Former British Prime Minister’s take on Donald Trump is worthy of a ‘clown prince’

By James J. Devine

In the world of political theater, few performances rival that of Boris Johnson, the former British Prime Minister whose recent comments on Donald Trump raise serious questions about the nature of democratic accountability.

Johnson, once a vocal critic of Trump’s actions during the January 6 Capitol riots, now insists that the Republican’s efforts to contest the 2020 election result were not an attempt to “overthrow the constitution.” Instead, he claims, they represent a “peaceful transfer of democratic power.”

His audacious claim not only defies logic but also exposes a troubling trend among political leaders: the erosion of democratic principles in favor of personal loyalty and populist rhetoric.

In July 2019, Sam Knight’s incisive article in The New Yorker posed the question: “Just How Crazy Is Boris Johnson?”

At that time, Johnson had just assumed the mantle of Prime Minister amidst a national crisis marked by Brexit’s uncertain aftermath. Knight characterized him as a figure who relished the chaos, a man whose political ambitions overshadowed any commitment to serious governance.

Johnson’s rise was underpinned by his charisma and penchant for distraction, traits that seem to have only intensified with his recent defense of Trump.

Four people died after Trump encouraged the mob of protesters gathered near the White House to march on the US Capitol Building after making false claims of electoral fraud, a lie that was enough to incite roughly 2,000 terrorists to storm the building intended to disrupt Congress from certifying the election result.

At the time of the failed coup d’etat, Johnson unequivocally condemned Trump, asserting that he incited an insurrection against a peaceful, respectful, and smoothly-run democratic government.

“All my life America has stood for some very important things. An idea of freedom, an idea of democracy,” said Johnson the day after the unsuccessful power grab. “As you say, in so far as he encouraged people to storm the Capitol, and in so far as the president has consistently cast doubt on the outcome of a free and fair election, I believe that was completely wrong.”

“I believe what President Trump has been saying about that has been completely wrong and I unreservedly condemn encouraging people to behave in the disgraceful way that they did in the Capitol,” said Johnson.

However, as Johnson now promotes his memoir and seeks to remain relevant on the international stage, he is engaging in a troubling act of revisionist history, attempting to sanitize the former U.S. president’s blatant disregard for democracy and truth.

This shift reveals a disconcerting alignment of interests between two leaders who thrive on populist sentiment while paying lip service to the rule of law.

As leaders such as Trump and Johnson betray core Western values, countries become less democratic than they used to be, and fundamental principles like checks and balances, free elections, and freedom of the press are under threat around the world.

Johnson’s suggestion that Trump’s refusal to concede the election does not render him “unfit” for the presidency is a dangerous stance, suggesting that democratic legitimacy can be secondary to political ambition.

This notion is deeply troubling, especially considering Johnson’s previous denunciation of Trump’s rhetoric as “completely wrong.” It raises the question of whether leaders are moral or brave enough to prioritize the integrity of democratic institutions over their political allegiances.

Johnson may be new to this station but almost the entire Republican Party is guilty of treason because they won’t acknowledge Trump’s treachery except for a few courageous individuals like ‘Darth Cheney,’ his heroic daughter Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, two patriots who lost their seats in Congress before they endorsed at the Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

“In our nation’s 248-year history,” said former Vice President Dick Cheney, “there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.”

The implications of Johnson’s and Trump’s alignment extend beyond the individual actions of these leaders, as it reflects a broader trend in contemporary politics where accountability is sacrificed at the altar of populism.

As Knight noted, Johnson’s political career has been characterized by a lack of seriousness and principle, traits that now seem to resonate with Trump’s approach to governance. This convergence of populist rhetoric and disregard for democratic norms signals a precarious moment for both British and American politics.

Moreover, Johnson’s attempt to reframe his past criticisms of Trump as mere disagreements suggests a troubling willingness to adapt his narrative for the sake of political expediency. This gymnastic feat rivals that of GOP VP nominee JD Vance, who called Trump an “idiot” said he was “reprehensible” and compared him to Adolf Hitler.

Of course, Vance called Trump “America’s Hitler” before enthusiastically accepting his offer of a job. Johnson not only undermined his previous stance and emboldened a narrative that legitimized insurrectionist behavior, but he did it for free.

The fact that these leaders can oscillate between condemnation and complicity raises alarm bells about the future of democracy itself.

As Johnson continues to hawk his memoir and cement his status as a global political buffoon, it is crucial to scrutinize the implications of his words.

If leaders like Johnson can normalize such behavior without facing repercussions, while GOP leaders who pointed out the Emperor has no clothes find themselves ejected from office, we risk the demise of democracy.

Knight’s original inquiry into Johnson’s sanity may have been rhetorical, but the real question now is: how far are we willing to tolerate the erosion of our democratic principles in the name of political ambition?

In this era of political turmoil, the actions and statements of leaders like Boris Johnson must be met with skepticism and critical examination. It is not merely about individual behavior; it is about the broader implications for the democratic institutions we hold dear.

If we are to preserve the integrity of our political systems, we must hold leaders accountable for their rhetoric and actions, ensuring that the defense of democracy remains paramount in the face of political opportunism, and by making it clear that traitors and fools have no place in high government offices.