remain untouched. The spokesperson explained that temporary materials addressing Trump's impeachments had been installed in September 2021 as 'a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025'. The Smithsonian operates as a congressional trust with an annual budget exceeding $1bn and attracts millions of visitors annually to its network of museums, making it a key cultural touchstone for public education about American history.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Scots schools must continue to invest in libraries to protect children's futures
Glasgow City Council is considering removing librarians from 30 schools, but Record View demands that they think again. School libraries play a crucial role in expanding the minds of pupils. Not every child grows up in a house with books. For some youngsters, a school library is where they discover a lifelong appreciation of books. So it's deeply concerning that Glasgow City Council is considering removing the position of librarian from its 30 secondary schools. While there are no plans to close the libraries, the loss of such experienced professionals would be devastating. In these financially straitened times, all local authorities must make difficult decisions to balance their books. But it seems perverse that cutting cash from the school libraries budget would even be considered in the first place. Councils are being forced into these choices by a council tax freeze that has devastated local services. The freeze was brought in by the SNP to try to tackle soaring household bills. This was considered a vote winner by successive first ministers and enjoyed widespread support. Now the freeze has been lifted and bills have gone up again but the damage done to local services is still being felt. But before councils resort to measures like removing librarians from our high schools, they must think of the impact on young people. This generation of high school pupils has already lost years of schooling through the Covid lockdowns. They deserve to have their services protected – especially those which help them expand their horizons. Libraries can play as crucial a role for kids as classrooms. They deserve investment – not cutbacks. The city council must think again and keep its librarians. He's Don a U-turn Stock markets around the world slumped again as US President Donald Trump announced new tariffs on more than 90 countries. Trump is touting tariffs as the answer to trade deficits with other nations – but clearly the move will slow the global economy and devastate jobs. During his visit to Scotland last weekend, it appeared that Trump was on a more reasonable course. It may have been the sea air at Turnberry and Aberdeenshire that made him mellow, as he appeared to open a window of opportunity to get a deal done on whisky tariffs. But now he's back on the warpath and using the threat of tariffs to get his own way with countries that should be allies. It's typical of this erratic, unpredictable figure that he would say one thing one week, and something different the next. The world will be much safer and more prosperous place when his time in office finally ends.
