Why Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull have more in common than you think

DONALD Trump is basically a shouter, more conservative (in his current guise), richer and oranges version of Malcolm Turnbull, says Tim Blair.

WICHITA, KS - MARCH 5: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump makes a speech at a campaign rally on March 5, 2016 in Wichita, Kansas. The Republican party was holding its state wide caucus in several locations. J Pat Carter/Getty Images/AFP == FOR NEWSPAPERS, INTERNET, TELCOS & TELEVISION USE ONLY ==

DURING his January visit to the US, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made no attempt to meet Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.

“The truth is that he dreads the thought of either Trump, nuttily Right-wing and populist, or Cruz, darling of Tea Party extremists, becoming president of the US,” Laurie Oakes reported.

“If he can’t have a Rubio-style Republican he would prefer, although he can hardly say so publicly, to see Clinton and the Democrats win.”

It is difficult to see why Turnbull so dislikes Trump. After all, it’s not as though the PM has anything against men who dye their hair, dress appallingly and enjoy talking about penises.

Turnbull spent Saturday night at Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras among chaps who share Trump’s fashion and conversation inclinations.

There are many other similarities between them.

Both are very wealthy (Trump considerably more so, according to estimates that place his net wealth at about 27 times that of Turnbull’s $200 million).

Both hold policy positions (in as much as their positions can be precisely identified) that are contrary to their respective parties’ bases.

Both have previously been aligned with their opponents (Trump has donated huge sums to the Democrats, and Turnbull, according to ALP strongman Graham Richardson, once sought a Labor senate seat).

Both are accused of wrecking, or threatening to wreck, their parties. Many longstanding Liberal voters and supporters have sworn not to help while Turnbull is Liberal leader.

In the US, many Republicans and conservatives have much the same feelings for Trump.

“We’re in territory that our party hasn’t seen,” noted Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

It sounds very close to the reaction from lifelong Libs following Turnbull’s power grab last year.

Turnbull announced himself as a superior negotiator, which is another similarity he shares with Trump.

“In almost every statement,” The Los Angeles Times observed last week, “Trump depicts the presidency as an arena in which he would fix problems through the exercise of his will and negotiating ability.”

So Trump is basically a shoutier, more conservative (in his current guise), richer and oranger version of Turnbull.

This may provide some clues as to how a Trump presidency might work out. It could be a relief for alarmed anti-Trump American voters that our own great negotiator has done absolutely nothing since taking office.

“Just look at what Turnbull has (not) done in the six months he has been leader,” Andrew Bolt writes on page 21 in today’s Daily Telegraph.

“He has merely kept the foundations Abbott built to win the next election — policies on boats, global warming, free trade deals and union corruption — without building on top a single stick of anything of his own.”

Talkers tend not to be doers. In Turnbull’s case, he isn’t even talking about the issues he vowed to explain.

To date, Turnbull hasn’t offered a single economic change or anything much in the way of explanations. If the pattern of similarities continues, Trump will arrive in office and then fall into a Turnbull-style stall mode.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Trump’s main rival, Ted Cruz, clawed back some ground over the weekend following a bizarre debate in which Trump felt moved to defend his penis size.

Thankfully, this is one subject where Turnbull and Trump are not similarly expressive.

Please let it remain so.

HINDSIGHT IS SUCH A BENEFIT TO PELL’S DETRACTORS

THE most serious allegations against Cardinal George Pell, levelled at him by left-wing journalists and the royal commission into child abuse, is that he was insufficiently curious about claims of child abuse and failed to take proper action in response to cases he knew about.

During his commission testimony, Pell made an important point. Discussing complaints from 1974 that now-jailed priest Ted Dowlan had been “misbehaving with boys”, Pell said his regrettable lack of ­action was typical of the era.

“People had a different ­attitude then,” the cardinal said. “I didn’t do anything about it. (But) I eventually ­inquired of the school chaplain. With the experience of 40 years later, certainly I would agree that I should have done more.”

Silence about child abuse in the Catholic Church was a form of political correctness, as it applied decades ago.

Cardinal George Pell.

Fairfax columnist Peter FitzSimons doesn’t buy it.

“The absolute best case that can be made in his ­defence is that, instead of ­wilfully ignoring atrocities going on all around him, he just didn’t get that it was his duty to do something, to act for the children,” he wrote on the weekend.

“This line of defence has it that he didn’t get it because that was the way things were done in those times or, more to the point, not done.”

FitzSimons and others who insist on applying metric tools to imperial machinery ought to consider their own testimony at a future royal commission that might be held 20 years from now. It could go something like this:

Commissioner: “Were you aware of claims that female genital mutilation was practised within Australia’s ­Islamic community?”

Journalist: “I had heard of such claims, yes.”

Commissioner: “You didn’t seek further ­information?”

Journalist: “I had no ­reason to turn my mind to the extent of the evils that had been perpetrated. People had a different attitude then. With the experience of 20 years later, I would agree that I should have done more.”