"There will always be an England."

October 7, 2019 at 2:13 P.M. A package of materials was mailed by priority mail to the following recipients:

The Chicago Tribune
Editorial Office 
160 N. Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6707.

The Chicago Tribune Co.,
Administration Office
435 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611.

USPS Tracking No.: #9505 5142 0130 9280 2525 84.

William P. Barr, Esq.
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
(Manhattan)
One St. Andrew's Place
New York, N.Y. 10007.

USPS Tracking No.: #9505 5142 0130 9280 2525 91. 

September 30, 2019 at 2:36 P.M. A text that I posted below was deleted. 

Initially it was necessary for me to type the work over several weeks because I only have 45 minutes per day to write online after the destruction of several of my personal computers.

I will attempt to re-post the essay that I wrote while providing a list of one hundred books to accompany the essay. 

Destruction of my written work has happened before. 

This could only take place with the "cooperation" of New Jersey officials using government resources to participate in computer crimes. 

I am informed that no New Jersey newspapers are or will be available at Penn Station at 34th Street or the Port Authority building at 42nd Street in Manhattan. 

I will do my best to find New Jersey newspapers in Manhattan. 

I am confident that, despite what I have been told, local newspapers continue to exist in New Jersey and may be read online, or found in newsstands in the Garden State and, perhaps, also somewhere in New York.  

My writings are carefully considered even if they are not persuasive to all readers. And they are written against a great deal of opposition and obstructions aimed at preventing me from writing or at delaying the writing process.

I provide my outline for this essay in order to make it clear to New Jersey critics that I am at least methodical about planning these essays.

I doubt that I will be prevented entirely from writing or posting essays online despite Mr. Rabner's discontent. ("Have you no shame Mr. Rabner?") 

The scholarship and merits, such as they are, of these writings now seem to be recognized by some generous readers. 

Persons in New Jersey determined to insult me are, of course, impervious to reason or empirical evidence that contravenes their hatreds and diseases or mendacity. 

New Jersey's hostility is that state's problem (one of many problems), not mine. 

Destruction or theft of my property will also not deter me from my task. ("The Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.") 

I will continue to do what I have to do. ("What is Law?") 

This text will probably be plagiarized in whole or in part by the very people seeking to destroy my writings. 

Alterations in the size of letters, as usual, are due to computer crime emanating from New Jersey. 

I am sure that my privacy is violated or non-existent enough that my drafts are read long before I publish finished works, without the slightest regard for copyright or other laws let alone simple human decency, by the sort of persons pontificating about ethics or legality in Trenton. 

It may be that such persons believe their own lies and are delighted by their hypocrisy or false virtues. ("'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?")

I have received notice that electricity to my apartment may be unavailable for "five minutes" on October 17, 2019 in order to install new meters in the building where I live in Manhattan. 

I do not write at my home. Accordingly, interference with my utilities or "services" will not alter my writing schedule if this threat is not, as I suspect, a lie. 

Water in my apartment may be shut off again without warning at any time. 

No doubt these "disruptions" are entirely coincidental. 

Allegedly, a package could not be delivered to The Chicago Tribune. 

I will mail this package again by priority mail and will post the tracking number(s) here. 

A parcel that is addressed incorrectly is not accepted by the U.S. Post Office for priority mail. 

There was no official stamp on the envelope returned to me and the label attached to the address was not a USPS label. 

I have reason to believe that The Chicago Tribune is awaiting this package.  

I will also send a package to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan with a copy of the returned envelope that seems to contain a label from the N.J. court system or government. 

It is a federal crime to interfere with the US mail and a felony, I believe, at least when non-New Jersey gentiles engage in the act.

Evidently, New Jersey Jews and their friends from Miami are permitted to commit such crimes. 

My next N.J. essay will be sent to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan; William P. Barr, Esq., U.S. Attorney General; the Cuban Embassy in the U.S.; and the San Francisco Chronicle. 

I. "THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND."

A. Why do so many Americans care about Britain?
B. "Two nations divided by a common language."
C. "The history of the English-speaking peoples."

II. "BLOND AMBITION": BORIS JOHNSON'S UK.

A. "Boris Johnson's "Churchillian" Challenge.
B. The Loyal Opposition: Mr. Corbyn's Dilemma.
C. Let's be clear about why the British people will not give up on "Brexit."

III. "GREECE TO AMERICA'S ROME."

A. Will Donald Trump be "domesticated" by Boris Johnson?
B. Boris Johnson's Dilemma.
C. "The World's Greatest Literature."

IV. WHAT WILL BE BRITAIN'S ROLE IN A POST-BREXIT WORLD-ORDER?

A. Cultural Super-Power Status and a Great Nation's Responsibility to Promote Peace.
B. "English Liberty in America": Defending Human Rights, Liberty, Justice in the World.
C. "The Sun Will Never Set" on a Global "New" Britain. 

What follows is a partial list of sources drawn upon for my essay. Periodicals are listed first in chronological order; books are listed second alphabetically.

Periodicals:

Fintan O'Toole, [Manohla Dargis] "Boris Johnson: The Ham of Fate," The New York Review of Books, April 15, 2019, p. 29.

"Johnson's European Tour Leaves All the Work to Do," (Editorial) Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 24 August/Sunday, 25 August, 2019, p. 6.

Tim Wu, "We are more than what we buy," (Op-Ed) The New York Times, August 27, 2019, p. A23.

"Group of 7, Minus Trump," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 27, 2019, p. A22. 

Adam Nassiter, "French Leader: Dynamo at G7, Seizes the Moment: Placating Trump While Pursuing an Agenda," The New York Times, August 28, 2019, p. A22. ("Where we are now.") 

Benjamin Mueller, "Anti-Brexit Lawmakers, Often at Odds, Band Together Against Johnson," The New York Times, August 28, 2019, p. A6.

Megan Specia, "When Prime Minister Went to the Queen, She Had Little Sway, Experts Say," The New York Times, August 30, 2019, p. A8.

Steven Erlanger & Martina Stevins-Gridneff, "Diplomats in Europe Are Left Aghast," [sic.] The New York Times, August 30, 2019, p. A9.

Benjamin Mueller & Palko Kolaz, "U.K. Crowds Protest Move to Suspend Parliament," The New York Times, September 1, 2019, p. A10.

Benjamin Mueller, "Britain's Unwritten Constitution Looks Fragile Under Johnson," The New York Times, September 1, 2019, p. A10.

George Packer, James Beitz, & Chris Giles, "Johnson Faces Mounting Opposition: Ex-Premier Major Joins Fray -- Bid to Stop Parliament Shutdown," Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 31, August/Sunday, 1, September, 2019, p. 1. 

Steven Castle, "Et Tu, Jo?: [sic.] A Painful Twist as Johnson's Brother Quits Parliament," The New York Times, September 6, 2019, p. A8.

