The big surprise about George W Bush's attack on Donald Trump is that Mr Trump has not yet retaliated on Twitter. Mr Trump invariably responds to slights - perceived or real - with alacrity. For a former US president to attack a sitting one for "casual cruelty" is strong enough. But to imply he is aiding and abetting "white supremacy" is unprecedented. Moreover, Mr Bush's speech took direct aim at every tenet of Mr Trump's "America First" foreign approach, which he said went against "the American DNA of idealism". From protectionism to a retreat from democracy promotion, America was pulling away from seven decades of global leadership that had underwritten its security and prosperity. "When we lose sight of our ideals it is not democracy that has failed," Mr Bush said. "It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy."
It is fair to say no former president has spoken so scathingly of a sitting one - nor come so close to accusing him of being un-American. Still, Mr Trump has remained silent. Has he suddenly grown a thick skin? The answer, of course, is no. In the 24 hours since America's 43rd president spoke out, America's 45th was busy attacking its 44th, Barack Obama, as well as its almost-45th, Hillary Clinton. Mr Trump had also to carve out time for another takedown of Frederica Wilson, the Democratic congresswoman, who listened into Mr Trump's allegedly disrespectful call to the widow of a slain soldier. He also found time to link a rise in the UK's crime rate to "radical Islamic terror". There is only room for so many tweets in a day.
Yet there is more to Mr Trump's silence than distraction. Viewed from Mr Trump's side of the vast gulf that separates his base from America's political establishment, Mr Bush's attack was barely newsworthy. Breitbart News, the Trumpian newssite run by Stephen Bannon, his former chief strategist, summarised it thus: "Bush dynasty's First Born emerges to trash Trump nativism". The fact that Mr Bush's remarks came on the same day Mr Obama offered his most overt criticisms of Mr Trump to date, underlined that view. During the eight years of Mr Obama's presidency, Mr Bush did not once criticise his successor. Yet here they were breaching precedent on the same day.
To any student of US history, it offered a remarkable snapshot of how radically US politics has changed. To a supporter of Mr Trump, however, the Bush and Obama speeches merely confirmed what they already thought. In news terms, it was "dog bites man". Even that would be to overstate it. Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Obama mentioned Mr Trump by name. They stuck to decorum even as they indirectly condemned Mr Trump for ripping it up.
Then there is the question of Mr Bush's record. Though many former critics of Mr Bush now speak warmly of him - not least for the dignity with which he has led post-presidential life - his toxic legacy was partly the making of Mr Trump. The aftermath of the Iraq War, which Mr Trump falsely claimed to have opposed all along, helped pave the way for his hostile takeover of the Republican party. Along the way he easily banished Jeb Bush, the former president's younger brother, who was so wary of his last name that he chose "Jeb!" as his campaign moniker. The obvious retort was "Bush?!" As Mr Trump put it during one of the Republican primary debates: "The Iraq war was a big fat mistake and I am the only one up here who has said that."
Unlike Mrs Clinton, whose victory in last year's popular vote is a running sore to Mr Trump's pride, the House of Bush is yesterday's news. Its intervention may even be mildly positive. The British analogy would be Tony Blair campaigning against Brexit. The more Mr Bush and Mr Obama speak in unison, the greater Mr Trump's sense of vindication. Indeed, it is odd he has not yet broadcast that line himself. If he were a more artful tweeter this may be his summary: "Dog tries to bite man but draws little blood".
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017
