In policy matters, as in traffic jams, a U-turn is often the best bet

I have always been puzzled by a common political cliche. When a leader abandons one policy and chooses another, why is that leader condemned by opponents and the media for “doing a U-turn”?

Of course, consistent political leadership is important. No one like sudden policy changes. But stubbornness in a leader in the face of changing facts is potentially dangerous.

The world-renowned British economist John Maynard Keynes nodded in that direction when he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” And back in the 19th century, the American poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson was even more brutal, insisting that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” and that foolishness was a flaw “adored by little statesmen”.

Right now, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is trying to prove that he is not a little statesman by refusing to do any kind of rethink or U-turn on his new tax policies. In Mr Starmer’s case, it seems wise not to “do a U-turn” so early in his term, but U-turns can sometimes be the most sensible thing to do.

I proved it last week. I performed a U-turn in my car because I was stuck on a blocked road behind a long traffic jam. I am suggesting that the same common sense should apply to some intractable political and diplomatic problems that are the highly dangerous equivalents of a traffic jam. If you are stuck, maybe turn around.

That notion is why – despite the many reservations some people have about Donald Trump’s character, comments and past actions – the US president-elect’s inconsistencies in government could become a real advantage. He is strong enough to show some bold flexibility on issues that concern us all. Ukraine is one example.

It appears increasingly likely that Mr Trump is planning a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Famously, Mr Trump boasted he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He also told Nato leaders in Europe to raise defence expenditure to 5 per cent of their respective countries’ gross domestic product. Neither ending the war in one day nor the 5 per cent target looks likely, but the direction of travel is important.

European defence spending is rising, and Mr Trump’s exaggerated rhetoric gives Europe’s leaders a push to do more. Russia experts I have talked to also suggest that Mr Trump’s loud pronouncements could indeed bring about a Ukraine ceasefire, even if a lasting peace is much more complicated.

One obvious scenario is that if Ukraine fails to agree, Mr Trump could threaten to cut off US weapons supplies to Kyiv. But diplomats also privately speculate on a less obvious idea. If Mr Trump thinks that Moscow is proving difficult, the US could U-turn and actually boost weapons supplies for Ukraine. Even the idea of an unpredictable president swerving one way or another could be a diplomatic asset.

A similar unpredictability – call it a U-turn if you will – could even change America’s fractious relations with Iran.

Last year, the Iranian government witnessed unpopularity at home and numerous humiliations abroad, the collapse of its allies in Syria and Israel’s successes against Hezbollah. Mr Trump’s Tehran policy was always “maximum pressure”. This year, he could keep up that pressure, support Israel, yet offer a bold diplomatic opening towards serious talks with Iran, especially on its nuclear weapons programme.

A U-turn? Well, when the road is blocked, going nowhere is not a useful option.

This is all speculative, of course, not predictive. But Washington’s influential Foreign Policy magazine recently suggested a Trump parallel with former US president Richard Nixon. In 1972, Nixon – anti-communist to his core – went to China. He engaged in constructive dialogue with the Chinese Communist Party. A U-turn if you like, but Nixon was right to talk, and bold enough to take risks.

Mr Trump could be bold, too. Like Nixon, he is on the right of the Republican Party. And he (boldly if unsuccessfully) tried to engage with North Korea. Future talks with Iran, or with Russia, will not damage Mr Trump as it might a less conservative politician.

Again, these are possibilities – not predictions. But few would have predicted Mr Trump openly speaking of annexing Greenland or Panama either. His unpredictability may prove a diplomatic asset, U-turns included. A western expert on Russia told me recently that Russian business leaders (and political leaders) generally start negotiations with a noisy, combative and maximalist position, then strive for a deal. That fits the Trump style.

Yes, 2025 can look scary. But wars, conflicts and diplomatic stand-offs often resemble a dangerous kind of traffic jam. Nobody moves. In diplomacy and on the highway, a U-turn can be a sign of intelligent problem-solving, not weakness. Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and other conflict zones all look like the most horrendous diplomatic traffic jams. So instead of condemning U-turns in 2025, we should see diplomatic changes of direction more positively.

Given the immense power of the US, Mr Trump, like any American president of recent times, can adopt a carrot-and-stick policy. The carrot is that he will not use the stick.