Max Fisher, "Democracy in UK, Tested by Brexit, Holds For Now," The New York Times, September 6, 2019, p. A9. 

Mark Landler, "Complex 'Bromance' Is Underscored by Pence's Visit With [sic.] British Leader," The New York Times, September 6, 2019, p. A9.  

Max Hastings, "Brexit," Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 7, September/Sunday, 8, September, 2019, p. 6.

Benjamin Mueller & Steven Castle, "The Life and Times of Brexit's Chief Brawler," The New York Times, September 9, 2019, p. A4. 

Steven Castle, "In Day of Defeat, Johnson Fails [in] Bid to Have Election: 'No Deal' Brexit Barred," The New York Times, September 10, 2019, p. A7.

Benjamin Mueller, "Britain's Hated and Hailed House Speaker to Quit," The New York Times, September 10, 2019, p. A7. 

Benjamin Mueller, "As Parliament Is Suspended, Elaborate Rituals Meet Chants of 'Shame,'" The New York Times, September 11, 2019, p. A12. 

Mark Landler, "To Advance Brexit Plan, Johnson Keeps Ireland in Play," The New York Times, September 13, 2019, p. A9.

Megan Specia, [Manohla Dargis] "Leaving E.U. With No Deal Could Have Dire Effects," The New York Times, September 13, 2019, p. A9.

Martina Stevins-Gridneff, "From New E.U. Chief, Echo of Far Right's Language on Migrants," The New York Times, September 13, 2019, p. A10.

Mark Landler, "Britain Hasn't Been Left Just Yet in Political Disarray," The New York Times, September 14, 2019, p. A10. 

Benjamin Mueller, "Issue of Who Rules What Is Getting Its Day in Court," The New York Times, September 14, 2019, p. A10.

Iliana Magia, "In Memoir, Cameron Says Johnson Pushed for Brexit He 'Didn't Believe In,'" The New York Times, September 16, 2019, p. A8. 

Martina Stevins-Gridneff, "A Protest Over Brexit, Protesters With Questions, But No Boris Johnson," The New York Times, September 17, 2019, p. A4.

Amie Tsang, [Manohla Dargis] "How Brexit Might Wilt Britain's Greengrocers," The New York Times, "Business Section," September 20, 2019, p. B6. 

Sarah Lyall & Mark Landler, "Former British Prime Minister is Sorry, Very Sorry," The New York Times, September 21, 2019, p. A10.

Stephen Castle, "Johnson's Brexit Trouble May Not Matter at Polls," The New York Times, September 21, 2019, p. A10.

Chris Patten, "Reversal of Fortune," Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 21, September/Sunday, 22, September, 2019, p. 9. (Review of David Cameron, For the Record, London, William Collins, 2019, 732 pages.) 

Caroline Binham, "Brenda Hale: A Judge With the Human Touch," (Op-Ed) Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 21, September/Sunday, 22, September, 2019, p. 11. (Profile of the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom whose decision in the matter of the "proroguing" of Parliament is due September 24, 2019.) 

John Boothman, "The Assumption That Leavers Support Free Trade is Misguided," (Op-Ed) Financial Times, Weekend Edition, USA Edition, Saturday, 21, September/Sunday, 22, September, 2019, p. 10.

Gabe Cohn, "'Downton Abbey' Rules the Box Office," The New York Times, "Arts Section," September 23, 2019, p. C3. 

Benjamin Mueller, "Sex and Fraud Scandal Leaves Johnson at Risk," The New York Times, September 24, 2019, p. A11.

Stephen Castle, "Corbyn Wins Brexit Showdown With His Party," The New York Times, September, 24, 2019, p. A11. 

Mark Landler, "U.K. Court Says Parliament's Shutdown Is Illegal," The New York Times, September 23, 2019, p. A1.

Mark Landler & Benjamin Mueller, "Judiciary Intervention Into Political Dispute Remakes British Law," The New York Times, September 23, 2019, p. A8.

[Manohla Dargis,] "Boris Johnson's Ultimate Deceit," (Editorial) The New York Times, September 23, 2019, p. A26.

Stephen Castle, "Johnson and Parliament Are Back. At Square One.[,]" The New York Times, September 26, 2019, p. A7. 

Peter Robbins, "U.K. Leader Is Referred to Watchdog Over Scandal," The New York Times, September 29, 2019, p. A12.

Stephen Castle, "As Johnson Faces Heat, Tory Base Stays Loyal," The New York Times, September 30, 2019, p. A6.

Dwight Garner, "You Must Crawl Before You Can Lead," The New York Times, "Arts Section," October 1, 2019, p. C3.

Mark Landler & Stephen Castle, "U.K. Leader is Forced to Seek Brexit Extension: Parliament Delays Vote, Adding Agony," The New York Times, October 20, 2019, p. A1.

Benjamin Mueller, "Distrusting Johnson, Lawmakers Buy More Insurance Against a No-Deal Exit," The New York Times, October 20, 2019, p. 12A. 

Stephen Castle & Mark Landler, "Despite a Raft of Blunders, Johnson Remains Close to Brexit Success," The New York Times, October 21, 2019, p. A7.

Stephen Castle, "Speaker's Job Will Bestow Its Traditions and Troubles," The New York Times, October 29, 2019, p. A7.

Stephen Castle, "Ruling From UK Speaker Delays Another Brexit Vote," The New York Times, October 22, 2019, p. A10.

Benjamin Miller, "Pro-Brexit Press Frames Johnson as Defiant Hero," The New York Times, October 22, 2019, p. A10. 

"Will Britain Ever Get Closure on Brexit?," (Editorial) The New York Times, October 21, 2019, p. A24.    

Books: 

Peter Ackroyd, Dickens: A Biography (London: Harper Collins, 1990). (The modern idea of England is largely the invention of Charles Dickens.) 

Kingsley Amis, Whatever Happened to Jane Austen? And Other Questions (London: Penguin, 1970, 1981), pp. 15-23.

Kingsley Amis, One Fat Englishman (New York: NYRB, 1963, 2011). (Introduction by Howard Jacobson.)

Kingsley Amis, Girl, 20 (New York: NYRB, 1971, 2011). (Introduction by David Lodge.) 

Kingsley Amis, The Old Devils (New York: NYRB, 1986, 2012). (Introduction by John Banville.)

Martin Amis, The Rachel Papers (New York: Vintage International, 1973, 1992).  

Martin Amis, Experience (London: Vintage, 2000), pp. 372-382. 

Jeffrey Archer, First Among Equals (London: Pocket Books, 1984, 1985). (The novel anticipates the adventures of David Cameron and Boris Johnson.) 

Jeffrey Archer, Kane and Abel (London & New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 2008). (Mr. Archer writes his novels in pairs.) 

John Banville, The Untouchable (London: Picador, 1997). 

