Problematising Anglo-American relations

President Reagan meeting with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the oval office, 16 November 1988

My research focuses on contemporary American history in a broader context. In particular, it examines the transfer of political ideas and policies between the United Kingdom and the United States and how an issue in one country affects policy making elsewhere. In short, my research revolves around the interaction between domestic politics, foreign policy and policymaking. It has resulted in two books.
 

 
The first focused on Anglo-American policy transfer between the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government, debunking common myths about the similarities between Reaganism and Thatcherism (Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan: A Very Political Special Relationship, Palgrave, 2012). The second examined the role of U.S. presidents in the Northern Ireland conflict and is a significant contribution to the emerging scholarship about American influence on the Anglo-Irish process and Northern Ireland ‘peace process’ (The Politics of Diplomacy: U.S. Presidents and the Northern Ireland Conflict, 1967-98, Edinburgh University Press, 2017).

Why did you not just choose to study the History of one country?
I do not believe that events and issues can be studied simply through the history of one country. The politics and policy making of countries do not occur in isolation from developments elsewhere and the writing of history should reflect this. Therefore, despite my primary focus being the history of the United States, my research considers America in a global context.

What are the highlights of doing your research?
My research has allowed me to visit plenty of interesting places and meet fascinating people. I conduct research in a variety of American, British and Irish archives, including numerous presidential libraries. My favourite presidential library is probably the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (partially because it has the best canteen), although I would recommend that anyone with an interest in American history should try to visit any presidential library if they can! I was fortunate to be able to conduct over thirty interviews with key protagonists – including: Mr Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Lord (Geoffrey) Howe, former UK Foreign Secretary; Lord (Charles) Powell, leading adviser to Margaret Thatcher; Mr Edwin Meese, a leading figure in the Reagan administration; and, Lord (Neil) Kinnock, former Labour Party leader – and I am regularly able to consult the most recently available archival material. Researching in archives often leads to all sorts of surprises. I have read documents that detail the Reagan administration’s excitement about a visit by Michael Jackson to the White House and Bill Clinton’s offer to babysit Leo Blair, youngest son of Tony and Cherie, after his presidency ended in 2001.

Do you compare history to current affairs?
The subject matter of my research certainly lends itself to comparisons with current events in both Britain and the United States. I have blogged on ‘Cultural Thinking’ about the regularly asserted comparison between the Reagan-Thatcher relationship with the emergence and relationship of Donald Trump and Theresa May. In addition to making anecdotal comparisons in my teaching between history and the present, I have contributed to American and British news coverage about the politics in both countries.

What do people think about your research?
My research had led to very exciting opportunities. For instance, in 2012-13 I was the Fulbright-Robertson Visiting Professor of British History at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri (where I also curated an exhibit, based on my research on Reagan and Thatcher, at the college’s National Winston Churchill Museum). In November 2014 I was interviewed about the Reagan-Thatcher relationship on the BBC News Channel. I was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo in May 2016. My books have been positively reviewed by my peers and I am a regular contributor to academic journals, collections of essays and conferences. Many people find it interesting that what I study is considered to be ‘History’ given that it happened in living memory – including my own!

Dr James Cooper is Senior Lecturer in History at Oxford Brookes University

Trump one year on: how did we get here?

Recently there has been much commentary about the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States and his first year in office, a key theme of which has been whether it represents a victory for a resurgent populism in the West. Typically, the historical comparisons offered to help understand the Trump phenomenon are Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s – particularly given Trump’s re-running of Reagan’s mission to “Make America Great Again” – and Richard Nixon’s presidency (1969-74), which claimed to represent a “silent majority” of Americans (although it collapsed, and ultimately ended, amid national scandal).  However, as an historian of contemporary North America, it is increasingly clear that the most apt historical comparison for Trump is not with Reagan of the 1980s, but instead the Reagan of the 1960s and 1970s. 

Trump’s 2016 election victory is most comparable with Reagan’s political breakthrough when he became Governor of California in 1966. Just as Trump’s national political presence arguably began with his contribution to the “Birther movement” reaction to Barack Obama’s presidency, Reagan’s arrival on the national scene was as a supporter for the arch-conservative Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid in 1964. Reagan was consequently able to take advantage of his own personal “name recognition”, the Goldwater movement, and limited Republican talent in California, to ensure that he became his party’s nominee for Governor in 1964. Similarly, Trump’s celebrity, arguable authenticity, and the frustrations of the Republican base with its establishment politicians, meant that the former Apprentice host captured America’s Grand Old Party.

 Crucially, both Reagan in 1964 and Trump in 2016, despite their fame and fortunes, claimed to be citizen politicians who wanted to represent the “people” and challenge the political status-quo. Reagan’s campaign saw the former actor emerge as a master of electioneering in a television age, just as Trump utilised Twitter to speak directly to his supporters and antagonise his opponents. Despite the best efforts of their respective opponents – Governor Pat Brown for Reagan, Secretary Hillary Clinton for Trump – the political establishment could not make anything ‘stick’ sufficiently to stop the Republicans emerging victorious. 

