When President Bill Clinton learned of the death of Pamela Harriman on February 5, 1997, he delivered a short statement on the South Lawn in which he celebrated her as an “extraordinary US ambassador,” and, for him, “a source of constant good humor and charm and real friendship… .” During her funeral service, held at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. on February 13, he remembered her as a “cherished friend,” “wise counsel,” and emphasized her instrumentality in his election by stating: “Today I am here in no small measure because she was there.” Harriman was the US Ambassador to France when she died, having been appointed by Clinton to the position in 1993 after two decades as a major fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. Harriman became a US citizen in 1971, but she was British by birth – and even a Churchill by name after an early, troubled marriage to Randolph Churchill.
Winston Churchill’s daughter-in-law certainly practiced what he preached in terms of building a special relationship between the US and UK. Harriman was close with her father-in-law (even after her eventual divorce from his son) and – personal relationships, often intimate – served as an important go-between for information exchange and informal negotiations between Brits and Americans during the Second World War. At this time she first met Averell Harriman who would become her third husband decades later. She acquired US citizenship shortly after their marriage in 1971, and subsequently became involved in democratic fundraising circles, eventually becoming a “kingmaker” after she “helped an obscure Arkansas governor rise to the presidency.” Harriman’s life of transatlantic influence shows just one of the ways Britain has touched the US presidency, a niche but apt example of the type of personal enmeshment that characterizes the “special relationship.”
Next week, on Monday January 20, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States as he begins his nonconsecutive second term in office. While these years are likely to be as chaotic and disruptive as the first four, no one is sure exactly what it will hold for US-UK relations. Last month in Paris, Trump and Prince William met briefly following the re-opening ceremony for the Notre-Dame cathedral. The meeting – during which Prince William “was expected to discuss the importance of the US-UK ‘special relationship’ with both Trump and the first lady” – seems to have gone well, with Trump saying they had a “great, great talk,” and noting the more-handsome-in-person Prince was a doing a “fantastic job.” Perhaps Trump’s affinity for the royals means there is a greater chance of developing a positive personal relationship with the monarch, like Reagan and his bond with Queen Elizabeth over their shared love of horses. Unlike many of his predecessors, including Reagan’s mythic relationship with Thatcher, Trump seems unlikely to develop a personal friendship with Keir Starmer (though, the efforts of a savvy British Ambassador to the US certainly implies he is trying to be friendly).
Looking at the history of the US presidency, it is easy to see the various ways in which Britain has touched the highest US political office, or at least those who have held the office. Over the next two weeks, Broadsides will run a series of pieces that each explore some aspect of Britain and the US presidency. Whether highlighting niche British political fundraisers, or broader cultural influences, these pieces offer touchstones for the many ways Britain has played a role shaping US presidents and the presidency.
The most obvious early example of the influence of Britain on the US presidency would be, of course, that eight of the first nine presidents were born British subjects before American independence. The earliest American presidents must be considered in their British colonial context, but even for later presidents, like Herbert Hoover, Britain and its empire shaped their early lives and careers as they worked abroad in London and throughout the empire. As Trump enters office, with his specific expansionist view of American empire, these pieces consider the ways American leadership has grappled with the British empire at various points in its trajectory, and perhaps more so, how they have often styled and articulated America as a protector of sovereignty rather than an imperial force like Britain.
Like the narrative surrounding Pamela Churchill Harriman hints at, Britain and the US presidency is often discussed in terms of personal relationships. Big duos like Churchill and Roosevelt, Bush and Blair, Blair and Clinton, and Reagan and Thatcher dominate discussions of the special relationship, alongside other pairs like Eisenhower and Churchill. Something more difficult to capture, but nonetheless essential to maintain the specialness of the relationship, is the complex web of human relationships that sustain these far more public ones; for example, the many employees working in diplomatic, defense, or intelligence communities who collaborate regularly with their British counterparts. These lower-level partnerships and working relationships have, in the past, tended to sustain bilateral relationships despite the ups and downs of presidential and PM politics.
Given Trump’s outsized personality, and flair for interpersonal drama, an emphasis on personal dynamics is likely continue, particularly in media narratives. Whether or not Trump will be riding horses or, more likely, playing golf with Keir Starmer in three years’ time is unknown, but history suggests the special relationship will continue to shape and be shaped by the personal bonds between Britain and the United States. As we enter the second term of a president who doesn’t value, and often demeans, our traditional alliances, it is worth revisiting the history of the special relationship and why it matters.
Amanda Banacki Perry is the executive director for the North American Conference on British Studies. Her research explores the social and cultural world of British diplomatic statebuilding after the First World War.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the original author/s and do not necessarily represent the views of the North American Conference on British Studies. The NACBS welcomes civil and productive discussion in the comments below. Our blog represents a collegial and conversational forum, and the tone for all comments should align with this environment. Insulting or mean comments will not be tolerated and NACBS reserves the right to delete these remarks and revoke the commenter’s site membership.
Comments