Robert Barnard, Political Murder (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 1995). (Murder in Parliament and a culprit who may resemble Sir John Major.) 

Julian Barnes, England, England (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).

Michael Barrett, ed., Virginia Woolf: Women and Writing (New York & London: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1979, 1st Pub., 1904), pp. 43-76.

Harold Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1983), pp. 225-269 (Henry II and the Birth of the Common Law system).  

Lord Birkets, Six Great Advocates (London: Penguin, 1964). (Please see especially the discussion of Thomas Erskin, 1750-1823, who became Lord Chancellor of England and is remembered as one of the greatest debaters in the history of the British Parliament.) 

Malcolm Bradbury, Possibilities: Essays On the State of the Novel (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1973), pp. 211-230.

Anita Brooks, A Friend From England (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987). 

Marilyn Butler, Jane Austen and the War of Ideas (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1975). (Jane Austen has been accused of "inventing" the Tory world view in the modern world while Charles Dickens may be the ultimate source for the Labour party.)

Miranda Carter, Anthony Blunt: His Lives (London: McMillan, 2001).   

Jonathan Coe, The Rotter's Club (London: Penguin, 2001, 2002). 

Jonathan Coe, What a Carve Up! (London: Penguin, 1994, 2007).

William Cole, Prelude (London: Legend Press, 2007). (A beautiful novel reviewed by Boris Johnson in his essay collection Have I got views for you.) 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes 2 Volumes (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1887, 1890, 1892, 1902, 2003).  

Nicolas Courtney, The Very Best of British (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985), pp. 123-130. 

Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby (New York: New American Library, 1962, 1st Ed., 1844). (Perhaps the greatest political novel in the English language by one of Mr. Johnson's most illustrious predecessors as PM.)  

Bruce Duffy, The World as I Found It (New York: Tichnor & Fields, 1987). 

Richard Du Cann, The Art of the Advocate (London: Pelican, 1964), pp. 32-45. (The culture of argument among barristers.)

Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1986). 

Terry Eagleton, The English Novel: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Books, 2005), pp. 94-122.

Terry Eagleton, Across the Pond: An Englishman's View of America (New York: W.W. Norton, 2013), pp. 10-43.

Sebastian Faulks, On Green Dolphin Street (New York & London: Vintage International, 2003).

Sebastian Faulks, Devil May Care: The New James Bond Novel (New York & London: Doubleday, 2008).

Sebastian Faulks, A Weekend in December (London: Vintage Books, 2009, 2010).

Sebastian Faulks, Jeeves and the Wedding Bells: An Homage to P.G. Wodehouse (London & New York: St. Martin's Press, 2013). 

Sebastian Faulks, Where My Heart Used to Beat (London: Vintage, 2015).

James Fenton, The Strength of Poetry: Oxford Lectures (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2001), pp. 228-249.

Anthony Flew, How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Logic (New York: Prometheus Books, 1998). (Is logic a British invention? Bertrand Russell explained: "Many people would sooner die than think -- in fact, they do so.") 

E.M. Foster, Howard's End (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1902, 1943, 1965).

E.M. Foster, Two Cheers For Democracy (New York & London: HBJ Harvest, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1949, 1979), pp. 67-76 ("What I believe") and pp. 31-48 ("Anti-Nazi Radio Broadcasts"). 

H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1965).

Donat Gallagher, ed., A Little Order: Evelyn Waugh -- A Selection From His Journalism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), pp. 141-144.

Mark Gatiss, The Devil in Amber: A Lucifer Box Novel (New York & London: Scribner, 2006). ("Lucifer Box" is the essential Englishman today.) 

Graham Greene, Collected Essays (London: Penguin, 1951, 1985), pp. 13-18.

Robert Harris, Enigma (New York: Ivy Books, 1995). (The breaking of the "Enigma" code in World War II serves as analogy and metaphor for the Alan Turing/Wittgenstein-like protagonist who may be the greater "enigma" to be deciphered.) 

Robert Harris, The Ghost (New York: Pocket Star Books, 2007).  

Lesley Hazelton, England, Bloody England: An Expatriot's Return (New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990), pp. 3-57. (Strongly critical of the British class system and also admiring of the culture.)

Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The War for America, 1750-1781 (London: The Folio Society, 2006), pp. 341-346.  

Christopher Hitchens, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship (New York: Nation Books, 1990, 2004), pp. 152-179, pp. 180-199.

Christopher Hitchens, Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere (London & New York: Verso, 2000, 2002), pp. 224-243.  

Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000), pp. 190-206.

Sebastian Horsley, Dandy in the Underworld: An Unauthorized Autobiography (London: Harvest Perennial, 2007). (The right to be different and to the expression of one's eccentricity is profoundly British.) 

Clive James, Latest Readings (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2015), pp. 59-73. 

Boris Johnson, The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History (New York: Riverhead Books, 2014), pp. 82-97. (My copy of this immortal classic is signed by the Prime Minister with a "Churchillian" flourish.) 

Susie Jones, ed., Brit Wit: The Perfect Riposte for Every Social Occasion (West Sussex: Summerdale Publishers, Ltd., 2006), p. 77 ("Foreigners").

Fred Kaplan, Dickens: A Biography (New York: William Morrow, Inc., 1988).

Frank Kermode & John Hollander, eds., Modern British Literature: The Oxford Anthology of English Literature (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1973), pp. 620-630.

Nicola Lacey, The Nightmare and the Noble Dream: A Life of H.L.A. Hart (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2004), pp. 112-151.

David Lodge, Home Truths (London: Penguin, 1999, 2000). 

David Lodge, The Art of Fiction (London: Penguin, 2001), pp. 109-112. 

Sarah Lyall, The Anglo-Files: A Field Guide to the British (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008), pp. 126-144. 

A.F.W. Mason, The Four Feathers (New York: Tor, 1907, 2002).

Ian McEwan, The Cockroach (New York & London: Anchor Books, 2019). (Satire of Britain mired in the Brexit crisis.) 

James Morris, Pax Britannica: 3 Volumes (London: Folio Society, 1992). (The history of the British empire and invention of modern capitalism in this classic box set.)

Patrick O'Brian, Master and Commander (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 1970). (Please see my short story "Master and Commander.") 

Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 1992). (A woman on Her Majesty's battleship.)  

George Orwell, "Such, Such Were the Joys," A Collection of Essays (London: HBJ Harvest, 1946, 1953), pp. 1-47.

Patrick Parrender, Nation and Novel: The English Novel From Its Origins to the Present Day (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2006), pp. 145-179 ("Romantic Toryism: Scott, Disraeli, and Others"). 

Ian Pears, Arcadia (New York: Vintage, 2017).

Ian Pears, Stone's Fall (New York: Speigel & Grau, 2009). (Among other things a history of finance in twentieth century London may be found in this novel.) 

Walker Percy, The Last Gentleman (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1966).

Anthony Powell, To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell (London: Penguin, 1983). 