Upon taking office in Sacramento, Reagan’s team did not have any idea about what a Governor should do and simply assumed that competent businessmen could organise State government. Those who were willing to work for a government salary found themselves to be an inexperienced and conservative executive branch working with – or against – an experienced, liberal Democrat controlled Californian legislature. While Trump’s frustrations with Congress could worsen after the upcoming mid-terms, he has certainly seen some of his domestic agenda falter, despite his own party controlling both Houses of Congress. Moreover, in an effort to ensure that his administration worked more effectively, the importance of the likes of Steve Bannon have been replaced by the effective drafting of Generals into key roles at the White House.

As Governor of California, Reagan was unable to act on his conservative ideals. For instance, he signed an extremely liberal abortion law, raised taxes and favoured environmental issues ahead over economic ones. Yet he left office in 1975 as the pre-eminent conservative in America – his rhetoric was more powerful than the reality of his record. Despite an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to usurp President Gerald Ford’s nomination by the Republican Party for the 1976 presidential election, Reagan was the darling of his party’s national convention. Likewise, Trump is yet to break ground on The Wall, but his supporters are still with him. Rather than contempt, familiarity ostensibly breeds success: ideas and image matter more than reality, especially if the messenger of those ideas is speaking for “the people” – or at least some of the people, who are prepared to back their chosen “insider” who claims to be fighting an outsider’s good fight against an establishment that allegedly no longer represents the interests of ordinary people. Given that many of Reagan’s supporters enthusiastically supported his tentative campaign for the presidency in 1968, just two years into his tenure as Governor, it can hardly be surprising that Trump has simply not stopped campaigning and recently appointed a Chair for his re-election campaign, ignoring all other obvious and potential banana skins. Trump 2020, here we come.       

For further reading, please see:

James H. Broussard, Ronald Reagan: Champion of Conservative America (London: Routledge), 2015, chapters 3, 4 and 5.

Iwan Morgan, Reagan: American Icon (London: I.B. Tauris, 2016), chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Dr James Cooper is a Senior Lecturer in History and teaches on the American history modules at Oxford Brookes University. He has written books about the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and U.S. Presidents and Northern Ireland. 

Back to the future: Trump and May, Reagan and Thatcher

On Friday 27 January, an outsider and polarising American president, with a background in showbiz, enthusiastically welcomed a female British prime minister to the White House. Both came to office in the context of a national rejection of the status quo and a demand to prioritise their respective national interests. It was the first meeting between the new U.S. president, Donald J. Trump, and the British prime minister, Theresa May. We have been here before and there are comparisons - including those made prominently by Trump himself - with the relationship between President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.


The Reagan-Thatcher relationship is feted as an example of the most special of Anglo-American relationships. Their proponents and opponents earmark them as political soulmates, committed to a marriage made in free-markets, tax cuts, and a Cold Warrior vow to stand-up to the Soviet Union. However, as in all relationships, there were quarrels and disagreements. Reagan was slow to publicly support Britain in the 1982 Falklands War and the 1983 American intervention in Grenada was a huge embarrassment to the Thatcher government. The prime minister was furious when Reagan almost agreed to total nuclear disarmament with Mikhail Gorbachev in their meeting at Reykjavik in 1986.

Trump and May’s first meeting was likely be a harbinger of the complexities of their relationship in power. This was certainly the case for Reagan-Thatcher. When Reagan welcomed Thatcher to the White House on 26 February 1981, both leaders publicly and enthusiastically promoted their commonalities in policy and shared purpose in office. Yet just as Maggie and Ronnie were indulging in their jellybeans in the Oval Office, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Donald T. Regan, was assuring Congress that Reaganism would be different to Thatcherism. Likewise, the White House briefed the press on the differences between the two government’s economic policies. The Reagan administration would spend 1981 trying to ease the New York Times’ claim that ‘Reaganomics will produce Thatcheritis’. This balancing act between public diplomacy and a concern about economic programmes continued throughout the Reagan-Thatcher years. The Reagan administration did not want the president’s proposed tax cuts in 1981 to be rejected because of Thatcher’s struggling economy. In turn, the prime minister repeatedly asked the president to address the ballooning American budgetary deficit, given its negative impact on the global economy through high interest rates and subsequent undermining of her Thatcherite revolution at home.

Theresa May went to Washington, D.C. eyeing the prize of an Anglo-American trade deal that could be celebrated as a major victory for ‘Brexit Britain’. An Anglophile president, who is eager to show that he can transfer his ‘art of the deal’ from business to politics, hosted the prime minister. Nevertheless, just as public diplomacy and political cover defined the Reagan and Thatcher meetings, May, like Reagan 36 years ago, will continue to be aware of the domestic politics back home. She will not want to be too personally connected to such a polarising figure as Trump. After all, the British government daren’t allow fears to emerge that ‘Mayism will produce Trumpism’.


Dr James Cooper is a senior lecturer in History at Oxford Brookes University, specialising in contemporary American history. He was previously the twentieth Fulbright-Robertson Visiting Professor of History at Westminster College in Fulton, MO, and in May 2016 he held a fellowship at the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

Image: Wikimedia Commons