Jonathan Ree, Witcraft: The Invention of Philosophy in English (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2019), pp. 114-126.

Bertrand Russell, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: The Early Years -- 1872 to World War I (Boston & London: Little, Brown, Co. & Bantam, 1951, 1967), pp. 7-36, pp. 67-90.

Andrew Sanders, The Short Oxford History of English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1996), pp. 398-456. (The "short" history is over 800 pages long.)  

George Santayana, Soliloquies in England and Other Essays (Mich.: U. Mich. Press, 1967, 1st ed., 1922), pp. 43-55. 

George Santayana, Character and Opinion in the United States (New York: W.W. Norton, 1967).

Dorothy Sayers, Lord Peter (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), pp. 275-293.

William Shakespeare, Sonnets and Poems (New York: Washington Square Press, 1967, 1969). 

Michael Shelden, Graham Greene: The Enemy Within (New York: Random House, 1994).  

George Skapurski, English Language Philosophy: 1750-1945 (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1993), pp. 1-43.

Hillary Spurling, Anthony Powell: Dancing to the Music of Time (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018).

Mary Stewart, The Last Enchantment (New York: Fawcett, 1979). (Mr. Johnson's England may be analogized to Arthur's "fragmenting" kingdom, but will the PM hold the nation together and where is "Excalibur"?)

Lionel Trilling, E.M. Foster (New York: New Directions, 1943, 1965).  

Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation (New York: Gotham Books, 2016), pp. 103-136.

W.J. Turner, ed., Romance of English Literature (New York: Hastings House, 1944), pp. 227-270 (Elizabeth Bowen on English Novelists) and pp. 101-142 (Graham Greene on English Dramatists) then pp. 271-312 (Kenneth Mathews on British Philosophy). (This was a morale-boosting effort undertaken by leading British intellectuals when the war appeared to be lost that was intended to be published in the U.S. in the event that Britain fell to the Germans. Each of the writers signing his or her text was identifying him- or herself to the Germans as an anti-Nazi.) 

Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (New York: Bantam, 1889, 1989). (Rarely noted is the encounter between cultures that provides the comedy in this novel.) 

G.J. Warnock, English Philosophy Since 1900 (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1969), pp. 90-97.

Mary Warnock, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics (London: Duckworth, 1998), pp. 91-106. (Not only must we be good, but we are required to be "nice" and always to wear sensible shoes.) 

Evelyn Waugh, A Handful of Dust (Boston: Little & Brown, 1934, 1962).

Evelyn Waugh, Scoop (Boston: Little & Brown, 1937, 1977). (The "real" Daily Beast.)

Evelyn Waugh, The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold (Boston: Little & Brown, 1957, 1977). 

Evelyn Waugh, A Little Learning (Boston: Little &Brown, 1964).

Angus Wilson, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1956, 1991, 1996). 

A.N. Wilson, Gentlemen in England (London: Penguin, 1985). 

A.N. Wilson, "British Satire," Penfriends From Porlock (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1988), pp. 237-266.

A.N. Wilson, Our Times: The Age of Elizabeth II (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2008), pp. 271-303.

P.G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters (New York: Vintage, 1938, 1975).

P.G. Wodehouse, Blandings Castle (New York & London: Penguin, 1935, 1964). 

Virginia Woolf, Orlando: A Biography (New York: Signet, 1928, 1960). (A masterpiece that is, partly, about English history and identity with a superb "Afterword" in this edition by Elizabeth Bowen.) 

"There will always be an England."

Recent events in the United Kingdom have left observers astonished and concerned about the welfare of the British people and Europeans, also fearful about the potential economic as well other consequences for many persons in the world -- including Americans -- on what purports to be the "eve" of Brexit.

We are upset.

We are shocked.

We expect stupidity, childishness, ignorance and irresponsible behavior from American politicians, but (I must say) we hoped for much better conduct from prominent British officials who have attended elite institutions such as Eaton and Oxford University. 

Petty behavior and childish "grabs for power" simply will not do in Whitehall or at Downing Street even if they are, as it were, "par for the course" in Washington, D.C. 

Why exactly is this happening? And what is "Brexit" anyway? Why do so many of us in Britain's former colonies care so deeply about events in the UK? 

I will struggle to answer these questions for myself by writing this humble essay. 

I invite all of you to do some additional reading on these issues and related cultural events in order to have a better grasp not only of a controversy that is changing by the day, but also of the increasingly likely and very ominous consequences of a British collision with an annoyingly persistent "reality" that looms ahead of all of us like a brick wall before a vehicle that is out of control and moving at 90 miles-per-hour.

As I type these words the courts in Britain have handed the Prime Minister his latest historic defeat. 

Mr. Johnson has lost six-out-of-six votes in Parliament and now must cope with a far more calamitous defeat.  

It is almost unprecedented within the British system and far worse for Boris Johnson than anything he has experienced so far for courts which do not "enjoy" a doctrine of judicial review to strike down legislation, or what the departing Speaker of the House, John Bercow, called decisions by "Executive fiat" regardless of how unpopular such decisions may be with the public or political opponents of the PM. 

Deference to the other branches of government by British judges is nearly absolute on political questions whereas a similar doctrine under American Constitutional law ("the political question doctrine") is more severely limited to controversial ideological actions that clearly fall within one of the "articulated powers" of the acting branch of government usually the executive.

It is not disputed that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has the constitutional authority to request the Monarch to "cancel" the existing Parliament session "early." 

The Monarch's termination of a legislative session is called "proroguing." 

Opponents on this issue (including some from his own party) more than merely suggesting sinister motives have ARGUED in legally filed documents that the Prime Minister's ostensible rationale for the request to the Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, was fraudulent, or that he "misled" the Sovereign of the British people:

"A panel of three judges in the Court of Sessions, Scotland's highest court, found that the decision to send lawmakers home for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying [sic.] Parliament." (N.Y.T., 9-12-19, p. A8.) 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is alleged to have lied to the Queen about why he requested that she cancel the current Parliamentary "session." ("Is truth dead?") 

"The ruling suggested that Mr. Johnson had misled Queen Elizabeth II by telling her he wanted to shutter Parliament for banal procedural reasons, while in fact doing it [sic.] to silence lawmakers opposed to his Brexit plans. It was another indication to some scholars of the prime minister's [sic.] open disdain for constitutional norms and legal obligations during the chaotic early weeks of his leadership." (N.Y.T., 9-12-19, p. A8.) 

The search for legal analogies may well take us back as far as the English Civil War, or perhaps to the occasional "bloodless" revolution in English political institutions. 

I cannot recall in what I am assured is a very long lifetime of reading British law and political history a similar scenario, certainly not in recent times: a British Prime Minister is accused of lying in his official capacity to his Queen and has failed to resign.

Mr. Johnson has lost on this issue in some lower courts including the supreme tribunal of Scotland, even as he prevailed in English courts, and it must now be determined by the highest tribunal in the UK whether the current suspension of Parliament is (or is not) lawful. 

The PM is likely to prevail with the English judiciary although this is far from certain because the nation's judges do not desire an active role for courts as against the other branches of government. 

This point about the need for judicial restraint was argued eloquently by counsel for the PM before the full panel of English judges. Video of the oral argument is available online. 

If Mr. Johnson loses at the UK's Supreme Court level, however, the pressure will be enormous if not overwhelming to resign immediately and may well end Mr. Johnson's career in politics or journalism. 

Mr. Johnson has written a novel and a memoir is likely to be very lucrative after he leaves office. 

Mr. Trump's canards will only lead to the disapproval of MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow." 

Ms. Maddow's lies may include her own alleged name and credentials. 

This happy lying over the airwaves will not prevent Ms. Maddow from judging harshly Donald Trump's misstatements or untruths. Nor will any of this person's friends in journalism find such a level of hypocrisy and partisanship to be a problem for the MSNBC "star." ("The Naked Ape.") 

The British people are still disturbed in their quaint and curious ways by public figures lying blatantly in their official capacities. (Again: "Is truth dead?")  

Most important is the precedent which may be set in the UK. The jurisprudential implications of this legal challenge to say nothing of the unanticipated "evolution" or revolution among British judges (also a "power grab" perhaps), in a common law tradition without two centuries of public law precedents as in our Constitutionally-centered legal system in the United States of America, would alter forever the dynamics of British politics. 

No one has noticed that Scotland's judges seem to be developing their own doctrine of judicial review out of thin air. 

It is unclear whether English judges or others in the dominions of the realm will "concur" in developing their own versions of something like judicial review. 

Such a development in British jurisprudence may be barred by a well-entrenched fear of undemocratic judicial power that is built into English political institutions for excellent reasons. 

Journalists and others planning to plagiarize this essay may wish to turn to the scholarship of John H. Langbein of Oxford University on the history of the common law institutions of the United Kingdom then contrast these writings with Samuel Friedman's and Morton Horowitz's histories of American law and the more recent writings of law professor G. Edward White.  

You may find the story of developments in this area of political and legal culture no less fascinating (if less sexy) than the lives of the Kardashians.  

I am sure that it is superfluous for me to supply judges in Trenton, New Jersey with the necessary citations in American case law or legal scholarship. 

Stuart Rabner is said to stay up late at night reading the collected opinions of Lord Mansfield and the Commentaries of William Blackstone. 

Americans are enthralled by developments in Britain for more than self-interested reasons. 

There is always a complex love/hate relationship between the U.S. and U.K. that has generated a library shelf's worth of books in every generation.

American intellectuals and artists are baffled and charmed by their counterparts in the "partner nation" within the only "Special Relationship" explicitly recognized in American foreign policy. 

From the birth of the American Republic there have been "royalists" and others, often "upper crust" snobs but not always, relishing alleged British ancestry and affiliations and, occasionally, some hostility from fellow citizens opposed to English ways. 

Very much like the members of a large and extended family Americans and Brits tend to detest each other at social gatherings but to rally together when facing an existential challenge. 

Henry James has written in fulsome terms of "innocent" Americans encountering British and European "sophisticates." 

In recent years British authors have reversed this familiar story to comment on the (excessive?) self-confidence of Americans as against British caution or reserve or even self-doubt. 

We are different culturally not least in our respective uses and developments of the glorious English language in which we must live our subjectivities that are (or become) the only "experiential" reality we can ever really claim to know. Hence, the Anglo-American fondness for "empiricism." 

British people usually say less than what they mean; Americans often say more than what they mean. 

Within seconds of arriving in London Americans are apt to say: "I love it."

After fifty years of marriage a British man may express mild affection for a loyal wife on her death bed. 

British men are permitted to display their fondness for dogs and for very young children. Otherwise, displays of emotion are discouraged from an early age among all British males and rarely tolerated even among females of the middle class and/or those placed higher on the social scale. 

The English language provides a powerful bond for nations whose values and most fundamental ambitions are woven into that almost magical prism or form through which we glance out upon the world. 

It is not simply that language affects how we see what we see, but that the English language is inextricable from the "reality" inhabited and apprehended by millions of persons inventing and being invented by that same language on a daily basis.  ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz.")

There is also so much shared history for us. Events in the UK shape developments in America to the same extent that our form of madness invades Britain. 

American popular culture is eternally present in British daily life. This is not simply a point about pop-culture, but about how people think and feel at the highest and lowest aesthetic and intellectual levels, what they wear and how they behave is shaped, often decisively, by such things as Hollywood movies or rock-and-roll music and even, rarely perhaps, by great literature or philosophy. 

It is true that through some mysterious alchemy America's Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry become Britain's "Beatles" in short order.

It is no less true and much more important that our ideas in both societies constantly overlap, especially these days with electronic communications, so that to read a Martin Amis novel is to encounter echoes of Saul Bellow and Philip Roth as well as the more canonical English authors we expect to provide the background music for the best literary prose such as Jane Austen or Evelyn Waugh, or even Kingsley Amis.   

To read Gore Vidal is to discover the influence of Charles Dickens and Anthony Trollope as well as George Meredith besides his American ancestors Henry James and F. Scott Fitzgerald or England's Edith Sitwell who was a friend of Mr. Vidal's sharing the seat of honor in a famous photo at the Gotham bookstore that I miss so much. 

Those of us who are not yet novelists also discover the many voices and accents of the English language today already within us when we begin to reflect on our world and ourselves, institutions, laws, economic arrangements are included in this point, so that, like it or not, we are part of one another's reality(ies) and lives. 

This beautiful language -- Peter Ackroyd calls it "English music" -- provides the very texture of our inner lives wherever we may come from originally if we are residents and citizens of either of these great nations regardless of the other languages we may possess or that seem to possess us. 

Americans are a little bit British. 

Brits are very American these days which may be far worse. 

This is a source of distress to Jacob Rees-Mogg on both counts. 

Boris Johnson is a master of the English language whose brilliance is often disguised as a charming diffidence and wit that is never malicious. 

Mr. Johnson's gift for words should not be underestimated by his political opponents as the Prime Minister's hero, Winston Churchill, demonstrated eloquence wins many kinds of wars. 

Guillermo Cabrera-Infante, a British subject at his death, once answered my question about writing in English by paraphrasing Henry James to say: "I swim in a golden pond." 

Another exiled Cuban writer, Reynaldo Arenas, whose works are published by Penguin Books, whispered to me that this newly-acquired language and the perilous "fate" of those who must write in order to live was one he shared with me. 

How fortunate this is for both of us and how delightful it must be for New Jersey to realize this about me.

I am sure that identification with Brits and their experiences in the centuries' old struggle on both continents for freedom under law for ordinary people is a bond that will not be broken by any politician or passing scandal.

With English becoming the language of the Internet liberal political values, also like or not, are spreading to many parts of the globe as events in Hong Kong and the Middle East make clear. 

One of the lessons of the "history of the English-speaking peoples" to appropriate the title of Winston Churchill's final books is that freedom and equality are twin values built into our words and sentences. From the moment a person begins to think and speak in English sentences he or she is well on the way to being a "trouble maker." 

Democracy requires that more than a few citizens be "trouble-makers." 

Whenever efforts are made to curtail or limit traditional liberties of Americans or UK citizens ("no taxation without representation" could serve as a slogan for pro-Brexit forces) people will rebel. 

The British people are rebelling right now against limitations on their sovereignty that are pointless and yielding nothing in terms of return for the lost freedoms. 

It is hard to fault them for this decision even if there is a substantial price to pay for their insistence on liberty. 

"Brexit" is the demand that the United Kingdom leave a European economic order that has become oppressive and far too invasive not only of their economy but of an entire culture that is not based on centralization but upon the autonomy and right to self-invention of every person.  

The British people have voted to leave the European union and are angry that their politicians can not seem to do what they are required to do in a democracy and that is simply to effectuate the will of the people. 

"Brexit" is London's version of the "Boston Tea Party." 

"Blond Ambition": Boris Johnson's UK. 

David Cameron's forthcoming memoir suggests that Boris Johnson's commitment to Brexit may have been much more a matter of personal political opportunity or ambition than sincere belief.

The relationship or respective characters and talents of those two men, Cameron and Johnson, is a subject worthy of Shakespeare's pen or quill feather. 

In any case it is much too soon for a final assessment of either man.

Mr. Cameron remains the most personally gifted and intellectually brilliant person that I have seen holding the office of Prime Minister since the days of Margaret Thatcher. 

David Cameron is also the person who committed the most serious blunder of any recent British leader in calling for the initial Brexit vote that he expected to win (and should have won) but which has led to the profound political crisis afflicting Britain today that has already taken the greatest toll on his party and nation of any political struggle in the new century. 

There is a tone of contrition in Mr. Cameron's recent writings and a feeling of responsibility on his part as he seeks to settle his score with history. 

Much will depend in the final assessments of David Cameron on how Britain comes through this crisis along with the amount of damage done to his fellow citizens by Mr. Cameron's hubris. 

Whether Mr. Cameron's term of office will be hailed as a success or failure, whatever other achievements David Cameron may point to in his memoirs, will have to do with the nightmare now known as Brexit. 

It is another cruel irony for Mr. Cameron that this "outcome" will be decided by Boris Johnson, his nemesis and "friend" of longstanding, who is far from the most gifted administrator in the history of British politics. 

At the moment things do not look good for David Cameron's legacy or for the British economy. 

Events in Britain have taken the twists and turns not of great fiction but of a potboiler by, say, Jeffrey Archer, whose Kane and Abel now reads like a meditation on the adventures and misdeeds of Cameron and Johnson. 

In late September it is reported that Mr. Johnson has approached UN officials about presiding over mysterious "secret negotiations" on the Brexit issue.

Personal ambition continues to be the overriding concern and motivation for Mr. Johnson as, in fairness, it is for most politicians on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. 

Mr. Johnson's guarantee of popularity with Conservatives will be getting Brexit "done" finally. 

It will serve Boris Johnson's personal political interests best if Britain leaves the EU promptly on October 31, 2019 because he will be seen as "delivering" what others could not by being the only politician who actually kept his word about "getting out." 

If Mr. Johnson succeeds in "getting out," however, he may well ensure his reelection at the cost of devastating economic harm for the vast majority of people and lasting damage to the prestige of the UK in the world making more suffering almost certain for millions of persons beyond Britain in the decades to come. 

A "no-deal" Brexit, in particular, even with some kind of fig leaf "agreement" that allows Mr. Johnson to claim ostensible compliance with Parliament's injunction to achieve a "negotiated settlement," will be absolutely brutal for working class and poor people as Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party, has made abundantly clear.

The most likely victims are not usually Conservative voters so that Boris Johnson may be quite content to accept the pain of "ordinary" people as a price Britain may have to pay for his success:  

"While food supplies would remain relatively robust, there could be shortages of some elements of the supply chain, reducing the availability and choice of food options. 'There is a risk,' [the government's own report warns:] 'that panic buying will cause or exacerbate food supply disruption.' ..." (N.Y.T., 9-13-19, p. A9.) 

Fuel may well become much more expensive, especially now with the attacks against Saudi oil fields, also more scarce; there will be a "rise in unemployment"; and less capital will be available for investments or loans. 

Investors fear uncertainty or instability. The UK legal as well as financial system was regarded as the most trustworthy and stable in the world less than ten years ago. London became the financial capital of the world largely because of this perception for which Mr. Johnson takes credit and the city is now losing that status:

"Because so many of Britain's medicines and medical products are imported from the continent, and many medicines have a limited shelf life, shortages of certain items are a real possibility." (N.Y.T., 9-13-19, p. A9.) 

The British people in their wisdom by approving of departure from the EU at any price have also accepted economic harm for themselves and for their former European "partners" whose frustration and unwillingness to cooperate in this nightmare are viewed as more annoying and inexplicable "foreign" behavior that has nothing to do with British "dilly-dallying." 

This island nation has always had a very uneasy fit with the European continent. Centuries of deeply buried hostilities and cultural or historical memories of bloody wars in Europe to which Britain was dragged kicking and screaming -- wars that resulted in the loss of millions of British lives -- are not easily removed from the collective consciousness of the British people. 

The impulses behind Brexit go very deep in much of the population of the UK. This is true for excellent reasons that I can understand, but also for much uglier reasons that are more difficult to defend or deny. 

Many recent arrivals in Britain, for example, are not well liked because they have brought organized crime, disdain for laws, and other unpleasant aspects of their lives from the nasty former Communist world into English life. 

There may be some truth to the claim that racism and ethnic prejudice have reared their ugly heads in this Brexit matter.   

Jeremy Corbyn must now decide whether he will seek to undermine the PM's negotiating options and cause him serious political damage knowing that this could make the economic impact much worse for his constituents, who will suffer greatly if Mr. Johnson forces through a de facto "no deal" Brexit, in order to increase the likely future success of the Labour party and himself in the next general election. 

It is unclear whether Mr. Corbyn will sacrifice the political advantage he may gain from helping Boris to fail in negotiations (if there ever are any further negotiations) over Brexit in order to diminish the suffering of his least powerful constituents. I doubt it. 

It is now Mr. Corbyn who sees a path to Number 10 Downing Street for himself as the possible "savior" of the British economy no matter how many innocent people are hurt in the process of this "rescue effort."

There have been very few "profiles in courage" or heroic acts of self-sacrifice by politicians from any party in this crisis of government in the UK: 

"Mr. Cameron appears to have been particularly stung by what he regarded as the betrayal of Michael Gove, a good friend who served in his cabinet as justice minister. Mr. Gove was 'one of the most learned, enlightened people I knew,' the former prime minister wrote, 'before becoming an ambassador for the post-truth age.' ..." (N.Y.T., 9-16-19, p. A8.) 

Mr Cameron went on to describe Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gove as "different men" after the Brexit debate from the colleagues he had known and considered friends. 

Power is a powerful elixir that can have very strange effects on some people especially when it is combined with the promise of great rewards of a more tangible nature. 

It is not difficult (as I can attest from personal experience) to arrange for the betrayal of friends by most persons, or even for men and women to lie under oath regardless of which former close ally is injured by such lies, if the result will be sufficiently lucrative and accompanied by a little applause or a great new job title.  

"Greece to America's Rome."     

I write these words on the eve of the UK Supreme Court's decision concerning the legality of Mr. Johnson's request to Queen Elizabeth II to suspend the current session of Parliament. 

If Mr. Johnson has lost the Supreme Court decision, as I have emphasized, there may be no way that he can avoid resigning from office. 

This essay may be rendered either superfluous or more poignant by a decision against the PM. 

I still believe that such an outcome is unlikely, but far from impossible. 

If Mr. Johnson prevails with the UK Supreme Court that upholds his request to the Monarch as "lawful" the situation boils down to: 1). not violating the law by obtaining some kind of "deal" with the EU that allows Britain to avoid the worst consequences of a "No Deal Brexit"; and 2). finding a way to balance the loss of economic relationships on the continent with a new and expanded trade partnership, primarily with the U.S. but also with Canada and other nations, facilitated by the governments of those two countries and involving private corporations acting "concertedly." 

It seems that Donald Trump genuinely likes and admires Boris Johnson. 

Mr. Johnson seems to "appreciate" Donald Trump who is far from popular at home these days and who may be facing impeachment finally. 

Enlisting Mr. Trump's assistance or cooperation is only one part of the challenge of bringing mega-dollars to Britain. Financial "cooperation" (Mr. Johnson's term) from the U.S. will probably exceed even the PM's expectations since, despite troubles at home, the PM's New York visit has been a huge success with American audiences. 

To take one obvious example the number one movie in the world at the moment is Downton Abbey. That film is on its way to 1-to-1.5 billion dollar global "gross" box office earnings within less than a year.  

I saw Downton Abbey in Manhattan this weekend when every showing of the film at the Upper West Side movie complex was sold out. 

The popularity of the movie is not about "snob appeal" nor has the film been hurt by non-comprehending reviews alleging that this work is a celebration of "privilege." 

Downton Abbey reflects a fascination with British society on the part of even the most jaded Americans, including New Yorkers, whose current anger and frustration at U.S. politicians demands the relief provided by polished (and even unpolished) British accents and voices speaking in complete and coherent English sentences. 

The beautiful and ancient home (or castle) that is the centerpiece of this drama is used, brilliantly, by writer Julian Fellows as a symbol of British society and, I believe, of our shared English language as well as "the world's greatest literature" that will endure the crisis and turmoil of a royal visit which serves as a metaphor for the chaos of Brexit.  

The task of every generation of Brits is to preserve and keep this beauty alive for future generations who will elect their own Prime Ministers to contend with many disasters yet to come. 

This is the message that appeals to Americans and, I suspect, to many others in the world whose childhood reading makes Downton Abbey familiar and loved. 

We are divided and angry at one another in both societies over political differences. 

It is therefore more useful (or necessary) than ever to be reminded of what should hold us together as nations with a common culture and entangled destinies at times of political crisis. 

Boris Johnson may have understood his historical moment better than others, including very gifted political figures such as Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron, because the PM has sensed that America, especially under Mr. Trump, requires the stabilizing reassurance of the "Special Relationship" together with the anchoring values that are associated with the "British example in foreign policy." 

I was surprised to discover before arriving at the NYPL to do my scheduled typing that the UK's Supreme Court held the current "proroguing" of Parliament to be "unlawful" WITHOUT making a finding of fact concerning the PM's "motives" for his request to the Queen which were explicitly stated not to be "at issue."

In this way the judges have found, unanimously, that democracy cannot be denied by any illegitimate "proroguing" of Parliament without assuming the further power to define the motives of any Prime Minister or substituting for the British political leader in any future controversy or decision on contentious matters.  

The ruling is more subtle and brilliant than commentators have yet noted because it may allow Mr. Johnson to survive this defeat even if the ultimate outcome for the PM is also in doubt at the moment. 

Downton Abbey's success in America is not about our alleged fascination with upper crust British society as so-called "classless" Americans. 

The U.S. has always had its own aristocrats many of whom married into the British landed gentry. The character of "Cora" in Downton Abbey is based, partly, on "Consuelo Vanderbilt" who married into the Churchill family, becoming Duchess of Malborough, and whose journals make for fascinating reading. 

Unlike UK citizens, however, Americans need articulation of the sense of history, or of what is transcendent and fundamental to liberal democracies, that is difficult to come by among our politicians and not, properly, the role of the courts in any liberal society. 

Americans today are frightened about the future, concerned about another possible "forever" war in Iran, the effects of tariffs on Chinese goods generating matching taxes on American imports in China, the impact of the oil crisis in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East on a fragile global economy that is increasing economic inequality and also deepening cultural schisms that prevent us from feeling that we are all citizens of the same nation. ("'The Scarlet Letter' and the #Me Too Moment.")  

None of this is being addressed by politicians from the two political parties insulting each other on a daily basis but offering little in terms of constructive suggestions for improvements let alone for the resolution of the many problems that we face. 

Our words bind us to the UK and the entangled destinies of a diverse British population experiencing many of the same emotions and troubles afflicting the US and just as disappointed as Americans claim to be by their politicians' equally dreadful failures.  

Former British Prime Minister Harold McMillan who first served under Winston Churchill and consulted with JFK during the Cuban missile crisis stated:

"We, my dear Crossman, are Greeks in this American Empire."

This was not long after the Second World War when Britain was weak and America was unrivaled as the dominant power in the world. 

"You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans -- great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtue but also more corrupt. We must run Allied Forces Headquarters as the Greek slaves ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius." (Hitchens, Blood, Class, and Empire, p. 23.)  

Donald J. Trump may be more akin to Calligula than to Claudius, but Boris Johnson seems to have communicated to him, somehow, a minimal sense of caution on many issues such as Iran, thank god, that is very welcome. 

Mr. Johnson has managed to explain to President Trump where everyone else seems to have failed that often "less is more" in international politics. 

Wisdom may consist of doing little or nothing at times. 

To draw close to Mr. Trump is to face criticism in the UK, however, because any British Prime Minister (after Mr. Blair's embarrassing performance) must never be seen as "catering" to the U.S. president by voters at home. 

Mr. Johnson's dilemma is that he desperately needs Donald Trump's help with his American deals to offset the economic damage from Brexit. This need may be a reminder that, as originally envisioned by Harold McMillan and Winston Churchill, the "Special Relationship" assigned different roles to each country:

"The Americans were to supply the capital, and the British were to supply the class. This would give the British imperial manner a fresh lease, and lend some much-needed tone to the grandiosity of the American century [and beyond.] These are the unspoken conventions which have, in variant form, governed the relationship since its inception." (Hitchens, Blood, Class and Empire, p. 37.) 

Before you laugh please recall that the "Special Relationship" has served both countries well at difficult times. The world can be a lonely place when unexpected challenges arise and sacrifice is called for. Many so-called "friends" seem to "disappear" at times of struggle. The painful lesson about "success having a million fathers and failure being an orphan," as JFK suggested, is one that I am sure Mr. Johnson is pondering right about now. 

What will be Britain's role in a post-Brexit world order? 

In responding to the UK Supreme Court's decision that his "proroguing" of Parliament was illegal and therefore void Boris Johnson said:

"'It is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary to say I think the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy,' the prime minister told lawmakers. The issue of whether Parliament could be sent away, he argued, was not one for the court." (N.Y.T., 9-26-19, p. A7.) 

The issue now arises of how the power arrogated to the judiciary will be used in the future given likely changes to the composition of the UK Supreme Court and new occupants of number 10 Downing Street.

The very same lawmakers celebrating this decision and the humbling of a controversial Conservative Prime Minister may well bemoan decisions that strike down a future PM's actions that may be deemed far too "controversial" or "undemocratic" so as not to be allowed by judges because they come from the opposite end of the political spectrum. 

Americans are well aware of the dangers of undemocratic judicial power even if we also recognize that discretion is a necessary evil in societies governed by the rule of law.

Celebrating the rule of law, despite being a victim of what he regards as the abuse of the judicial power at the hands of the UK Supreme Court presided over by Lady Hale, happily, sporting a golden brooch of a spider crawling menacingly across her bosom as she read her decision seemingly eager to inflict a venomous "sting" on Mr. Johnson. 

Was it a spider or a scorpion that was worn as a brooch by the president of the UK Supreme Court? 

The Prime Minister argued calmly in New York for the values of liberal democracy -- including the independence of the judiciary throughout the world -- to govern the distribution and powers of technology, fairly, for the benefit of all the world's peoples. 

Mr. Johnson mentioned "Prometheus" and the eagle allowed by the gods to peck at the hero's liver very much as Jeremy Corbyn torments Boris Johnson who, like Prometheus, struggles to bring the benefits of technology, the true fire of the gods, to the masses.

Mr. Johnson endorses the benefits of British technology for the population of the planet and, especially, for American investors at this moment of golden opportunity as Brexit looms on the horizon. 

Values and culture were again invoked to promote global justice at several gatherings and press conferences by Mr. Johnson. 

The advantages of investment in Britain were made plain, for example, to millionaires and billionaires enjoying "breakfast with the Prime Minister." 

Not much noted by the media is Mr. Johnson's brilliance in obtaining up to one trillion dollars in "tentative commitments" from potential investors from all over the world in a post-Brexit Britain.  

Rather than mentioning Prometheus Boris Johnson should have referred to Perseus, perhaps, and cast Lady Hale in the role of Medussa except that, in this instance, it is Lady Hale who holds Boris Johnson's head, as it were, aloft and waves it before cheering crowds. 

Perhaps the most important lesson underlined by Boris Johnson at the UN concerning recent events is that Britain's removal from the European Union is not and must not become a withdrawal from the world. 

Isolationism is a disastrous policy for any great nation today. 

The sun must never set on the example that, I believe, Britain can still provide for much of the world, often, the U.S. very much included. 

The UK still has enormous responsibilities to lead on a host of issues from climate change to law and justice questions. 

Mr. Johnson defended freedom of speech for everyone, including the right of critics in the UK to disagree with his policies and seek to replace him in office. 

Mr. Johnson argued for the protection of controversial persons and opinions before diplomats from many parts of the world where such principles are far from universally accepted but where they may someday actually be achieved, such as New Jersey, by fearlessly advocating for the safety of dissidents. 

Britain's contribution to America's foreign policy efforts have always been great, but on this recent visit the PM alluded to mythology and the most admired, universal, and richest national literature on the planet in support of his uncompromising stance for freedom, or at least hope for billions of persons who feel utterly despondent about the future and their own failed governments' chances for improvement. 

Mr. Johnson's optimism and confidence are remarkable or extremely impressive at a moment of great crisis for himself and his country. 

Hopelessness always leads to violence and despair. 

Hopelessness is the dominant mood in many places in the world today. 

The sense of defeat or futility is the one quality that cannot be associated with Mr. Johnson or the United Kingdom. 

Mr. Johnson has made it obvious that he "will never surrender." 

Whatever challenges must be met by Brits they are defined by a courage and resolution that is the marvel of the world. 

Mr. Johnson taught a lesson this week that will not be easily forgotten by those of us who heard him speak. 

I cannot avoid the conclusion that the PM's interest in Mr. Churchill's career was useful at a difficult time for him. 

People must continue to believe that democratic institutions can work and that leaders may always earn the respect of the people. 

I continue to believe in the U.S. Constitution and laws despite their evident failure, so far, in my life and the appalling New Jersey corruption detailed in my essays.

Equally necessary is confidence in the viability of universal human rights laws and enfranchisement for previously excluded populations throughout the world. 

Aside from what the Prime Minister said is how he said it: Boris Johnson at a moment of great difficulty in his term of office under extreme pressure spoke with easy wit, humor, and charm in language filled with classical references of the importance of rational discussion, empirical evidence, respect for science and the capacities of technology, of the need for cogent logical arguments about matters that divide us and the importance of intelligence in public life. 

The contrast provided by Mr. Johnson and the different degree of attention he received from his international listeners by comparison with the occasional thug and dictator -- someone like the late Mr. Gaddafi for example, making his way to the UN lectern -- becomes glaring. 

Whatever one may feel about his policies it is difficult not to like Mr. Johnson or to avoid being on his side in the effort to cushion the potentially harsh economic impact of Brexit on his fellow British citizens. 

This talent for winning the support and collaboration of others is not a small gift for any politician and is the reason why the PM may win the next general election whatever happens with Brexit.

As for the proponents of brutality and violence who seek to suppress dissent they rarely display much wit or charm and tend not to "persuade" except through threats. It is impossible to be on their side even when they come from our own country. W.H. Auden's poem comes to mind:

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for man.
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master speech.
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips
While drivel gushes from his lips.